A number of years ago, an executive recruiter, perhaps a bit ahead of her time, suggested that we get to know each other with a face-to-face conversation, via videoconferencing.  The conversation took place at a Kinko’s (now FedEx Office) store in a cold backroom lit by harsh fluorescent lighting. We spoke across a television monitor that seemed to shrink her dimensions, and undoubtedly mine as well.  Maybe that explains why, though I was well-dressed, felt relaxed, and came across as friendly, I had something of an off day. I simply was not my sharpest, smartest self.

So imagine my surprise when the recruiter followed up the next day gushing with enthusiasm about how terrific I’d been, and how she couldn’t wait to present me to her client. An unexpected reaction, indeed. I never understood it… until now.

We live today in the videoconferencing era. With improved technology and much lower costs relative to travel, videoconferencing has become an absolutely acceptable and increasingly common substitute for face-to-face communication.  And when it comes to sharing knowledge, versus, say, building relationships, videoconferencing would certainly seem to be the equivalent of face-to-face. After all, whether in person or by video stream, the content is the same, so how big a difference can the media make?

More than you’d think, according to some very interesting research by Carlos Ferran of Penn State and Stephanie Watts of Boston University. They took advantage of a “natural experiment” – a series of medical seminars with both on-site and video audiences – to figure out whether the impact of the seminars differed between those who were “face-to-face”, that is, in the auditorium where the seminars were given, and those who watched it on video.

What they found seems counter-intuitive.  Those in the same room as the seminar presenter were most influenced by the quality of the speaker’s argument.  Those watching the same presentation with the same content at the same time on video feed were more likely to be influenced by the “likability” of the speaker, that is, those things about the speaker you’d expect to notice more at close quarters: dress, expression, gestures, etc.

Their explanation for these results derives from something called the “dual-process paradigm of human information processing.” (Don’t worry; it’s not something you need to know.) Put simply, it states that when it’s too hard to concentrate on thinking through and assessing content – because, for example, the distractions inherent in watching someone on a video conference monitor make it hard to concentrate on what they’re saying – we rely on automatic, mostly unconscious “cues” as to someone’s credibility and the quality of their content or argument.

“Cues” in this care are non-content-related things — attractiveness, tone of voice, non-verbal gestures, facial expressions, how well they dress — that academics summarize with the term “likability.”

Superficial?  Yes. But, for the most part — not always, but for the most part — surprisingly accurate predictors of whether or not someone will be perceived as credible, and their content compelling.  To take one example, if you walk into a medical office, and there are two people standing there, one in a business suit, the other in torn jeans and a tee-shirt, are you going to spend a lot of time thinking about which person is the doctor?  Most people won’t, they’ll respond automatically to the available “cues,” in this case, dress, and they’ll address the person in the suit. And they’ll almost always be right.

The key point is simple: in the right circumstances, the right “cues” can have as much of an impact as the right ideas.  And videoconferencing is apparently one of those circumstances.

The implication for strategic leaders can be a frustrating one: for better or worse, you have to be at least as attentive, if not more so, to how you come across when doing a videoconference as to what it is you have to say. So: Dress like you’re going to a job interview.  Slow down your presentation. Reinforce your main points.

You may not be your sharpest, smartest self that day, but you will still get the job done. I know. I was well-dressed, relaxed, “likable”. And I not only got the job done…. I got the job.