vlbrown-mzydt

There is a popular belief, generally put forward by human resources departments, time management consultants, and other “experts”, that formal communication and discussion between people in the workplace should never be handled by email (i.e. written). “Important” communication should be handled by voice.

Preferably, they say, this communication should be in a face to face meeting. If that’s not possible, they recommend using the telephone. The rationale that is typically given is that written methods of communication (i.e. email) don’t convey tone and facial expression.

A recently published study would seem to support this view.

According to a forthcoming study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, we’re all terrible when it comes to understanding e-mail. In an article entitled “Egocentrism over email: Can we communicate as well as we think?”, Nicholas Epley and Justin Kruger argue that the evidence shows that we’re about as likely to misread the tone of an e-mail as we are to get it right. “Without the benefit of paralinguistic cues such as gesture, emphasis, and intonation, it can be difficult to convey emotion and tone over electronic mail (e-mail),” they report.

Study on e-mail points to problem with e-go, Ars Technica, February 14, 2006 , italics mine

I don’t deny that it can be difficult to convey emotion and tone in a written medium. However, is this a satisfactory reason to insist on spoken communication instead?

We Need To Talk

Do you find those words as ominous as I do?

In-person, spoken interaction is certainly no a cure-all. “Social cues” can be misleading and misinterpreted in any conversation, especially if the participants don’t know each other well, come from different backgrounds and cultures, possess different language skills, or have conflicting personal agendas.

[T]hose reading messages unconsciously interpret them based on their current mood, stereotypes and expectations.

The Secret Cause of Flame Wars, Wired News, Feb, 13, 2006

People in face-to-face spoken conversations also unconsciously interpret what they hear based on their current mood, stereotypes and expectations. In stressful conversations (e.g. with authority figures (managers), people you need something from, or co-workers with differing working styles), the mood through which the conversation is interpreted will be… less than positive.

Worse, in a face-to-face conversation, with no time to think, pause,
or carefully consider, facial expressions, tone, and volume can all too quickly become
inappropriate for the situation. Spoken communication is no stranger to escalating problems. Have you never found yourself in an in-person shouting “discussion” with someone and wondered how you got there? On the ‘Net, we call this a “flame war” but there’s a much older, pre-technology term. It’s called an “argument”.

Everyone brings, to any communication, their own feelings, knowledge, opinions, and views, through which they filter everything they experience.
One-on-one communication works best between people who already understand each other and want to get along. It works less well between people who do not already understand each other. It works poorly to resolve issues between virtual strangers.

…it’s something about the human passion for communication mixed in with the problems that it entails, written or otherwise. Epley and Kruger suggest that this may all boil down to egocentrism,…

Ars Technica

It’s What You Say…

When you probe deeper into these recent studies of “effective communication over email” you find this interesting point:

In five separate studies, participants consistently overestimated their ability to communicate effectively over e-mail. The studies paid attention to how the participants attempted to communicate humor, sarcasm, and other emotions

Ars Technica

Do humor, sarcasm, and “other emotions” belong in formal business communication between virtual strangers? I don’t think so.

…and How You Say It

Perhaps, instead of saying “don’t use email” we should be providing guidelines for communication. Think about the people you are communicating with. How well do you know them? How well do they know you? Pay attention to context and audience, to what you say and how you say it.

Kaitlin Duck Sherwood has some good ideas. I don’t entirely agree with her statement that email is a new medium of communication. However, she’s certainly correct that people treat email differently. I think her advice can be extended to guidelines for how to communicate with people you don’t know well, whatever medium you choose.

I believe strongly in the value of electronic mail in both corporate and personal domains. Email is cheaper and faster than a letter, less intrusive than a phone call, less hassle than a FAX. Using email, differences in location and time zone are less of an obstacle to communication. There is also evidence that email leads to a more egalitarian information structure.

Because of these advantages, email use is exploding. By 1998, 30% of adults in the United States and Canada had come on-line.

Sadly, in the twenty-plus years that I have been using email, I have seen a large number of people suffer mishaps because they did not understand how to adjust their communication styles to this new medium. I wrote [A Beginner’s Guide to Effective Email] to try to help people avoid those problems.

Kaitlin Duck Sherwood, A Beginner’s Guide to Effective Email

If it’s Written, It Can Be Referenced

For any arguments that people make against using email, I will make the same arguments for using email. Formal business communication should always be in writing.

At least with written communication, there’s a chance of reaching a resolution. No one can say “I never said that” (although they can certainly say “That isn’t what I meant”). What you said is documented.

While it is possible to misunderstand the underlying meaning of something in email, or in any written communication, it is impossible to misremember the words. When the words are recorded, it is possible to work out the meaning, given time and consideration (and, sometimes, a third party).

You may discover that your words were misunderstood, your meaning was misinterpreted, or your phrasing wasn’t clear enough for the other person. One of you might be having “a bad day”. You may, sometimes literally, not be speaking the same language.

Perhaps your “styles” are simply incompatible and you will never reach clear communication. But, at least, you can work to overcome these problems without anyone’s faulty memory getting in the way.