Why presence is the new productivity metric for distributed teams
As video call fatigue undermines collaboration and travel budgets tighten, workplace leaders are discovering that immersive, life-size communication offers measurable returns that standard conferencing cannot match
Five years after the pandemic normalised remote work, organisations face an uncomfortable paradox. Video conferencing was supposed to solve distance, yet research shows the problems still persist.
Stanford’s Human Interaction Lab has documented how conventional video calls generate cognitive fatigue through excessive close-up eye gaze, reduced physical mobility, and the mental burden of interpreting stripped-down nonverbal cues. A follow-up study of 10,322 participants found that 13.8% of women and 5.5% of men reported extreme fatigue linked to constant self-view alone. Microsoft’s Human Factors research confirms that back-to-back virtual meetings cause cumulative stress, with beta wave asymmetry (a marker of stress) building steadily and concentration faltering after 30 to 40 minutes.
The result is a communication gap that neither traditional video conferencing nor business travel can adequately fill. Short calls work for transactional updates. Complex negotiations or relationship-building often still require flights. But the critical middle ground (training sessions, creative workshops, client presentations, strategic planning) remains poorly served by either option.
The science of why screens fall short
The limitations of conventional video conferencing are not matters of bandwidth or resolution. They stem from fundamental mismatches between how screens present people and how humans naturally communicate. Jeremy Bailenson’s landmark research in Technology, Mind, and Behaviour identified four drivers of video call exhaustion: faces displayed at intimate distance (under 60cm), constant self-view acting as an unnatural mirror, cameras constraining movement to a fixed frame, and the cognitive overhead of compensating for missing context.
These are design problems, not technology limitations. Traditional webcam placement creates a structural impossibility: cameras positioned above screens mean participants can never make true eye contact. A review published in Displays found that enabling genuine eye contact in video communication ‘makes communication richer and more efficient’ and improves trust, with clear implications for negotiations, sales conversations, and cross-border team cohesion. Yet standard platforms cannot deliver it.
Calculating the return on immersive presence
Immersive video portals (large-format displays showing participants at life-size with natural eye-contact alignment) address each failure mode directly. Full-body visibility restores interpersonal distance cues. Room-scale interaction permits pacing, gesturing, and whiteboarding. The absence of self-view eliminates the mirror effect that can capture up to 70% of attention away from the conversation.
Early enterprise deployments suggest the productivity gains are substantial. Pilot data from professional services firms shows average session lengths of 82 minutes (nearly triple typical video meetings), with user satisfaction at 99% and NPS scores of 8.6. More than 84% of participants reported they would use immersive portals to replace frequent travel. The economic case follows: JLL estimates that avoiding 10 international trips annually between three connected locations saves approximately USD $60,000 in direct costs while eliminating 40 tonnes of carbon emissions.
A shifting competitive landscape
The market for immersive collaboration technology is consolidating around screen-based solutions rather than virtual reality. Meta’s decision to shut down Horizon Workrooms (after Reality Labs accumulated losses exceeding USD $40 billion since 2019) signals that headset-dependent approaches face insurmountable adoption barriers in professional settings. Cisco’s discontinuation of its original TelePresence line, meanwhile, leaves a vacuum in the dedicated-room segment that newer entrants are beginning to fill.
For workplace strategists, the implication is clear. The question is no longer whether to invest in presence technology, but how to integrate it into hybrid work infrastructure. The organisations achieving the highest return will be those that identify their ‘missing middle’: the high-value, extended interactions where standard video fails and travel costs compound.
What leaders should consider
Presence is becoming a measurable capability, not merely an experience. Organisations evaluating immersive technology should audit their meeting patterns to quantify time spent in sub-optimal formats, assess travel expenditure against collaboration outcomes, and pilot room-scale solutions in contexts where relationship quality directly affects results (M&A discussions, executive coaching, distributed product development, and global client engagement).
The ROI of presence lies not in replacing all video calls, but in recognising which conversations deserve more than a grid of faces on a screen. As distributed work becomes permanent, the competitive advantage will belong to those who invest in making distance disappear when it matters most.
