Pharmaceutical Market Europe • February 2022 • 14
MIKE DIXON
MIKE DIXON
WHEN SHALL WE MEET AGAIN?
Virtual communication is established and proven, and is now a credible option alongside face-to-face meetings
As we view our working lives post pandemic restrictions, I suggest the famous opening line from Macbeth and uttered at the end of most meetings, now needs to be adapted to – ‘When and how shall we meet again? By virtual, hybrid or face to face?’
‘Meeting’ no longer just means face to face, adding a new complexity to decisions about any form of interaction. At the HCA, like many organisations, in 2019 we were dipping a toe (maybe even a whole foot) into the water with digital meetings and events. By mid-2020 we were all living in what felt like a global business metaverse with all of our interactions being virtual. However, I think I can pretty safely predict that, post restrictions, we are not returning to the scenario of 2019. Virtual communication is established, proven and as a result now a credible option alongside face-to-face meetings. We can even merge the two and have hybrid meetings.
Now, hybrid may be a newly brandished term but the concept isn’t. Remember the days when a hybrid event comprised of a phone in the middle of a table being shouted at by those in the room, with participants at various other locations around the world (probably on mute, typing an unrelated report or actually away from their desk). It was hard for those on the call to hear, stay engaged and contribute effectively and it was difficult for everybody to gauge reactions without seeing people’s faces (which can often tell us a lot, unless somebody is an exceptional poker player).
While virtual or hybrid meeting options open up many more possibilities, they also make the decision process and the practicalities potentially more complex, as we strive to ensure we utilise them in the most effective way.
How do we ensure whatever choice we make is the best one and that it is executed well? This is the question we will now constantly face and there is not a one-size-fits-all answer. Indeed, it would take much more than this column to even start to answer, but let’s at least look at some of the main considerations.
Virtual, face to face, hybrid
Sustainability, cost, time, time zones and convenience are just some of the factors that need to be considered in this decision.
As businesses and individuals, we need to work to help prevent climate change, full stop. Reducing travel in general, and flights in particular, will have a positive impact on this goal. Travel adds cost in terms of the mode of travel, but also in the time spent travelling. I know travelling to meetings is not going to stop, but hopefully the days are over of long-distance flights just to do one short presentation or meeting. It should now be about balance and more robust considerations of impact (climate, cost, time, disruption) versus need/benefit (compared to virtual/hybrid options). These are complex and emotional considerations, just to hold a meeting. And we still need to consider the more practical challenges.
Relationship building
As humans we are wired for social contact. One major concern of fewer face-to-face meetings is reduced relationship building, networking and osmotic learning. In face-to-face meetings, refreshment breaks help provide these opportunities as well as one-to-one follow-on conversations. These scenarios are harder to reproduce in the virtual world. But I’m not suggesting they are impossible and I think we need to consider further how we can better reproduce the benefits of these opportunities in the virtual setting. And, importantly with hybrid, to ensure that those attending virtually have equal opportunities.
Structure
Just like the old conference calls, we need to work harder in virtual and hybrid settings to maintain engagement. This potentially requires rethinking how meetings are run, both in terms of structure and the ‘rules of engagement’. In developing the structure of virtual and hybrid meetings, we need to incorporate adequate screen breaks and even evaluate the benefits of dividing them into separate modules over multiple days. As with a face-to-face meeting, we need to consider how we stimulate engagement. Helpfully, technology provides options such as polling, collaboration software, virtual whiteboards, breakout rooms, chat facilities and live transcription, to name just a few. Fully embracing the virtual world also helps to extend collaboration and engagement after the meeting is over.
Rules of engagement
In the hybrid setting, we don’t want to lose any benefits that those who are meeting face to face may have, even though they may effectively be doing nothing more than those meeting virtually are. Conversely, we want those joining virtually to feel they can participate and benefit from the participation as much as they would if they were in the room. Any rules of engagement therefore need to consider both live and virtual attendees. Cameras always on and the use of mute are two of the most obvious ‘rules’ that can make a significant difference in events involving virtual participation. But whatever the rules are, they should be communicated upfront as a condition of participation and should be enforced not just by the facilitator, but by all participants.
So now, when we ask ‘when and how shall we meet again?’ to ensure the meeting goals are achieved, we need to weigh up multifactorial challenges and opportunities, including social and economic considerations, to identify the best format. Then, within that, create the most effective environment. It is a simple question, but to answer it well is everything but simple. Our complex world has probably just become more complex.
Mike Dixon is CEO of the Healthcare Communications Association (HCA)
and a communications consultant