Is This Meeting Really Necessary?

by Tom Johnson

Tom is a senior technical writer in Salt Lake City, Utah. He writes an active technical communications blog at idratherbewriting.com. He founded WriterRiver.com, a Twitter-like social news site where anyone can submit links to articles about technical communication. And he is a WordPress blog consultant, offering both training and design services.

After a recent conference call for an STC chapter meeting, we needed an online mechanism to keep the discussion going. We set up a Google Groups discussion site (which includes a threaded forum and wiki) to facilitate the online discussion, and started a few threads, but soon the discussion focused, unfortunately, only on scheduling dates for in-person meetings.

In a world of virtual tools — blogs, wikis, feeds, forums, listservs, e-mail, IM, chat, Twitter, social networks — one would think that traditional sit-down, face-to-face meetings had been relegated to a place in a historical museum among other old, discarded traditions like wearing cravats. But even in the twenty-first century, many people still believe that you need in-person meetings if you want to accomplish serious planning and discussion.

In-Person Meetings:
Idea Building

One argument for in-person meetings is the benefit of idea building. One person begins an idea, another adds to it, and another sees another dimension, which triggers an unexpected thought from another, and soon a handful of people create a collective intelligence that yields more than the sum of what each individual could come up with alone.

Many feel that this dynamic idea building, which takes on a life of its own in a lively meeting, is rarely matched in isolated, typed-out online threads.

In reality, people feel that in-person meetings are productive because they don't set aside time to brainstorm a topic beforehand. The meeting itself is the time blocked out to think and discuss. Because meetings are the dedicated time for thinking, it's no wonder that so many people conclude that meetings are the only way to do any real planning.

Instead of going this route, however, try setting aside time in your own schedule to think out problems, brainstorm, and explore ideas, and then share those ideas with others online. You'll find that the same dynamic idea building can take place in virtual environments.

Virtual Environments: Double-Edges of Time Independence

People often neglect individual preparation and contribution in virtual environments because online discussions are not time dependent, so they are never finished. Being outside time and location is of course the advantage of online discussions, but it is also the downfall.

Without a hard-and-fast deadline for contributions, the online discussion is often put aside and ignored until the threads are so anemic that they dwindle away. One person responds one day, another responds the day after next. Little by little, contributions trickle in, but you never see the rushing river of thought that happens when a group exchanges ideas in real time.

This trend of increasing attrition is unfortunate, because online discussions don't have to be divorced from timelines and boundaries. You can set deadlines for discussions and schedule blocks for virtual chats. If you let people know the expectations of participation, procrastination is minimized. As more people contribute, the interactions increase, and you soon approach the dynamic idea building of in-person meetings. But this activity requires a meeting organizer and champion, someone to stoke the discussion, set expectations, prod the silent participants, and keep it all going.

Silence

With online discussions, lack of contributions is often interpreted as nonparticipation. Because people aren't chiming in, the assumption is that they're busy, offline, or not engaged by the ideas. Leaders often conclude that the online format isn't working and so they need to "get everybody together" for an in-person meeting.

However, what happens at these in-person meetings is similar to what happens online: Several people dominate the discussion, and a handful of people quietly observe. People can be as nonparticipatory during in-person meetings as they are online. And when you ask them for their opinion, it usually turns out that they're apathetic or in agreement with what's already being said.

Although some people are quiet because they agree or have little to add, other people are quiet because they are shy. Here virtual environments have the upper hand, because they can give shy participants a new voice. Shy participants no longer have to fight to get a word in, or stand up against a meeting tyrant to reject a prevailing idea, or bumble their ideas with an inarticulate tongue. Expression comes easier with your hands on a keyboard in a comfortable chair. Quiet mice are suddenly roaring lions.

Recapping

With all the virtual tools at our disposal, we shouldn't be hampered with long, burdensome meetings attended by unprepared participants. In-person meetings are not the only vehicle for thought and discussion among groups. The same productive output is possible through the myriad of online tools available, but it requires participants to take responsibility for engaging and exploring topics on their own.

Editor's Note: How do you feel about on-line versus in-person meetings? You can add your comments to several others already posted at idratherbewriting.com.