Ring the changes on conference calls By Rhymer Rigby

Ring the changes on conference calls By Rhymer Rigby

Published: August 11 2009 22:37 | Last updated: August 11 2009 22:37

Mention conference calls and you will soon discover the corporate world is sharply polarised.

On the one hand are those who sing their praises as a productivity- boosting business tool that helps cut travel costs at a time when budgets are tight.

Then there are those who absolutely hate them, believing them to be unwieldy and a poor substitute for a meeting.

But, love them or loathe them, they are an unavoidable fixture in business life.

“I couldn’t do my job without them,” says Tony Reeves, European partner at Clifford Chance, based in Brussels. “My clients are all over the world, in different time zones. They’re the only way of getting people together.” However, he adds, there are two golden rules: “The first is that you have to have a disciplined chair with an agenda and the second is that you can’t have mobile phones without a mute function.”

Mr Reeves says without an agenda, a conference call can quickly become rudderless or hijacked. He also cautions that the agenda should be short, as participants’ attention drifts more quickly when they are on the phone and they forget where to come in on the conversation.

The reason mobiles need to be muted is simply that they are prone to pick up and amplify background noise, which can disrupt the virtual meeting when others are talking and greatly reduce its efficiency.

Jane Farrell, chief executive of the consultancy Equality Works, takes a similar view: “The rules that are important in conference calls are those which are important in meeting.” Like Mr Reeves, she’s a strong believer in a good chair. “You want someone who is going to direct the meeting, to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to speak. They will also direct the call – for instance, saying, ‘We need a bit more detail’ when someone has been unclear.”

Cary Cooper, professor of business psychology at Lancaster University School of management, says a good chair will also be adept at conflict resolution. “In conference calls, conflict can be much more difficult to defuse. In a meeting, if things get heated people will normally take a break.” Not being physically there, he explains, tends to make people less inhibited: “If you want to be obstinate and block things, or argue and behave badly, it’s far easier to do.”

Mr Reeves believes conference calls are far more effective when done with people with whom you have spent a bit of face time. “It’s important to know the people you’re speaking to, as you can’t see and judge their body language. You also won’t know their seniority or their level of knowledge.”

There is also the question of the number of people involved. Ms Farrell says ideally there should be fewer than six, with 10 as an absolute maximum, although Mr Reeves notes that “four very loud people who want to express their opinions and don’t listen can be worse than 10 well-behaved people”.

Whatever the case, though, in bigger conference calls you need to introduce yourself each time you speak – which can feel rather odd – and a good chair should summarise the call at the end. Speaking of which, there needs to be a definite time limit: anything more than an hour is likely to be subject to a law of rapidly diminishing returns.

All these rules are fairly straightforward for a normal conference call, but it gets a bit more complex when you have a split call, incorporating some people in a meeting room and others who are elsewhere.

Ms Farrell says this type of call can be tricky to manage but is worthwhile. “I’ve done meetings where most of us were in a room, but one person was in Edinburgh on a mobile and another was in Belfast. Having that flexibility is very attractive, especially when things need to be discussed quickly.”

Although conference calls are not the same as being there in person, she says, the real benefit is they allow flexible working. However, she adds, care must be taken to ensure that remote participants are brought into the conversation.

Not everyone is convinced. Amelia Hibbs, a media planner, is not a fan: “I think that they’re awful,” she says, “You have people in various locations and you’re led to believe that it’s going to be similar to a real meeting. In fact, it’s far from it. People have complete disregard for normal meeting etiquette. You can always hear them them shuffling paper, typing, and shutting doors when they nip out.”

Ms Hibbs adds that people will often dial in late and that if more than a couple of people start talking – which would be a natural part of a physical meeting – it quickly becomes unintelligible.

Moreover, if you have a split meeting it can create a real “them and us” culture.

Worst of all though, she says, working in advertising, where so much is about nuance, not being able to read the body language is a real disadvantage. “And what I find really funny is the immature behaviour they bring out in people. Sometimes you can almost hear the faces being pulled.”

All this invites the question: does video-conferencing get round these problems? The answer is “Yes”, but it throws up significant difficulties of its own, not least that it often involves the inconvenience of going to a booked suite. Besides, if you are just on the phone you can play a part no matter where you are. “Last time I went skiing,” says Mr Reeves, “there was a guy on the balcony opposite our apartment doing a very professional-sounding conference call in his boxers.”