The Case for Face-to-Face - Business Meetings
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Business Meetings The Case for Face-to-Face © Copyright Forbes 2009 1
Can webconferences, videoconferences and and what they see as the chief benefits from their menu of
other virtual meetings really take the place meeting options.
of face-to-face contact? With travel budgets Travel down, technology up
slashed in the wake of recessionary belt-tightening, For many companies, travel and meeting budgets were the
companies are increasingly turning to technology as first discretionary expenses to get cut back when economic
turbulence took its toll on corporate balance sheets. And
a substitute for in-person contact. Yet business execu- as the recession has continued, these have been among the
tives overwhelmingly agree that face-to-face meetings hardest funds for executives to recover.
are not just preferable but necessary for building This is borne out in Forbes Insights survey, where 58%
of respondents said they were travelling for business less
deeper, more profitable bonds with clients and busi- today than they were at the beginning of the recession in
ness partners and maintaining productive relationships January 2008, with more than a third (34%) indicating they
with co-workers. were travelling much less frequently. (Fig. 1)
At the same time, companies have turned to technology
And it’s not just one-on-one meetings where face time to provide an alternative to face-to-face meetings. Lower
is crucial. While tides have turned against holding larger costs and greater reliability have made teleconferences, vid-
corporate meetings, many executives noted the importance eoconferences and webconferences more pervasive options
of driving profitability and value from these events—where for meetings. It’s no wonder, then, that 59% of executives
“down” time can be priceless for building bonds with cli- said their use of technology-driven meetings had increased
ents and colleagues. during the recession. (Fig. 2)
To gauge how companies feel about face-to-face and Still, executives expressed an overwhelming prefer-
virtual meetings, Forbes Insights surveyed more than 750 ence for face-to-face meetings, with more than eight out
business executives about their meeting and travel prefer- of ten saying they like in-person contact more than vir-
ences. In particular, they were asked about what types of tual. (Fig. 3) Asked why, those that prefer face-to-face
outcomes they expected from different meeting methods, meetings cited how they build stronger, more meaningful
Figure 1. Compared to January 2008, how Figure 2. Compared to January 2008, how has Figure 3. Which type of business meetings do you
frequently do you travel for business purposes? your company’s use of technology to conduct or prefer?
access business meetings remotely changed?
2%
3% 1%
3%
6%
17% 16%
34%
35%
33%
42%
84%
24%
• Much more frequently • Significantly increased • In person, face-to-face meetings
• Somewhat more frequently • Somewhat increased • Technology-enabled meetings
• About the same • About the same
• Somewhat less frequently • Somewhat decreased
• Much less frequently • Significantly decreased
• Don’t know
© Copyright Forbes 2009 2Figure 4. Why do you prefer in-person, face-to-face business meetings/ Figure 5. Why do you prefer technology-enabled meetings?
conferences?
Build stronger, more meaningful business relationships Saves time
85 92
Ability to read body language and facial expressions Saves money
77 88
More social interaction, ability to bond with co-workers/clients More flexibility in location and timing
75 76
Allow for more complex strategic thinking Allows me to multitask
49 64
Better environment for tough, timely decision-making Increases productivity
44 55
Less opportunity for unnecessary distraction Ability to archive sessions for later viewing
40 49
Lead to higher quality decision making Easier to follow data-heavy presentations
39 32
Easier to focus Less peer pressure
38 16
Technology-enabled meeting often result in disruption and delays Other
23 8
Other
5
0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%
relationships (85%), the ability to “read” another person accountability (79%), and decision-making (82%). When
(77%), and greater social interaction (75%). (Fig. 4) Those web-, video- and teleconferences were preferred, it was
who favored virtual meetings took more of a bottom-line
approach, saying they saved them time (92%) and money Ritz-Carlton Reaches Out
(88%), or offered greater location flexibility (76%). (Fig. 5) Companies catering to business travelers know better than to idle their
“The art of negotiation takes the kind of nuance that is engines during an economic downturn. In July 2009, the Ritz-Carlton Hotel
only present in an in-person meeting,” noted Dan L’Ecuyer, Company launched “Meetings Within Reach,” a value-added opportunity
vice president of sales and marketing at CSP Technologies, for organizers of on-site seminars, executive retreats and other corporate
a developer of packaging solutions. “I don’t think you can events. The message was, “It’s Not Extravagant, If It Produces Results.”
really get at strategies without face-to-face time.” Ritz-Carlton also knows better than to fight against the rise of technol-
ogy. In fact, the luxury hotel chain is actively seeking the productive middle
Face-to-face provides deeper engagement ground between face time and remote meetings.
In the survey, respondents were asked to choose the According to Bruce Himelstein, Ritz-Carlton’s senior vice president of
meeting method that was most conducive to fostering a sales and marketing, “We are providing these [remote meeting] services
certain business action or outcome. (Fig. 6) Throughout, to customers who require the technical facilities and know-how to conduct
executives preferred face-to-face meetings when the conferences this way. There has always been a need to include individuals
decision-making process was fluid, requiring the kind of via telecasting who are unable to make a business gathering.”
give-and-take typical of complex decisions and sales. For But, he added, technology can never replace the “traditional methods
example, respondents said face-to-face meetings are best of dealing with people in person, as opposed to across cyberspace.”
for persuasion (91%), leadership (87%), engagement (86%),
© Copyright Forbes 2009 3generally for the dissemination of data or when time was other ancillary work during digital meetings.
of greater concern. It’s not just about attention spans. Remote meetings
In addition, many executives expressed concern that fail to meet certain other expectations related to morale,
attendees did not give their full attention to virtual meet- recognition, and trust. This is why technology cannot
ings. In fact, 58% admitted that they “frequently” surf the substitute for direct human interaction when it comes to
web, check their email, read unrelated materials and handle reaching consensus on important business decisions. Travel
professionals are not unaware of this bias. According to
Mark Briskin, general manager of the New York Helmsley
Figure 6. Which of the following meeting methods is most conducive to
fostering the following key business actions/attributes/outcomes effectively?
Hotel, “Hotels always seemed to fear technology as a vehi-
cle that will reduce travel opportunities, but face time is
Persuasion
key to maintaining relationships, absorbing the passion of
91 4 32
your business and allowing an easier flow of ideas.
Leadership
Bonding, inspiration and other intangibles
87 5 5 3
There’s more to a business meeting than closing the deal.
Engagement The benefits of in-person social interaction—from bonding
85 6 5 4 with co-workers to using time at the pool or café to cement
Inspiration a client relationship—are among the more subtle, less mea-
85 7 5 3 surable advantages executives cited. (Fig. 7)
Decision making
According to John Russell, chief executive of NYLO
82 8 6 4
Hotels and former chairman of the American Hotel &
Lodging Association, “People don’t want to sit in their
Accountability
office looking at each other on computer screens. That per-
79 10 7 4
sonal interaction—getting together to talk over dinner,
Candor drinks or a cup of coffee—is the foundation on which busi-
78 10 7 5 ness relationships are built. It’s what drives business.”
Focus
75 13 8 4
Clarity
74 14 9 3
Las Vegas Beats the Odds
At a town hall meeting in February 2009, President Obama chided business
Brainstorming leaders for what he perceived as extravagant spending. “You can’t get corpo-
73 11 9 7
rate jets,” he said, “you can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the
Strategy Super Bowl on the taxpayer’s dime.” The President was referring to compa-
73 12 10 5 nies receiving federal assistance, but his words were felt across the business
Reaching a consensus travel industry.
71 10 10 9 If there was a chill, it was short-lived. Few executives will choose remote
handshakes over face time.
Urgency
“Virtual meetings have been around for a long time now,” said
49 14 10 27
Rossi Ralenkotter, president and CEO of the Las Vegas Convention and
Data presentation Visitors Authority, but “you cannot replace direct interaction with a client.
37 44 16 3
Technological advances have helped companies in establishing contact with
Information dissemination potential new clients, but they always send someone in person to initiate or
32 43 14 11 establish the relationship and close the deal.”
Shortly after making that comment, President Obama visited Las Vegas.
0% 50% 100%
According to Mr. Ralenkotter, he “attended to business while he was here.”
• Face-to-face • Webconference • Videoconference • Teleconference
© Copyright Forbes 2009 4Figure 7. Value-added benefits of in-person communications Figure 8. There are tangible business benefits to in-person, face-to-face
meetings that outweigh the cost savings of alternative, technology-based
meeting methods such as webconferencing or videoconferencing.
Being able to combine personal travel with business travel is a great perk.
30 34 24 8 4
Face-to-face interaction with co-workers is necessary for effective teamwork. 46 41 9 3
42 38 13 6
0% 50% 100%
“Down” time at in-person conferences builds stronger client bonds.
38 43 14 4
• Strongly agree
• Somewhat agree
• Neither agree nor disagree
0% 50% 100%
• Somewhat disagree
• Strongly agree • Strongly disagree
• Somewhat agree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat disagree Figure 9. Which do you think best represents the ideal meeting/conference
• Strongly disagree execution strategy?
Making the case 6%
With executives under greater pressure than ever to jus-
tify the return on business travel expenses, how can they
40%
best make the case for greater use of face-to-face meetings
and conferences?
Clearly, most executives surveyed see tangible benefits 54%
to in-person meetings that outweigh the time and expense
related to travel. (Fig. 8) With economic recovery in sight,
it may be up to leadership to relieve some travel restrictions
and encourage more face-to-face interaction.
• Mostly in-person, face-to-face
Web-, video- and teleconferencing have their role, but
• An even balance between in-person and technology-enabled meetings
the executives in the survey do not expect them to make • Mostly technology-enabled
the need for face-to-face meetings obsolete. Rather, many
see the ideal as a mix of face-to-face and technology-
enabled meetings and conferences. (Fig. 9)
Mr. Russell sees a realistic middle ground that benefits That would be a win for everyone: Hotels would continue
everyone. “In some cases, technology may take the place of to serve as meeting venues, and companies would reduce
smaller meetings. Hotels should see this as an opportunity travel costs.”
and offer virtual meetings on property. It would be a great Yet Mr. Russell ultimately agrees with the findings of the
way, for instance, to bring branch offices together for vir- Forbes Insights survey: “Virtual meetings will never replace
tual regional meetings across five or six different markets. face time for building solid business relationships.”
Methodology
This study is based on a survey of 760 business executives conducted by Forbes Insights in June 2009. Half the respondents represented small businesses (under
100 employees), while 20% were from midsized businesses (100-999 employees), and 30% were from enterprises (1000-plus employees). In terms of title, 48% of
respondents were either owners or c-level executives.
Christiaan Rizy Stuart Feil Brenna Sniderman Jeff Koyen
Director Editorial Director Survey Manager Report Writer
© Copyright Forbes 2009 560 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10011 | 212-367-2662
www.forbes.com/forbesinsightsYou can also read
