What are the differences between communicating virtually and in person?

Schedule a FREE 30 Minute Consultation Schedule Now

The rise of digital meeting tools has sparked the debate between face to face and virtual meetings. There is no clean cut verdict on which type of meeting is better, but rather they both offer their own advantages and disadvantages. The important thing is to identify the appropriate type of meeting given the situation. The way that two parties choose to collaborate, namely via in person or virtual meetings, has a major effect on how productive the engagement is.

Certain topics require a more intimate meeting where the focus needs to be on the discussion occurring within the walls of the room whereas other things require more informal quick conversations often times over long distances. A recent Fast Company article outlines some of the benefits of face to face meetings such as gaining trust, paying more attention, and picking up hidden messages which all fit nicely into encounters where the discussion is centered around initial meetings, project proposals, or portions of projects that require more abstract thinking. In person meetings allow attendees to express themselves through things one doesn’t get with virtual meetings such as body language and facial expression. Being able to shake hands with a person has a profound effect on this cultivation of trust.

Alternatively, in a recent Harvard Business Review article, the author outlines some of the benefits of virtual meetings such as solving specific problems, time problems, distance problems, and deadline problems. All of these benefits lend themselves to meetings centered around quickly finding solutions to solve project problems that are specific and small in nature but might have large impacts on the overall process. The ability to connect with people from all parts of the world with the click of a button has revolutionized how companies do business, but not without its own shortcomings. A main issue with virtual meetings is that they can be less productive when it comes to discussion and collaboration due to the flow of conversations being much different than face to face conversations. Digital meetings become less fluid and free and become more rigid and systematic. Strategically making use of the different types of meetings can have large impacts on the overall productivity of the project.

In our client engagements we make use of both in person and virtual meetings. In our initial meeting with a client we meet face to face to get an understanding of their needs, present our proposal and plan for the project. Meeting in person and interacting on a more personal level allows us to build trust and the foundation for the relationship moving forward. We typically have a few more in person meetings to discuss the project at a high level and in two all day meetings are able to complete a week or two’s worth of work.

After the in person meetings we travel back to our office, roll our sleeves up, and get to work. The next few meetings are virtual, it is where we review where we are with the project and gather feedback. Since we are on the same page with the client as far as the overall vision for the project is concerned, not much in depth discussion is needed on these calls and we can focus on their feedback and the changes needed to be made. This gives us the ability to churn out the updated version of the project and then within minutes jump on a virtual meeting to review the updates and gather feedback, which allows us to keep the client up to date every step of the way and ultimately deliver them an amazing product that they love.

The key to our success was the order and mode in which we met, first face to face and then remotely. Starting the engagement with a face to face meeting allowed us to introduce ourselves in person and learn more about the client than we would have if we met virtually. It also allowed them to connect the people on our team with our company which started a more intimate relationship. After getting to know each other in person, the virtual meetings that followed became less formal and more fluid which helped us offer solutions to their feedback that we knew would be in line with their thinking.

The chosen medium for collaboration should be based upon which option offers the best chance to achieve the engagement’s goals and not what is most convenient for both parties. If the goal is to build relationships or discuss high level project plans, a face to face meeting is better suited to accomplish these goals whereas if the goal is to review small details or give direction to members of your team, a virtual meeting will suffice.

The pros and cons of virtual versus in-person communication vary among individuals, couples, and families with children. Throughout the Covid pandemic, individuals weighed the risk of infection for themselves and possibly for their elderly or immunocompromised contacts. For families with children and schools the problem was and is more complex.

The pandemic forced schools to take the technological leap of holding classes and meetings online. Now that most schools have returned to in-person classes, administrators and teachers have a choice of where to hold meetings. Both online and in-person meetings have benefits, as well as, drawbacks. For example, virtual meetings take away the ability to read non-verbal cues, which some research suggests makes for 80% of our communication. On the other hand, in-person meetings can lack inclusivity of individuals’ communication styles. The Harvard Business Review found that some people are more comfortable speaking up in virtual meetings, which may lead to more diverse brainstorming sessions and problem-solving.

So, how does a school choose whether to meet virtually or in-person? From parent-teacher conferences to weekly teacher check-ins, follow these questions to decide.

1. What is the nature of the meeting?

Harvard Business Review’s “When Do We Actually Need to Meet In-Person,” outlines a process to help an organization decide if an in-person meeting is necessary. They suggest considering whether the meeting is relationship-based or task-based. In a school setting, task-based meetings include preparation for school-wide events or reviews of scheduling problems. This type of meeting can be handled well virtually. Meanwhile, relationship-based meetings like parent-teacher conferences are better held in-person. When sensitive issues need to be addressed, face-to-face communication establishes trust.

2. What are the latest guidelines for public gatherings?

There have been conflicting guidelines for the ways schools might or might not meet with consideration to the pandemic. Look to federal, state, and local municipal guidelines and laws for direction.

3. Is the topic complex or difficult to understand? Is it emotionally complex, too?

Complexity of a problem and its emotional complexity both play a role in deciding how to meet. As the level of complexity rises in both problem and emotion, the more likely an in-person meeting will be successful. Check out The Harvard Business Review’s chart of complexity where relationship-based goals are ranked against the difficulty of a problem.

4. Which format will make the meeting most inclusive?

If a caregiver is out of the country, then a virtual conference can bridge the distance easily. Virtual meetings can connect out-of-state specialists and education leaders to your school, as well. In addition, virtual meetings may allow for more communication styles. For instance, a meeting held virtually might offer people with visual and text-based strengths an optimal way to participate through chat functions or shared screens.

5. Does the presenter have the skills and technology to hold a meeting online?

Not everyone is comfortable presenting online. A quick search on Google will bring up examples of presenters fumbling with technology or unable to repackage an in-person presentation into an engaging online experience. If possible, ask presenters in which venue they are most comfortable. Some presentations that require acting out scenarios or team building are better suited for in-person meetings.

Schools will not always have a choice as to whether a meeting is held online or in-person. The decision first and foremost depends on the state of public health and local guidelines. Regardless of whether you choose virtual or in-person meetings, websites such as the National Education Association offer more tips to help teachers and administrators navigate both.

About the Author

With the rise of virtual and hybrid work, people are thinking more about how to choose when to collaborate in-person, virtually, or a mix of both. How do you pick the right facilitation method when working on people-centric processes like organizational development or learning?

When we talk about the contexts of organizational collaboration, it’s important to consider both time and place. 

Simply put, sometimes we collaborate at the same time (synchronous), when we have face-to-face or virtual meetings. Other times, we collaborate at different times (asynchronous). 

Every task, no matter how big or small, is going to require a different facilitation approach. In this post, we’ll break down the difference between virtual and face-to-face facilitation, define asynchronous facilitation, and explain how these are all different formats of digital facilitation. With this breakdown, you’ll be better equipped to choose the right approach for your next workshop, project, or process.

Face-to-face facilitation

Let's start with the most familiar: Face-to-face facilitation simply means facilitating a group of people in the same physical place at the same time. Pretty much all traditional meetings and workshops rely on face-to-face meetings, but you can also use digital tools to facilitate the process, rather than relying on physical flip charts and sticky notes. 

The benefits of face-to-face facilitation include:

• Relationship building
• Shared context
• Access to nonverbal cues like expressions and body language

The downsides of face-to-face facilitation include:

• Limited length of interaction
• Deeper knowledge sharing siloed to small groups
• Travel time and costs
• Disruptive in nature
• Manual post-workshop documentation
• Limited number of attendees

Face-to-face meetings and workshops are suitable for situations with a specific agenda and a clear, short-term goal. However, when it comes to longer and more complex processes, face-to-face interactions should be complemented with ongoing, asynchronous communication to ensure that the team continues to work beyond workshops.

Virtual facilitation

Virtual facilitation is when a facilitator guides a group of people remotely in real time. Video conferencing tools like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, or Google Meet are typically used during virtual facilitation. In short, virtual facilitation takes place at the same time (synchronous) but participants join from different places. 

The benefits of virtual facilitation include:

• Increased productivity – no time spent on travel
• Cost savings – no money spent on travel
• No need to worry about meeting logistics (like booking a big meeting room or organizing refreshments

The disadvantages of virtual facilitation include:

• Limited length of interaction
• Limited access to facial expressions and other nonverbal cues
• Lack of context (A great read: why context is important in the workplace) 
• Limited relationship-building opportunities
• Limited opportunities for one-to-one communication
• Limited number of attendees
• Poses technical requirements: high speed internet and a virtual meeting tool

Much like face-to-face facilitation, virtual facilitation is suitable for meetings and workshops with a limited number of attendees and a clear goal. Successful virtual facilitation requires a skilled facilitator.

Hybrid workshops and meetings—where some participants attend remotely while others are in the same physical location—can be particularly challenging for facilitators. If you’re running hybrid meetings, check out our blog post covering 10 facilitation techniques that will make your hybrid meetings more engaging. 

Asynchronous facilitation 

Asynchronous facilitation is when a facilitator leads participants remotely at different times. The most common way we communicate today is with asynchronous tools like email and Slack, which enable us to interact remotely when it suits us. 

The shortcoming of communication tools like Slack, is that they lack features for facilitating conversations and making decisions. Conversations tend to get lost in endless threads, and it can be impossible to organize all the materials and discussions from a workshop through these types of tools. This is where leveraging a digital facilitation platform can really make a difference. 

In short, asynchronous facilitation happens at a different time and at a different place.

Digital facilitation

Digital facilitation is an umbrella term that covers face-to-face facilitation using a digital platform (like, hey, Howspace), virtual facilitation, and asynchronous facilitation such as the exchange of emails and instant messages. In other words, digital facilitation combines asynchronous and synchronous collaboration with remote and physical interaction, and by doing so, allows the facilitator endless possibilities to engage with the participants.

In short, digital facilitation means helping a group of people reach their common goals with the help of digital tools. Digital tools are valuable in all of the boxes in the graphic shown above. When we are separated by location and time, digital tools are necessary. But even in a face-to-face meeting, you may have a digital tool for documenting and for connecting the participants with each other.

The benefits of digital facilitation include:

• Increased flexibility
• Unlimited number of participants
• Enables asynchronous and synchronous multi-way communication
• Extended length of interaction and the ability to collaborate not only during but also before, after, and in between workshops
• Opportunity to combine different facilitation approaches
• Reduced need for post-workshop documentation
• Supports different kinds of personalities, learning styles, and communication styles

The downsides of digital facilitation include:

• The facilitator must be willing and able to learn and adjust
• Poses technical requirements: internet connection and a device for each participant

Digital facilitation is suitable for longer engagements like learning programs and organizational change processes. 

Ultimately, the discussion of different facilitation methods shouldn’t be about one versus the other. Face-to-face and virtual facilitation both have their benefits. In-person meetings will always play a role in building deeper relationships, and virtual meetings allow for remote work. All facilitation methods are needed for collaborating at work today. That’s why digital facilitation is so important: It allows facilitators to get the most out of every meeting, be it virtual or face-to-face.

If you're interested in learning more about digital facilitation, download our free eBook today.