It´s very interesting, that electronic meetings always or very often use cameras to show the discussion partner. We are not only talking to ears and voices, we correspond with faces, bodies, small gestures etc. So my clear favorite is the face to face meeting. Of course it´s not always possible, just imagine a situation "Putin talks to Obama".

I think nothing beats face-to-face meetings. They deliver results more effectively. Often in problem solving situations you can have stalemates, but you do not resolve the problem until you meet face to face.

The virtual world has become a reality. The world is getting integrated at a high speed as more and more companies and organizations are going global. High profile talented expatriates are moving around to different places of operations. They have to learn to promote the effectiveness of the virtual meetings.

The argument that in virtual meetings it is not possible to communicate through the body language or touch etc. is likely to eventually become less relevant as we march to the morrow. Eventually, virtual meetings may become as effective as the face-to-face ones, as their acceptance would be total.

No. The main advantage is no travel costs with the use of technology. Can be combined with chat and some voting to make it more effective. Disadvantage is that it is not as exciting / inspiring / interesting as a live presenter or speaker. Presenter will not get feedback of feel of audience and as a result will not be able to adapt as the situation demands. More like a robotic presentation. Also audience likely lose interest when Technology doesn't properly work.

Generally and basically, face-to-face meetings will be more effective. But there are situations when face-to-face meetings will not be possible and electronic meeting is the best positive alternative. Under this "no-choice" circumstance, we always hope that the meeting will be effective. And on the basis of my experience, it is also effective. But comparatively, face-to-face is much more effective.

Dear all,

please watch a situation like our RG discussions. If you make a fault or show unsecurity, a typing error or a wrong expression, it takes a lot of time to correct. If your partner is sitting at the same place with you, you say "sorry" i meant this or that, don´t misunderstand me. Thats the better solution.

But all arguements of spatial distance, costs etc are really important especially in politics or economy. .

I think both have advantave and disadvantages.

Electronic meeting would be effective for short discussion, cost effective, no travelling, require electronic devices (which may not available to everyone, every time), , technology may disturb the meeting (e.g. internet server down, power cut etc...), it will serve the purpose.

Face-to-Face meeting would be better for long discussion, need a proper place, need to travel, may be more effective meeting then electronic.

I agree entirely with Mr. Ratan Khuman

It will depend on the situations. But i would prefer face-to-face...

Dear Mahfuz

The technology presents new equipment all the time , more precisely tailored and adapted to the lifestyle of each individual who will use them . The scope for communication via the Internet is much broader ( global ) fast and the conversation face-to -face , so there is a definite advantage when questions are elected to compare the practicality and agility. we can question this argument as to the stability and speed of connections - known as the " network outages " - which sometimes interrupt the dialogue during an attempt to virtual. In life online , however , you can communicate with several people at the same time and address multiple issues simultaneously. During virtual communication in general , the sense of touch and feeling ability to perceive are negated . Moreover , the performance of activities and jobs that involve large numbers of people end up becoming more organized when done virtually , since this environment there are ways for everyone to express their opinions and can even create a historic meeting for future reference , if desired . In a videoconference are limited to viewing the other person due to the screen size , you can not fully see the physical space in which the other person is , unlike a classroom discussion

 Modern life is made much of the online world as the classroom universe as environments and means intercommunicating . Our challenge at the moment is to learn to move in these spaces of balanced and complementary way

What i have seen is that there are tow steps:

1) using skype, email, etc. they usually do a first scan of the candidates.

2) After they select the most promising, then they proceed to more expensive face-t-face meeting. I think that this procedure are optimal with respect to money and final selection.

Electronic meetings are, in my experience, very useful for updating the state of a research or program succesive steps. Obviously, they are effective when the discussant are few. However, an electronic meeting cannot have the same impact of face to face one.

I think for work, research communities and contacts, electronic meeting can be optimal. For friendships FTF is much suitable for me. I agree with remarks of Kamal, Hanno, Shafig, Ratan. I think Debi is also right about tendencies and attitude to online meetings. After all we do not know the development of new technologies giving us new opportunities for online meetings. We live in computers for many months a year and have holidays free of it.

No, electronic meetings are not so effective like face to face, but:

1)they are cheaper

2)they can broaden the tank of candidates to people who otherwise could not say their opinion (RG is a kind of electronic meeting for all of us)

The question boils down to this: people express themselves through verbal and para-verbal means. By para-verbal, I mean vocal pitch, meaningless syllables like "eh" or "um" or even the eternal verbal crutch "like," and involuntary facial expressions. If the electronic meeting does not allow for visual contact between the various communicators-- as in the case of a multiple telephone conversation--, then I would say it is insufficient. If, on the other hand, the electronic meeting does permit simultaneous videocast and audio, as in the case of Skype, it is probably as efficient as personal contact would be. Everything depends on the electronic medium employed.

Dear Nelson,

good pointing out. The details of a dialogue help with understanding and estimation of the discussion partners. If you want, the meeting you cited is a face to face meeting but in a long distance.

@Mahfuz, I vote for face to face meeting. Such meeting have a spirit! Here is a fine reading: Face to Face Vs. Web Meetings – What Should I Use When?- Corbin Ball

http://www.corbinball.com/articles_webmeet/index.cfm?fuseaction=cor_av&artID=1601

Believe it is as effective as face to face meetings and may be it will be soon the method of chice

I wouldn't be surprised if they are MORE effective :)

In electronic meetings, usually you share desktops, and other material. Cisco's WebEx and even the free Skype have gotten so advanced that, aside from "touching" the person, there is very little difference.

Granted, humans are able to get a lot of information from "body language," but, for technical meetings, emotional content is typically pretty minimal and all that matters is "information transfer" ... For that, a Skype meeting is a 21st century miracle.

Let's say, I want to discuss a technical paper with somebody in a different continent. Let's see the options:

OPTION 1 : Get a visa, get a super expensive plane ticket. Many hours of layover, extreme travel exhaustion ...Find a hotel, ...

OPTION 2 : CLICK , click . :) The person is in front of you :)

I'll take Option 2 :)

Dear Tolga,

you are right (a little bit lazy). But you can´t contradict, that personal direct touching and smelling contact can open doors, because you perceive unexpected details. .

Dear all,

we have learned in our evolution to show reactions vis a vis. That was our chance to survive and to develope. Please don´t regress it totally!

This is a very good question, indeed! Face by face meeting through SCYPE with the video is almost effective as face by face. Of course, "electronic meeting throigh messages only" is much less effective. In many cases it is very importnat to face of your parther.

My preference is face to face meeting as it uplifts your spirit. Through such meetings we can empower each other. Nothing replaces face to face meeting in my view.

You might be interested in research in the field of mobility studies that explore how social obligations involve strong normative expectations of presence and seeing ‘the other’ ‘face-to-face’ in order to experience a particular event in real time. This research shows that this physical co-presence is sometimes critical in networks and requires geographical mobility.

See e.g.:

Lassen, C. (2006) Aeromobility and work. Environment and Planning A 38:301-312.

Urry, J. (2002) Mobility and Proximity. Sociology, 26(2):255-274.

Urry, J. (2003) Social networks, travel and talk. British Journal of Sociology, 54(2):155-175.

The following article reviews the literature on virtual vs. face-to-face teams:

Purvanova, R. K. (2014). Face-to-face versus virtual teams: What have we really learned? The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 17(1), 2-29. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mgr0000009

Technology is changing faster than we can as a result those of us used to face to face meeting will prefer it to virtual meetings. However, I think the next generation will have a different point of view after all the have been brought up using technology from childhood.

Another opinion:

According to Professor Richard D. Arvey, the type of outcomes or objectives expected will make a considerable difference in the choice of the communication modality. Group processes and outcomes that require coordination, consensus, timing, persuasion of others, etc. are less effectively accomplished using computer mediated communication modalities. Indeed, according to Straus and McGrath, the type of communication medium is likely to affect outcomes “when there is a need for the expression of emotions, when tasks require coordination and timing among members’ activities, when one is attempting to persuade others, or with task require consensus on issues that are affected by or values of the group members.” Under these circumstances, face-to-face communications are likely to be more effective compared to computer mediated devices.

Other aspects will also determine if and when face-to-face meetings are more useful compared to computer meditated communications. Under conditions of low time pressure or urgency, when decisions are relatively less important, when consensus is not necessary a requirement, and when the communication is mainly about providing information, computer mediated modalities represents a more appropriate communication choice. However, when there is a need for a more “rich” communication channels (i.e., complex social interaction is required, when tasks and decisions are complex, and when there is a need to respond quickly), face-to-face communications are perhaps a more effective media channel. And, of course, an appropriate mixture of both face-to-face meetings and computer mediated communications might well best serve the interests of organizations.

From a psychological perspective there are a number of positive features about face-to-face meetings that cannot always be achieved as well via other forms of communication.

Face-to-face meetings allow members to engage in and observe verbal and nonverbal behavioral styles not captured in most computer mediated communication devises. There are nuances associated with hand gestures, voice quality and volume, facial expressions, and so forth that are simply not captured in email discussion, chat rooms, and the like. Even videoconferencing does not capture all of the dynamics of group members (e.g. the expression of others while one member is talking, etc.).

A further advantage of face-to-face meetings is that they occur in “real time” as opposed to non-synchronized time. Computer mediated communications often are delayed because of a variety of reasons, not always received, and sometimes disrupted because of technical problems.

Another feature is simply the fact that face-to-face business meetings provide human contact among members. Human contact is a primitive need among human beings. We are social creatures and isolation is harmful. There is much psychological research affirming this proposition—that individuals need personal contact with others to satisfy deep primitive psychological needs. Face-to-face business meetings help meet these needs. Emailing and even teleconferences are not as likely to meet these needs.

Similarly, business meetings allow participants opportunities to develop important exchange relationships among themselves. These exchanges can be in the form of business negotiations, personal favors, promises, understandings, etc. that cannot often be achieved via other forms of communication because of their personal and informal nature. One psychological theory that emphasizes this notion is “social exchange theory” where human relations are viewed as an exchange of rewards among individuals or achieving equity between “what you put in” compared to “what you get out” of relationships.

Face-to-face business meetings afford participants opportunities to develop transparency and trust among each other in ways that are not always possible compared to other forms of communications. Trust is an integral part of business relationships and building trust is clearly a function of having repeated personal interactions with one another. This is not to say that trust cannot be built using computer based technologies, but the research evidence suggests that it takes longer to build.

Face-to-face business meetings allow for member to evaluate and judge the integrity, competencies, and skills (e.g. verbal skills) of other participants and leaders in ways

that are not easily evaluated in computer mediated mechanisms.

Face-to-face business meetings allow participants to develop strong social relationships among themselves. Nardi and Whittaker describe the importance of face-to-face shared activities in facilitating social bonding and showing commitment: touching, engaging in mutually meaningful experiences in a common physical space, and “showing up” in person.

Individuals are more apt to develop social “identities” or how they define themselves in terms of group membership with face-to-face contacts. Attending face-to-face meetings help individuals develop more clear understandings of how they themselves “belong” to the organization in which they work, how they fit in, and their relative status among other group members. Most of us would share the experience of pride when being included in face-to-face meetings with high level executives in organizations. Schwartzman (1989) makes the following point in her book about meetings: “Meetings are an important sense-making form for organizations and communities because they may define, represent, and also reproduce social entities and relationships.” (p. 39).

Face-to-face meetings are also strong vehicles for participants to learn the relative norms of the organization as well as its idiosyncratic culture. Individuals learn about the various ways things “operate” in organizations by observing how others behave and display emotions. Information such as the value and meaning of time (i.e. showing up on time), who has power in the organization, what is reinforced and punished, etc. are all things people learn in face-to-face meeting which otherwise might not be observable in electronically based communication devices.

Face-to-face business meetings allow “side-line” conversations among participants that are often very valuable in accomplishing the various tasks and duties. Often discussions during breaks help in terms of members dealing with decisions, information sharing and exchange, indicating agreement or disagreement with issues, and so forth.

Another advantage of face-to-face meetings is that they provide a forum for members to obtain and give social support. Such support might include providing tangible assistance, information, and emotional support that might be either less forthcoming or less convincing in computer media communications. Organizational life can be lonely and face-to-face meetings can help to alleviate feeling of isolation and stress13.

Another aspect of face-to-face meetings is that they allow the direct expression of humor in a way that is not always conveyed in computer mediated communications.

Members may feel freer to laugh, pun, and otherwise inject humor into conversations whereas telecom and other forms are typically more sterile and “only business”.

Humor is being recognized as being an important component of human life as well as contributing positively to experiences in organizations.

In summary, there are number of compelling psychological reasons for conducting face-to-face business meetings.

I think they are :

Electronic meetings are flexible.

One does not have to physically travel. Thanks to IT, one could be as effective as its counter Physical part !

For data transfer or fast discussions or ideas exchange, virtual meeting is helpful. For cooperation and collaboration issues a face to face meeting is essential and required.

In my opinion electronic meeting and face-to-face meeting are taken as substitute to each others. Though at times electronic meeting are held due to many reasons like to save cost (including travel cost), man hours etc. and could be effective enough yet during face-to-face meetings, exploration could be more. However, during face-to-face meetings, time-management need to be taken care of quite intelligently. However it depends upon the business to be transected during the meeting. In case of mechanical transactions, electronic meeting may be preferred, however in humanistic transactions, face-to-face meetings perhaps may give better results.

I also prefer face to face meeting more than electronic meeting but in present scenario when everyone is having their busy schedule, arranging time for meeting is a bit difficult so in that case we have to rely on electronic meeting only.

Regards,

Nitish

@Kamal, @Nitish, dear colleagues statistics speaks itself! Have a look! Face to face is predominant!

Dear Ljubomir,

whats the source of your grafic?

For information exchange and basic updates, electronic meetings work well and are better than email exchanges especially when in a large group. However, in a Face-To-Face meeting, we sense the energy emitted and if there happen to be in sync then I have seen it lead to synergy of ideas which I believe would not have been possible otherwise. You cannot always predict this but you increase its chances

@Hanno, here is the source of above statistics, (small talk, big result)!

http://smalltalkbigresults.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/face-to-face-meetings-more-ideas/

meet face-to-face can feel lively, but virtual meeting or electronic communication make person feel the distance.

 Face to face meeting have so many advantage over electronic meeting.

in face to face meeting... With answer gescher, porscher, intention, action, feeling and emotion also can observe ...

Electronic meetings are not so multiomodal like traditional, but in many applications are useful since cheaper. Limitations concern particular applications e.g. in healthcare (diagnostics in telemedicine), where exactness and complexity are key features.

Electronic meetings may help overcome the difficulties of travelling and costs, but at the same time they may not lead to the same outcomes. Face to face has no substitute since the non-verbal communication indcators are more lively and affect the quality of the interaction.

I feel that as humans we all instinctively seek out the presence of others of our kind. Thank you for that reference Ljubomir.

In face-to-face meetings,  the ability to collaborate and brainstorm is more effective.

You are very welcome dear @David! There is no substitute for face-to-face conference! And, it will never be!

Face to face meetings are the best but virtual meetings are indispensable when it is difficult due to geographical, business and time constraints.

For convenience sake yes. Virtual meetings can give the same experience a s traditional F2F meetings. Empirical researches have proven time and over.

ad

The interview can be important in the first instance, but the face-to-face interview is much more important than the first, and it is indispensable for exchanging ideas and discussing important things. Moreover, an electronic interview may involve a misunderstanding of one side towards the other. Is completely avoided in the case of face-to-face interview.

I am not familiar with business management. However, my understanding is that business could be done through electronic gadgets, it shall lack social rapport which is as essential in business dealings as in social life.

So many repeated answers are posted, due to RG problem of posting answers. Dear colleagues, when you post the answer, you are not prompted, just refresh the page and that is all. Do not click the add button more than once.

Dear colleagues, here is the summary of duplicated answers:

@Hidouri - 3x

@Harry - 19x

@Mohammad - 18x

So, instead of 3 answers, we do have 40 answers.

Please, delete 37 duplicates totally! Thanks.

If we believe in the source or the carrier of information, we don't see the difference between the virtual or real communication. Sometimes we can be addicted, because virtual ties are stronger, than real ones- there is the effect of mystique. We understand, that it's neither a performance, nor a film, nor other media. We are actors of real human relations, but we can't touch and we can't feel the unique energy, magnetism or charisma of the human soul. Behind the glass. It's a kind of a fantastic aquarium.

Once the two parties know each other well, even electronic meetings work fine.

Virtual meetings allow your participants to see each other without depending on a specific space, a common schedule or even being in the same country. This type of meeting is perfect for those who have a complicated schedule or many trips on their agenda. In addition, the savings in work time and travel costs are considerable.