Featured Product
This Week in Quality Digest Live
Innovation Features
National Physical Laboratory
Using Raman spectroscopy for graphene and related 2D materials
Ashley Hixson
Partnership with Hexagon’s Manufacturing Intelligence division provides employable metrology skills
Annual meeting in Phoenix, April 26–28
Krysten Crawford
Stanford researchers designed a program to accelerate hiring for minorities and women
Rupa Mahanti
Understanding data decay

More Features

Innovation News
New features revolutionize metrology and inspection processes with nondimensional AI inspection
Strategic partnership expands industrial machining and repair capabilities
Supports robots from 14 leading manufacturers
AI designed to improve productivity and processes
Ultrasonic flaw detector now has B/C scan capability, improved connectivity, and an app to aid inspection
Tapping tooz for AR/VR competence center
Provides opportunities to deepen leadership capabilities
ASI Construction partners with end users to deliver solutions to production operations

More News

Edmund Andrews


Thinking Inside the Box: Why Virtual Meetings Generate Fewer Ideas

For creative collaboration, sometimes you can’t beat a face-to-face meeting

Published: Tuesday, July 26, 2022 - 12:03

Even if the pandemic abates enough for a return to normal, all evidence indicates that a substantial share of Americans will continue to work from home, relying on videoconferencing to team up.

Yet, while the ease of gathering virtually has made the shift to widespread remote work possible, a new study finds that on-screen meetings have a significant drawback: They hinder creative collaboration.

The study, co-authored by Jonathan Levav of Stanford Graduate School of Business, and Melanie Brucks of Columbia Business School, finds that in-person teams generated more ideas than remote teams working on the same problem.

In a laboratory experiment conducted at Stanford, half the teams worked together in person and half did so online. The in-person teams generated 15- to 20-percent more ideas than their virtual counterparts. In a separate experiment involving almost 1,500 engineers at a multinational corporation, in-person teams came up with more ideas, which received higher ratings for originality.

The researchers say they’ve identified a reason online meetings generated fewer good ideas: When people focus on the narrow field of vision of a screen, their thinking becomes narrower as well. “If your visual field is narrow, then your cognition is likely to be as well,” Levav says. “For creative idea generation, narrowed focus is a problem.”

In contrast, people who meet in person get creative stimulation by visually wandering around the space they’re in, which makes them more likely to cognitively wander as well. “In a video interaction, you need to fix your gaze at the screen because otherwise you’re projecting to your partner that you’re looking at something else and distracted,” Levav says. But that distraction is actually useful when it comes to sparking ideas. “If you think about disruptive ideas, they come from putting together broad concepts that are seemingly unrelated.”

Levav, a professor of marketing who has studied how environmental cues affect people’s choices, cautions that these findings don’t mean that virtual meetings have no value. His study also found that teams meeting online did as well and possibly better than in-person teams when it came to selecting the best ideas.

Reading the room

The real lesson, Levav says, is that the costs and benefits of working remotely are more nuanced and less understood than most people realize.

“The shift to working more from home is here,” he says. “But the pandemic happened without giving us a chance to think about how to do remote working right. If we’re going to maintain this transition, we need to be deliberate about how we manage the process. That’s going to be the managerial challenge of the next several years.”

“You want to generate ideas that can be structured like a sprawling oak tree, not a tall and narrow cypress. In the video interactions, the idea structures look more like cypresses.”
— Jonathan Levav

Levav and Brucks initiated their study well before Covid arrived. They began with a lab experiment in which participants teamed up to generate novel uses for Frisbees and bubble wrap, a common task in the academic literature on creativity. Participants were placed in offices that contained the same assortment of objects, from filing cabinets and folders to more offbeat items like a bowl of lemons, a yoga ball box, and a poster with a skeleton on it.

The researchers monitored the participants by video, tracking their eye movements and language as well as the ideas they generated. Overall, the in-person teams generated between 15-percent and 20-percent more ideas than those who met via video. The in-person participants also observed more and remembered more about their surroundings, and that increased recall correlated with more creativity.

The researchers then carried out a similar experiment in real life, enlisting 1,490 engineers at a multinational company spread across five countries in Europe and Asia. In contrast to the lab experiment, the engineers had genuine incentives to come up with good ideas because they could potentially evolve into new business ventures.

Once again, the in-person teams generated about 15-percent more ideas. They were also more likely to jump off in novel directions, generating ideas that were very different from each other rather than being just minor variations on the same theme. “You want to generate ideas that can be structured like a sprawling oak tree, not a tall and narrow cypress,” Levav says. “In the video interactions, the idea structures look more like cypresses.”

Interestingly, Levav and Brucks found that virtual meetings didn’t seem to hinder how well the participants got along. Using semantic analysis of how participants spoke to each other, they found that the virtual and in-person teams showed the same amount of mutual trust and social connection.

As remote work remains a fixture of many people’s lives, Levav says it would be worth exploring how virtual meetings work in other contexts, such as job interviews and larger group collaborations. But for now, he says, “We don’t yet know enough to make strident judgments about the superiority of working remotely vs. in person. What our research shows is that there’s subtlety.” In other words, it’s too soon to zoom to conclusions.

First published June 29, 2022, on Stanford Business Insights.


About The Author

Edmund Andrews’s picture

Edmund Andrews

Edmund L. Andrews is a writer, editor, and adviser to corporate and nonprofit clients. After more than two decades as a business and economics journalist, mostly with The New York Times, he provides both substantive analysis and communications help on economic, financial, and public policy issues. Andrews is the author of Busted: Life Inside the Great Mortgage Meltdown (W. W. Norton & Co., 2009).



Another viewpoint on Virtual Meetings

I wonder what the results of such a study would be if you have a virtual meeting WITHOUT the video cameras on each participant? In my experience, virtual team meetings where there is one person sharing a computer screen - maybe with slides, maybe as a white board, whatever is pertinent- and the rest of the team are participating only via audio are very productive. This allows participants to move around, to look at other references, etc without feeling like they are being "watched". This makes it much more comfortable to participate in discussions. Would be worth testing before making the broad conclusion that in person meetings are more productive than virtual ones. 


That's exactly what I was thinking.  In my company, online meetings generally do not use cameras.  People share content via screen-sharing but the personal videos are off.  I think this approach makes participants more comfortable to let their eyes wander and not worry about how they look to the rest of the group.