What followed in the text of the email was an expression of concern that will warrant some follow up on my part. And while I have no problem with someone expressing concern and am (most of the time) alright with working through conflict, I do have a problem with the medium. Email is great for many things, but dealing with issues and with conflict is NOT ONE OF THEM. Here's why:
1. There's no chance to dialogue in real-time. Maybe I need to ask for clarification of something; perhaps there is a simple misunderstanding that can be quickly settled. Email allows me no option for quick and real time interaction. It's a conversation with delays that can last, well, until someone gets back into town, or gets their internet fixed, or simply gets around to logging on.
2. You cannot read non-verbal. I wonder what percentage of communication is non-verbal? Whatever it is, it is all missing in an email exchange. No eye contact, no sweating, no shrugs or rolled eyes. As a listener, I need these things in order to have a full understanding of where the other person is coming from. And in conflict, how important is that?!?
3. You can't hear tone. Is the person mad, impassioned, matter of fact, kidding, depressed or totally serious and earnest? You don't know on email. Words are helpful, but without their context (sound and delivery), it seems to me that they are robbed of their power. In fact, I wonder if we overstate or understate our feelings when we write on email...on one hand, maybe we overstate since it feels safer to vent without someone sitting across the table, but on the other, maybe we understate since we want to be careful to "get it right" since it will be sitting in an inbox somewhere and saved for posterity.
So is it ironic that I am venting about the perils of electronic communication on a blog?!? Maybe, but it's all so therapeutic!
2 comments:
I've actually debated this one in my mind. I think where face-to-face is possible, it is not only preferable, but necessary - for all of the reasons that you state. If email is used to avoid face-to-face dialogue, not only is it awkward & inadequate, it sounds highly suspect and potentially manipulative.
Where I've wondered, though, is where geography prevents meeting face-to-face, but the conflict is real. What do you do then?
I had a friend who lived internationally that I had some conflict with. I tried to "let it go" for a long time, but it kept building, so finally I just wrote a letter - honest, but also raw at some points - because I needed to have some closure about things. Fortunately, they responded immediately and we were able to reconcile via the e-dialogue.
It was awkward, and I'm still not sure how to manuever email conflict as a general thing. But it has at least made me wonder...
Just food for thought.
Thanks Scott. Love it. I'm wondering too about the usefulness of something like skype with video (in the beta version I think) for a situation like the one you describe.
Post a Comment