Tradition would have us believe that face-to-face meetings are the most effective means of dealing
with complex group problem-solving tasks. But are they the most effectice method in today's high
tech world?
This article reports an attempt to determine if face-to-face meetings are as effective
as their electronic counterpart—the video teleconference. Based on the findings of this study. it
is concluded that video teleconferencing may be a more effective method than face-to-face
meetings. Reasons for, and implications of, this finding are then discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ancipink, Patricia. "Business or Show Biz," Best's Review, May 1983, pp. 60-64. Champness. B., The Assessment of User's Reactions to Confravision (Report No. E/ 73250/CH) . (London: The Communication Studies Group, 1972).
2.
— and A. Reid, The Efficiency of Information Transmission: A Preliminary Comparison Between Face-to-Face Meetings and the Telephone (Report No. P/ 70240/CH). (London: The Communication Studies Group , 1970).
3.
Christie, B., "Perceived Usefulness of Person-to-Person Telecommunieations as a Function of the Intended ApplicationEuropean Journal of Social Psychology , Vol. 4, No. 3, 1974, pp. 366-8.
4.
— and E. Martin.Research on the Differences Between Telecommunication and Face-to-Face Communication in Business and Government (Report No. P/75180/ CR) (London: The Communication Studies Group. 1975).
5.
Communication Studies Group, The Effectiveness of Person-to-Person Telecommunication Systems: Research at the Communication Studies Group, University College, London (Long-Range Research Report No. 3) (England: Post Office Telecommunications, 1975).
6.
Conners, M., G. Lindsey, and R.H. Miller, The NASA Teleconferencing System: An Evaluation, ( Ames Research Center: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1976).
7.
Dubrin. Andrew J., Foundations of Organizational Behavior: An Applied Perspective, ( Engicwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984).
8.
Duncanson, J.P. and A.D. Williamson , "Video Conferencing: Reactions of Users," Human Factors, Vol.15, No. 5,1973, pp. 471-85.
9.
Ellis, S., V. McKay, and M. Robinson, A Preliminary Report of the Follow-up Study of Users of the Melbourne-Sidney Confravision Facility, (Australia: Swinburn Institute of Technology, 1976).
10.
Hensell, Kathleen J., David L. Green, and Lutz Erbung, "Videoteleconferencing Boosts Productivity, Users Report (Part II) ," Telephony, Vol. 203, No. 5, 1982, pp. 38-49.
11.
Keiper, Robert, "Teleconferencing: A New Tool," Corporate Design, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1983, pp.127-30.
12.
Mendenhall, N. and M. Ryan, L'effect les communications mediatissees: l'effectivite sociale, la malancolie, la fatigue et le scepticisme de l'utilisateur (Rapport 1286 DU CRC). (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Research Center, Department of Communication, 1975).
13.
Mindorkawa, M., J. Kingo, Y. Kenichi, and M. Kogiski, "TV Conference System," Review of the Electrical Communication Laboratories, Vol. 18,. 1975, pp. 22-25.
14.
Mintzberg, Henry, The Nature of Managerial Work, (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,1980).
15.
Noll, A.M. "Teleportation Through Communications," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1976, pp. 753-6.
16.
Short, J.A., Conflicts of Opinion and Medium of Communication (Report No. E/ 72001/SH) (London: The Communication Studies Group,1972).
17.
Williams, E. and S. Holloway, The Evaluation of Teleconferencing: Report of a Questionnaire Study of Users' Attitudes to the Bell Canada Conference Television System (Report No. P/74224/WI) (London: The Communication Studies Group, 1974).
18.
Winkler, R. and W.I. Hays, Statistics, Probability, Inference, and Decisions, Second Edition. (New York: Holt, Rinehart. and Winston, 1975).
