Do you feel like in-person networking is dead? Why or Why not? There are so many digital options I've been having a tough time swinging back towards face-to-face. Should I reconsider?
Sort By:
Oldest
MSP & IT Director in Services (non-Government)6 months ago
There's a time and place for both. You can't get the same personal feeling as face-to-face but I feel there is definitely a decline for in-person networking. Time is valuable and with all the abilities to find the info you need online, I think people feel less of a need for in-person networking since this idea pre-dates the ability to find what services/products etc. you can easily and quickly find online.HEAD IT in Consumer Goods6 months ago
A hybrid approach is the best method and we all should consider the same. It's much easier to talk to someone digitally if we previously met earlier physically, and vice versa it's a sheer joy to meet a person physically with whom collaborating digitally for a long time. Overall In-person networking is not dead, but its significance and methods of execution have evolved in response to changing societal and technological trends. While digital communication platforms and social media have become increasingly prevalent, in-person networking still holds significant value.Specialist Leader, AI in Software6 months ago
Most Technology conferences will take the hybrid format where there will be a price premium for attending onsite with option to see limited sessions/keynotes Virtually as well. Virtual interactions can easily continue beyond the session.BI & Analytics Manager in Energy and Utilities6 months ago
Face-to-face is unbeatable.As humans, we are built for direct social interaction. Our brain is trained to use all available information to identify messages from the communication process. Body language, micro reflexes are parts of the person-to-person communication which are heavily affected by using non person-to-person means (digital or analogic).
A model of communication looks something like: Sender Idea->Sender Concret Formatting (Language)->Transmission/Reception->Receiver Language->Receiver Idea.
The information is lost/affected in each stage.
The transformation between idea and language is done by cultural means which are not identical for Sender and Receiver.
The Transmission/Reception is affected by jamming (fatigue and boredom included in jamming).
Both ways of communication: main and feed back are impacted by the restrictions built in the technological intermediation.
I.e, using email, all body language and paralanguage (ie.e intonation) is lost, therefore the need of emoticons, the expression containing the idea is restricted to written text (low flow of info, restricted number of words, reduced attention span etc.).
Using videocall adds paralanguage (most of it) and some of body language (although most of it is lost) extending the number of words used for expressing ideas.
Yes, the indirect meeting tools are valuable. They bring cost reduction, time gain etc.
But, from communication point of view, nothing beats an in person meeting.
CIO in Healthcare and Biotech6 months ago
No, I would say that face-to-face networking is even more important. Digital options are good for some surface connections, however, I have found that they are more challenging because of the ability for participants to "multi-task". Face-to-face is a forcing function that requires more focus and a greater effort to network. I would encourage you to reconsider and put more focus on in-person opportunities.