In a world of the most sophisticated communication ever known to humankind why is there still so much of an issue between individuals, businesses and indeed, electorates regarding how we understand one another? Dr David Cliff explores some of the factors at play.
A typical work week can involve hundreds of emails, phone calls and social media postings, this is only set to be augmented by assistive technologies that get our messages out, such as AI.
And yet in all of this, misunderstandings occur, projects slide, over promising and under delivering occurs, projects go over budget and stress and confusion reign.
The science suggests that human memory and meaningful engagement is limited. Whilst online you might know thousands, your truly closest contacts will usually amount to less than 150. In primitive societies it was essential for survival for one to know, relate and understand people’s individual capabilities to contribute to the community, whether that was the ability to grow crops, to defend from threat or specific artisan skills that increased survivability.
In more secure post-industrial societies, much of our communication concerns market forces, wealth acquisition and connection with large numbers in the pursuit of economic goals. We grade people in terms of socio-economic status, age, lifestyle, sector, title and credential. We often communicate with them on a scatter gun basis hoping that the sheer number of communication episodes result in modest percentage responses that are nonetheless valuable.
This inevitably results in information overload as masses of marketing and other information received by individuals must then be sifted somehow. Add in fraudulent activity and recipients become bombarded, overloaded and vulnerable.
Communication then becomes an issue of filtration, diversion, avoidance, and selective uptake. If that sounds unspontaneous and stressful, it is, and we have done it for so long we have become inured to it.
There is little time to process information with email and textual based communications. The receipt of a posted letter and the penning of a reply after reflection, when time permitted, or the evolving phone call now are rarities. Equally we do not need to be particularly thoughtful about our communication as we can always put it right. Overlooking the use of titles, proper names or inattention to the facts, can be quickly corrected and so sloppiness can occur that detracts from communicating respect and value.
We often generate so much communication, and “noise” within it, losing sight of a fundamental human interaction. All communication includes transactional and psychological components. The former includes functionality and the practical reasons for the exchange. The psychological elements are about developing meaning and relationships. These underpin the nature and value of the relationship that exists, or is desired, between those involved. Being unable to respond to an email because of business pressures might be the reality for one person but can amount to disrespect and suggest a relationship of lesser priority to a person receiving a delayed response. This incongruence with what people can reasonably expect can create discomfort, displeasure or plain anger. People can easily feel devalued. Take for example, the call centre digital assistant that says your call is important and then keeps you waiting for forty minutes, taking every opportunity to redirect you to websites.
‘Radio silence’ is deliberately used by the military, to prevent anyone hacking in and undermining operational objectives. Its equivalent in the commercial world can amount to disinterest and devaluation of customers. It can also mean that communication has not been received in the mode people would like. An email may be ‘job done’ from the sender side, but it is not a real tangible communication for the recipient who was not unreasonably hoping for a phone call.
Radio silence, or communication in a mode that does not accord with receiver’s expectations not only devalues people but can create paranoia wherein the absence of feedback often leaves people best guessing where they stand.
Here are a few suggestions by way of an antidote…
Foster direct human contact wherever it is wanted.
Never have an ‘open ended’ communication, get back to people even if the matter is still ‘work in progress’.
You are responsible for how communication is received. Sure, people put their own interpretation on things, but it is crucial you clarify and hone your message.
People or prospects? We need to evaluate our values in relation to others. The same goes for staff, suppliers, and even personal relationships. It is all too easy to objectify people.
Develop real human interest and make the effort to observe peoples’ preferences. Not just a statistical analysis of the customer or a note written on a CRM.
People who know people, know the difference.
www.gedanken.co.uk
