When is a Face-to-Face Meeting Preferable?
- Keren Trosler
- Nov 1, 2007
- 3 min read
One of the common solutions in knowledge management is a community, but do we know what a community is?
A community is a group of people with similar roles or shared interests who need knowledge and generate knowledge to perform their work.
When possible, it is recommended to establish a community as a synergy of human, face-to-face meetings and virtual meetings that take place through the accompanying knowledge site.
The reason for this combination is that each of the two channels has its advantages:
Face-to-face meeting (frontal):
Enables direct connection between participants
Enables multi-dimensional connection between participants (not just through letters and words)
Meeting through the knowledge site (virtual):
Transcends time (allows a question at a certain hour and an answer at another time)
Transcends location (enables communication between people who are distant from each other without the need to bring them to a shared room)
Preserves knowledge over time and allows it to become part of the organizational memory
When establishing a community that combines both channels, one of the central questions asked is: When is it preferable to meet face-to-face? When is it preferable to have a virtual meeting?
From the advantages mentioned above for each channel, we can learn about scenarios in which one channel is more advantageous than the other.
Face-to-Face Meeting (Frontal):
When new knowledge needs to be developed (brainstorming, thinking outside the box, etc.)
When you want to reduce concerns and help new audiences open up and share
When you want to unite the participants as a group ("club")
Meeting Through the Knowledge Site (Virtual):
When meeting in person is not possible due to location constraints
When there are recurring questions, and you want to save resources
When discussing a complex topic that requires participants to invest time thinking about it, you want to space the discussion over several days.
When discussing a complex topic, you want to allow documents to be attached to each stage and argument.
When an immediate and specific answer to a question is needed (eliminating the need to schedule a face-to-face meeting)
When you want to ensure access to information for a wider circle beyond the group meeting face-to-face (second circle)
For example, we would prefer a face-to-face meeting when brainstorming and creative thinking are required to solve a problem, such as in an organization's R&D department wrestling with the efficiency of a particular chemical process. In this situation, the unit needs all the experience and knowledge to break through existing frameworks and achieve the best result.
When there's a need to address concerns and objections, conducting the conversation face-to-face is appropriate. In a discussion in a single physical location, each side receives personal attention to their comments, and participants can be empowered. For example, when announcing a change in work methods and wanting to hear from all concerned parties. The topic is sensitive and charged, and announcing it in a face-to-face setting demonstrates the importance attributed to the subject and the respect given to those present.
For example, a meeting through the knowledge site is preferable when a quick, specific, and immediate answer is needed, regardless of location. When a physiotherapist wants to raise a professional question with colleagues who are not necessarily in geographical proximity, the virtual arena allows for the exchange of opinions at times and places convenient for participants without requiring everyone to be present in one physical location.
A different case suitable for discussion in a virtual community is the need for an in-depth answer that relies on tests, examples, and documents. For example, when a question arises in a manufacturing plant, it requires thinking based on test results and preparation before providing an answer.
It should be noted that this represents a continuum of situations and scenarios, not two dichotomous cases - frontal versus virtual:
The virtual meeting could be a discussion in which participants sit in different meeting rooms across the country and the world in front of a computer or video conference, and at the same time, groups of community representatives from each country are in each room.
The face-to-face discussion can initiate conversation and reduce concerns, while its more complex continuation, requiring the integration of documents and testing time, will continue through the website.
And just as there are a variety of content worlds and scenarios, many examples can be shown on the spectrum between virtual and face-to-face.
In conclusion, organizations have different channels to best utilize their community capabilities. It is important to choose the appropriate channel for each case for information to flow optimally and for knowledge sharing to enrich and empower employees.
Good luck!
Comments