Death, where is thy sting?
We asked our respondents to list their biggest bugbears with audio conference calls. Sixty per cent said that they were frustrated by people talking over each other, a consequence of a lack of nonverbal signals. Just over a third told us that they were irritated by people getting cut off due to bad connections. Almost the same percentage (31 per cent) dreaded the uncomfortable silence before all respondents arrive. Twenty-eight per cent were annoyed by people who talk continuously being unable to gauge the lack of interest of others, while 20 per cent were bothered by ‘lurkers' - people who fail to introduce themselves and sit silently, contributing nothing. A number of respondents (18 per cent) also reported being irritated by long and overly complicated passcodes (figure 2).
The ability to join conference calls from anywhere is both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand it facilitates collaboration, but on the other participants can be easily distracted. For example, 30 per cent admitted to taking calls in the street, 22 per cent from the toilet and 12 per cent while cleaning the house or walking the dog.
"I lost interest and did not realise I was being asked a question, and then I didn't know what the question was," said one respondent, voicing what is surely a common experience to those who spend a lot of time on conference calls. The disembodied, semi-detached nature of the conference calls means that people tend to tune in and out, or forget that other people might be listening in.
"I had a deep and meaningful with an employee at my desk while waiting for a conference to start. The mic was on and the room was full by the time I finished, and they heard the lot," another person admitted.
Indeed, failure to master the mute button was the most common cause for embarrassment. Another respondent related having to listen to a heated marital tiff as a result of such an oversight by the warring parties.
Among other issues mentioned were those resulting from the inability to see who you are talking to ("I assumed someone was a man but it turned out she was a woman"; "I made disparaging remarks about someone not realising they were on the call") and the difficulty in establishing leadership and direction when having to rely only on nonvisual signals.
Connectivity and call quality were other frequently mentioned topics, with attendees - generally those on mobile devices - being dropped off calls, and others experiencing intrusive levels of background noise, either because a caller is dialling in from a noisy environment or because of problems with transmission.
Given the large number of potential bear traps inherent in the process of conference calling, it is perhaps surprising that it has endured (and been endured) for so long, particularly given that viable alternatives are available. Asked about the advantages of the most obvious alternative, video conferencing, over the audio version, only six per cent said there were none. The largest number (57 per cent) rated video for the ability to put a face to a voice, while 51 per cent said that they thought people were more inclined to pay attention when they were on a video call (figure 3).
However, despite these advantages video conferencing was in widespread use at just 28 per cent of the workplaces of those surveyed. The necessity of a screen may be one factor; the unreliable nature of 3G/4G connectivity another; but it was ease of use, efficient consumption of bandwidth and compatibility with multiple platforms that topped the list of features people wanted to see.
Perhaps the main thing going for audio conferencing is its universality and simplicity. Whatever the frustrations it induces - and there are many - there's surely a few more years in the century-old invention yet.
