In our monthly debate, 35 Communications poses the question 'In employee engagement, is technology now more effective than face-to-face communication?': Stuart Maister from Broadview and Tim Buckley from the CIB argue it out.

In the Yes corner is Stuart Maister, managing director of BroadView, a web TV agency specialising in  stakeholder relations. His opponent is Tim Buckley, commercial director of the British Association of Communicators in Business and managing director of internal communications agency AB.

Dear Tim,
In an ideal world, all employees would be fully engaged through their immediate managers, who would all be fantastic communicators. Face to face would rule. Employees would all be in teams in one place with regular, dynamic meetings. I guess such a world exists and it’s probably in Second Life :)

In the real world, the cascade is frozen, or at least icy. A lot of communication comes through the computer and mobile device and is as likely to come from YouTube, Facebook chat or a tweet. Employees may be homeworkers, dispersed, or just not very engaged by their boss.

In the face of this, is it still as effective to rely on those face-to-face meetings? When the CEO wants to ensure strategy is understood by employees, so that they know what’s expected of them, will you stake your job on local managers rallying the troops? Surely it’s better for the organisation to engage in the technological conversation with those who work for it? is content can and should drive the internal conversation, not replace it.

We’ve just produced an internal TV programme for a major IT company explaining its transformation strategy: 22,000 out of 24,000 (dispersed) employees watched it within two days, loved it, shared it and talked about it online. It’s a platform for the internal conversations to build upon. The CEO knows his staff now understand what he wants to achieve. Even you and I are now debating through technology. I hope this has you engaged.
All the best,
Stuart

Dear Stuart,
Thank you for your email but, as ever from those who believe technology can supplant face-to-face communication, it misses the point entirely.

There is a widely held belief that broadcast is communication, but it’s only half the story. Communication has to be balanced. You can only truly say you’ve communicated with someone when you know they’ve
understood what you’re saying – you cannot do that remotely.

You admit the potency of face-to-face but go on to say companies should basically give up on that and spend money broadcasting in the forlorn hope that employees will become ‘engaged’. Employees  overwhelmingly vote for face-to-face communication – almost 70% say it’s their preferred method. While email and the intranet can give context, they cannot engage.

Indeed, a friend of mine has only two meetings with her line manager a year and spends the rest of the time dealing with the business through the intranet. She couldn’t be less engaged. She is getting her engagement from the union who – and here you’ll probably be surprised – are holding face-to-face meetings.

The point you’ve missed is that engagement does not come with information; it comes with understanding and interaction. I absolutely recognise the strides that technology has made in providing an avenue for two-way dialogue. However, it still cannot make up for the impact that’s missed when you don’t meet with people.

Interesting that you have to resort to an emoticon to show you’re joking – with 90% of communication being in body language, no wonder technology is so lacking in the engagement stakes.

If you’re free, I’d much rather sit down and have this conversation with you…
Cheers,
Tim

Hi Tim
Agreed. Broadcast is only half the story. Engagement – or lack of it – takes place in various ways. Dialogue beats monologue. Of course. But corporate communicators need to ask what are the most effective levers to support engagement by an often dispersed workforce. With rapid change, big decisions and a need for
real leadership, line managers are themselves looking up as well as down to work out what happens next.

Then there’s the need to inspire as well as inform; provide good as well as bad news; show best practice; connect people who might otherwise not meet; and demonstrate what good looks like in working practice or CSR. These are all vital to an engagement strategy.

Can word of mouth from a line manager do any of that? Consistently, reliably, trackably across the board? Social media combined with online video, often live and interactive, can do a lot of this. What’s more the content hits the people who weren’t there for the team meeting and remains as a point of reference long after it took place. It feeds upon itself, creating dialogue and buzz.

I love your point about body language. I evangelise about the use of video as a strategic communications ool and this is one of my big selling points. Does any of this negate the need for face time with your line manager? Not a bit. But that may be for my final email.
All the best,
Stuart

“It took hundreds of years for Jesus to network his message via those who were physically present. Most businesses need to move quicker than that”

Hi Stuart,
I’m thrilled you agree – it’d be great to see your reaction while you do. The thing is, and here’s where I suspect we’re furthest apart, for technology to be more effective than face-to-face, it would have to produce a greater impact – a better result – on engagement. That’s where we differ.

Technology is making great strides in taking the headache out of transferring information. I concede it  allows for a two-way flow of ideas, in real time and with pictures. But this is an online imitation of  face-to-face dialogue. It may be more practical and cost-effective, but it is – like all imitations – a substitute for the real thing.

World-changing words – “I have a dream…”, “Ask not what your country can do for you…” – could never have been delivered via a screen. Passion, atmosphere, interaction, ambiance can’t be created remotely. It’s about being there. The harsh reality is, however good the technology is at getting a consistent  message to individuals, if your relationship with your line manager sucks then you will not be engaged. But if he or she communicates with you well, you’re much more likely to feel, and ultimately be, engaged.

The Institute of Employment Studies (IES) has concluded that the main driver of engagement is a sense of feeling valued and involved. The main components of this are involvement in decisionmaking; freedom to voice ideas, to which managers listen; feeling enabled to perform well; having opportunities to develop the job; and feeling the organisation is concerned for employees’ health and well-being. None of these can be delivered  by technology.

To persuade an individual to “go the extra mile” (one of the key definitions of ‘engaged’), they have to experience what they’re being told. I’m sure we’d get to this quicker if we were in the same room…
Best wishes,
Tim

Hi Tim
Let’s go back to the question. Is technology more effective than face-to-face? at doesn’t mean face-to-face is not important, but which is the most effective means of driving an employee to go the extra mile?

Your relationship with your manager is important. But look at it the other way around: if that relationship is fantastic but no other boxes are ticked, am I engaged? What’s more, your focus exclusively on line manager relationship supposes a conventional hierarchy with a monopoly of information coming down the line. It’s a joined-up world, Tim – engagement now reflects a web of connections up, down and across the organisation.

Once again, I love your example: to experience the ‘I have a dream’ speech face-to-face, we’d be depending on word of mouth from those who were there. It took hundreds of years for Jesus to network his message via those who were physically present. Most businesses need to move quicker than that. And the whole point is, we all do know those iconic, passionate, memorable speeches through our screens!

In an ideal world, the CEO would be simultaneously in front of all employees. The good news is, they can be – but, in large organisations, only in the virtual sense. e quality of a CEO’s communication will affect the level of support they get.

Let’s agree no method of engagement will work without some strategy of employee involvement in decision making. A great line manager won’t impact that if there’s simply command and control and he or she is simply an instrument of that. If real conversation is encouraged, technology can facilitate those conversations and bring to life new ways of thinking. Only some of those conversations are with your line manager. And, increasingly, many will not be face to face.
All the best,
Stuart

Dear Stuart,
You still seem to be mixing up what is most effective for the communicator to manage with what is actually ore effective at engaging an employee. You are right that technology can connect and deliver consistency across a wide audience, it can facilitate dialogue and can connect people. But organisations have had engaged employees for years – far longer than technology has played a part in the communication mix and that is purely down to the personal relationships with people in the business and a belief in what they are doing.

We are agreed that if you can help an individual connect with their work then they are happier. I understand how technology can provide some support to that. Ultimately though, it doesn’t matter what communication channels are available – it comes down to personal relationships to ensure people experience what they are being told.

I once carried out a communication audit in a business and met with an amazing woman. She had worked on the same manufacturing line for almost 45 years – the machines had been operated by steam when she started. She knew her company was owned by an American organisation and knew roughly what the five year strategy was; she wasn’t sure if the company had made a profit the year before. But she really cared bout doing a good job, she knew exactly how much it cost when her machine wasn’t working, she loved er colleagues, she cared about the product she was making and she thought her line manager was brilliant as he understood what motivated her.

I accept this lady is different from many, but I believe she is still an engaged employee – she had never even looked at a computer.
Best wishes,
Tim