Rediscovering the value of In-person Communication

Recently I facilitated a small workshop on technical processes where the participants were people that all work together, and have for some time, mostly in remote environments for the last few years. What I witnessed was no surprise to me, but I sensed a lack of awareness on the participants’ parts. This is what inspired me to write this piece.

This group’s primary forms of communication had become email and video conferencing. This was one of the first face-to-face gatherings in some time. Firstly, I found it interesting how some participants had to be prompted to attend in person. Everyone, including myself shared stories about how effective they could be while working from home and how, through technology, everything they needed was at their fingertips.  I got the sense that all had grown quite comfortable in the ways of remote working, but I kind of thought they might welcome the opportunity to come together, at least as a form of social activity.

Now, as much as anyone else, I get the advantages of working remotely but, contrary to what most will have you believe, there are definite downsides. Here are a few.

As it happens, I’d also been working remotely with this group for some time, contacting each person through on-line chats, email, telephone and video conferencing. Over-time, many issues had been discussed through communications, both one-on-one and in groups. However, the face-to-face discussions were entirely something else.

Aside from it being much nicer to be in a form of social environment, the exchanges were completely different. Topics that were previously discussed remotely were brought up again for group discussion. Several things happened that never had during any of the previous remote conversations.

Firstly, although processes had been disseminated to the group in previous remote conversations, and feedback solicited, the conversations remained very much “one-to all” situations. Engaging open discussions rarely took place. Participants seemed to listen, but everyone seemed reluctant to throw in their two cents, when it may have actually altered the direction of the conversation. Meanwhile, in the face-to-face group environment, when processes were discussed, people were much more engaged. They openly spoke up and were happy to point out if they saw flaws with what was being rolled out, or how things needed to be done differently.

Another aspect that I found useful was the participants recognition that they all were doing what they interpreted to be the “right-way” of doing things, while there were glaring disparities amongst the group. It wasn’t until everyone was in the same room that people spoke up about how things were “supposed to be done”, only to find out that not everyone was on the same page. Interestingly, things were easily hashed out and consensuses were drawn for necessary process changes.

Finally, in bringing people together, in that environment, it was much easier for all to sense what each person’s understanding of the processes was, and what their strengths and weaknesses appeared to be. This made it much easier to convey what needed to be shared, enabling ideas to be conceptualized in different manners that made sense to all. The open group discussion also helped identify who a person might turn to if they need help with something.

Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying, the ability to work remotely will always be important, but you simply cannot argue the numerous benefits, beyond those cited above, that only sitting in a room with other people can provide.

Bret Peters – Aircraft Management Specialist, Regulatory expert, Co-Author “Introduction to Aircraft Management”

P.S. 📘 We explore this topic further in our book, “Introduction to Aircraft Management,” especially how communication styles impact technical processes and teamwork. Go to https://www.cacglobalsolutions.com/books for more info.