Adapting to the Challenges of Online Meetings
Before 2020, our lab usually met in person. Sometimes, one-on-one, sometimes in small groups, and sometimes with the entire Interactive Measurement Group. We would have meetings in Kim’s office, the Central Desert Complex, or the computer lab. We would hold end-of-semester parties across campus, at local parks, or in people’s homes. Then in spring 2020, we moved all our meetings online. Since this move, we have faced not just the challenges of doing research and helping each other figure out career goals, but also a whole new set of challenges – those inherent to online meetings. Over time, we identified two key challenges to online meetings – impoverished communication and an inability to distinguish voices – and developed adaptations that allow us to communicate clearly, be productive, and maintain good relationships.
Impoverished Communication
A constant and unavoidable feature of online meetings is the occurrence of a short delay. When another person speaks or makes a gesture, you don’t hear or see them right away. For example, when Kim and Cassandra tried to sing the alphabet song together (a-b-c-d-e-f-g…), Kim heard Cassandra as singing too slow, and Cassandra heard Kim as singing too slow: We both thought the other person was behind. When we tried to slow down to synchronize, it just got worse. During some calls, the delay is short: just a few milliseconds. On other calls – particularly ones where some people are using Wi-Fi or home internet – the delay can be as much as a full second (Boland et al., 2022).
Because of this delay, it is often unclear if a person has finished speaking, and so people will frequently start talking at the same time, seemingly interrupting each other. We found these interruptions impede conversations where you build on each other’s ideas, stifling both creativity and problem-solving. Additionally, conversations can feel awkward if there’s too long between when you say something and they nod in agreement or between when they make a joke and you laugh. Consequently, almost no online conversation goes as smoothly as we would have hoped.
Over time, we have discovered three ways of maintaining good relationships in the face of apparently poor rapport. First, we recognize that over-talking is an inevitable feature of online calls and adjust our behavior accordingly, in particular, forgiving people who seem to interrupt and deferring to others who are trying to talk at the same time. Second, we remind ourselves that the not-quite-right feeling we get from an online call is probably due to the software, not the participants, the relationships, or that particular conversation. Third, we spend extra time and effort on relationship building: asking others what is new, sharing personal stories, telling jokes, and making connections.
This effort is essential not just for maintaining good relationships, but also for being productive. If we have good relationships with our collaborators, we are more likely to want to work on the project and to help out one another. And when we disagree on some issue, we have strong social capital that allows us to give each other the benefit of the doubt, remain respectful and interested in each other’s point of view, and persist at uncomfortable conversations until we finally reach a solution.
In addition to adapting to the constant delays in online calls, we’ve also had to overcome technical challenges that are intermittent and unpredictable: cameras freezing, voices becoming distorted, browsers crashing, and internet connections being lost. When technical problems interfere with smooth communication, we have found it’s essential to acknowledge they happened: We don’t just pretend everything is working smoothly. We’ve learned not to answer a question we couldn’t hear and not to assume others agree without hearing their confirmation. Instead, we repeat what we were saying or ask others to do so. To fix audio or visual problems, we might turn our microphones or cameras off and on or switch to different ones. If that doesn’t work, we sometimes leave the call and rejoin. Solving problems can take several seconds and sometimes more than a minute. If someone freezes, Kim often talks and moves continuously, patiently saying nothing much at all, so no one misses important information and so everyone knows when the connection has stabilized again. In general, the key is to solve technical issues immediately, as best we can.
If technical problems persist, we jointly problem-solve short- and long-term solutions. In the short term, would we like to end the meeting and call each other with a new link? Would we like everyone to mute themselves and call each other via cell phones to get better audio? Would we like to abandon the current video-conferencing platform and call each other using other software, switching to Zoom, Skype, WebEx, Discord, etc.? Of course, problem-solving can be hampered by the very problems we are trying to solve. If we can’t see or hear each other, we problem-solve using the chat window, email, or text messages. Sometimes we just have to get creative. Long-term, we can discuss what the cause of the problem is and what might solve it. Using headphones? Calling from a different location? Updating software? Replacing a microphone? Kim, Cassandra, and other lab members have done all of these. When we value the full participation of all participants, the problem-solving involved in seeing and hearing each other can become a key part of relationship building.
Even if no unexpected problems occur, it isn’t as easy to see and hear each other during online meetings as it is during in-person meetings. Because of this, it’s harder to perceive emotional signals that are conveyed visually and vocally. This can lead to miscommunications and bad feelings. To minimize these problems, we try to arrange the best sound and video quality possible: Using high-quality microphones and cameras (such as the ones in our lab), turning up the microphone volume, arranging good lighting, and avoiding noisy locations are all important. We also arrange backgrounds (or virtual backgrounds) that allow others to see us clearly. To arrange the background for her home office, Kim brought home books from UNLV, moved small pictures that looked cluttered, and set the angle on her camera to carefully cut her printer out of the viewable area. Another lab member hung a brick-patterned sheet, which was both professional and easy, and this physical background didn’t have the fuzzy edges that virtual background sometimes have. Speaking of fuzzy edges – when using virtual backgrounds, both Kim and Cassandra have put their hair in pony-tails so that the camera can distinguish them from their backgrounds. Finally, it’s important that we put ourselves in the picture. So others can see our facial expressions, we ensure our entire heads and faces are visible. So others can see our bodily gestures, we ensure our shoulders, hands, and arms are visible, or else we raise our hands and arms so they are visible when we are gesturing. Taking these steps can help others see and hear us. But we also need to be able to see and hear others. Using a high-quality speaker and a large screen is a big help, and so we try to avoid taking video calls on our phones. If we cannot see or hear others, we let them know; for example, we might tell them we want to be able to see and hear them because we value their input and contributions. As necessary, we ask them to turn up their microphone, sit closer to their computer, or adjust their lighting.
Despite our best efforts, emotional signals are still harder to perceive online than in person. To maintain good relationships, we recommend five strategies. First, provide exaggerated emotional displays. For example, when Kim is happy, she smiles really big, laughs loudly, and waves her arms. Second, state your emotions out loud. Kim might say, “I’m really happy.” Or “That’s great news!” Or “I’m worried about that deadline.” Third, give people the benefit of the doubt. If it seems like maybe someone is being snarky, withhold judgment until you have more information. Fourth, do not escalate. Rather than disagreeing with what someone said or what they seem to have implied, Cassandra might rephrase her previous idea or ask for the other person’s opinion. Fifth, be conservative: Be cautious with dry humor and avoid using small gestures (e.g., a wink, a smirk) to convey important information or to contradict what you said in words.
Communication during an online meeting is often a matter of attitude. Recognize that you want to communicate with the other people and convey that to them.
Inability to Distinguish Voices
Even if there was no delay in the call, even if there were no technical problems, even if audio and video quality were perfect, most video conference software makes it hard to distinguish voices. This problem occurs for two reasons. First, everyone is the same volume. When meeting in person, people who are close to you are louder than people who are far away, making it possible to hear the people next to you and ignore everyone else. When using most video-conferencing software, if twenty people were to talk at the same time, you wouldn’t be able to hear what any one person was saying because the voices would drown each other out. Second, every voice comes from the same location. In person, people’s voices are located at different places, helping you distinguish one voice from another. In online meetings, voices cannot be distinguished because every voice comes from one place: your speaker.
Because every voice is the same volume and comes from the same location, it is impossible to have large groups of people all in the same online room talking in small groups. For example, when we have 20-30 people present at the beginning of a lab meeting, it’s just not possible for friends to greet each other and chat about how the weekend went; we know, we tried. If we want to have a single conversation in a large group (perhaps 5 – 30 people), we must arrange for only one person to speak at a time. To do this, we have two options: (a) individuals can politely take turns speaking or (b) the organizer can control the mute button. If those in the meeting know each other and plan to work together in the future, we think turn-taking can promote spontaneous and heart-felt conversation. Though there may be some accidental over-talking and awkward pauses, attendees will likely defer to one another, disregard those awkward moments, and have a productive meeting during which they build strong connections. On the other hand, if participants don’t know each other or are not invested in their long-term relationships, experience has taught us that the organizer should control the mute button. In informal situations (such as online classes or lab meetings), the organizer can mute everyone but the speaker and ask attendees to raise their hands if they want to speak. In more formal situations (such as conference presentations), audience members can post questions and comments in the chat window, and the moderator can read selected posts out loud: This way, the only people talking are the speaker and the moderator. Regardless of which method is being used, we make sure to keep the chat window open so we notice questions from anyone who is unable or unwilling to speak out loud.
If instead we want to have multiple conversations with fewer participants, we use breakout rooms. To ensure productive discussions in those breakout rooms, we do two things. First, we limit each room to 2 – 4 people. With just 2 people, conversations work well: Delays and technical issues only cause minor problems. With 3 or 4 people, internet delays result in some interrupting and over-talking, but participants usually manage good conversations just by taking turns speaking and by yielding to each other when they accidentally over-talk. However, with 5 or more in a room, people seem inhibited. We have seen this happen in multiple contexts, including online classes, lab meetings, and faculty meetings. Maybe people are worried about speaking over someone else and don’t want to be rude. Whatever the cause, most people sit there, silent. Usually, either two people monopolize the conversation while everyone else watches or else one person does all the talking and has to call on others to get them to speak at all. Both those formats are fine if that was your intention. But if we want everyone to contribute, we keep groups to 2 – 4 people per breakout room.
Second, to have productive discussions in breakout rooms, we need to ensure the instructions are clear. The meeting organizers can’t be in every room to help the conversations along, and so we need to set up the groups for success before we send them into their breakout rooms. If the instructions are detailed, we paste them in the chat window or show them on the screen, go through them verbally, and then ask if anyone has questions. Next, we usually designate breakout room leaders or ask each room to select their own. The leader can keep the group on task, take notes, ensure everyone is participating, and report back to the main room once the breakout session has ended. Once the rooms are open, we hang out in the main room for a while, answering any remaining questions and ensuring each person is able to enter their room. If necessary, we put people into their room ourselves. Once everyone is in their rooms, we sometimes broadcast announcements. For example, we might re-send the instructions or tell them how much time they have left. Once people have returned to the main room, we provide a brief summary or ask each leader to do so, before moving on to the next part of our meeting.
Conclusion
Online meetings are here to stay. Under many circumstances, they are cheaper and more convenient than in-person meetings, and they reduce the climate impacts of transportation across the city, across the country, or around the planet. Under many circumstances, they are also more powerful, accessible, and equitable than in-person meetings: Every participant has a computer and is able to fully contribute. Thus, online meetings will continue to be common. One-on-one, small group, and large group. We all need to get used to them.
Over time, the software is likely to improve: Audio and visual will be better, the delay will be shorter, and virtual reality meetings will allow participants to see and hear only the people who are nearby. But regardless of the technical improvements, there are still likely to be social challenges ranging from background noises and interruptions to unrealistic and disparate expectations. Therefore, many of the strategies we’ve shared here will continue to be relevant.
When you are in an online meeting, assume others want to communicate with you and want everyone to benefit from your interactions. Work together to solve the new challenges you face. Be flexible. Focus foremost on your desire to communicate effectively, rather than any particular rule, process, or protocol. This attitude has helped us – and can help you – get the most out of online meetings.
Reference
Boland, J. E., Fonseca, P., Mermelstein, I., & Williamson, M. (2022). Zoom disrupts the rhythm of conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(6), 1272–1282. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001150
Kimberly A. Barchard is a Professor in the Department of Psychology at UNLV and is the Director of the Interactive Measurement Group. She works to empower lab members to accomplish their personal and professional goals, particularly through the development of leadership, research, and organizational skills.
Cassandra Hoffman has been a member of the Interactive Measurement Group since the fall of 2020. During her time in the lab, she has served as a poster team leader and managing editor for the lab’s newsletter, and she has conducted a variety of workshops to help new and existing lab members. In the spring of 2022, she graduated from UNLV with a B.A. in psychology and a minor in neuroscience. In the near future, she plans to pursue a Ph.D. in clinical psychology, during which she hopes to conduct research on moral injury and/or trauma-related disorders.