The boss sent an article round the office today, outlining some reasons why it's better to phone people than to send an email. The gist of it was that when communicating by email, your interlocutor can't hear you, which I admit was something that had never occurred to any of us before. Nor can they interrupt you, hang up on you, or deafen you with a sudden cough.
Email. It's rubbish!
It was a good article, and I'm looking forward to the next one, where the author will suggest that the trouble with phoning and emailing is that you can't see, smell or touch your interlocutor, and will recommend riding round to our candidate's places of work in a horse drawn sleigh.
I noticed that Susan Greenfield has a new book out. It appears to develop some of the themes of her book Tomorrow's People, which argued that modern technology is 'directly tampering with the essence of our individuality.'
She may be right. When you communicate by email all the time (or when you stick posts on your blogs, or leave comments), you are in a world with its own rules. But personally, I think that the diminished threat of being punched for saying something stupid makes me act more authentically individual, not less. Specifically, it makes me act like a more authentically stupid individual.
My position regarding use of emails in a professional context is simple. I don't want to waste anyone's time. I think that closed questions are underrated labour-saving devices. I think if I need to use a ;) to convey an emotion to someone with whom I have a business relationship, I should perhaps think about trimming back my verbiage and sticking to the point. I think if I try to build a rapport with you in an attempt to manipulate you, you'll see through me, and you'll think I'm a slime, and you'll be right.
True, you don't 'build relationships' by sticking to the point - if by relationships you mean a fake buddiness cultivated with someone from whom you plan on making money, and who plans on making money from you. But you do show people more respect by not forcing them to play games with you. After a foundation of respect is built, you tend to reach a point where your purely functional communiques seem a little cold and inadequate, and then a bit of personality begins to creep in quite naturally. But this isn't something that can be pushed.
Also, we at HTS don't want to be seen, heard, smelled or touched. Because we're all heavily tattooed circus runaways.
OK, I'm just being contrary. I do see the boss' point. She doesn't want to hear nothing but the clacking of computer keys all day while she sits in her office mixing cocktails and playing internet blackjack. She wants to hear talking, hustling, and the sound of receivers being slammed down in jubilation after big ticket placements.
Also, she has recent first-hand experience of how the internet doesn't quite equal reality: she started doing her weekly shopping online last week, and - having not yet gone metric - she misjudged the amount of mushrooms she needed ('I ordered about a hundredweight') and has been eating nothing but giant mushrooms since last Thursday. She has bags and bags of them. Our fridge at work is full of them. You wouldn't believe the effect that a diet of mushrooms has on a person. They'd might as well have been magic. Today she brought in five or six bottles of 'special' homemade wine for anyone who wants it, and we're all keeping our distance.
To draw an analogy, our illustrious leader wants us to be out there feeling the weight of those mushrooms in our bare hands, not making guesses. (Or funguesses.)
Whatcha think?
Incidentally, our Lead Consultant replied to the boss' email by asking why the article's author couldn't have phoned us with his insights.
Gnome picture from http://jessicasuzanne.com/
Comments
I think there are good arguments on both sides (now, who'd have guessed that I'm a Libran?).
In my job, I like to save time/cut corners/avoid unnecessary bureaucracy by phoning people wherever possible, rather than emailing - but it does depend on why I'm contacting them. The dangerous thing about emails, I think, is that the 'tone' depends a great deal on the mood of the person who's reading them - something you think is perfectly cordial can come across as terse and over-bureaucratic if the recipient's in a bad mood.
Emails are great for clarity - if people are prepared to edit them down so there's no waffle - but phones are better for establishing friendly relationships. With emails, of course, you also have a record of your exchange (frankly, I'd be freaked out if people were keeping records of phone conversations .... too Big Brother).
Now, go find me another fence to sit on. Off you go.
Howdy bwoy ..
*tips back hat* *which falls off as now does not fit as Libran is pinhead after haircut*
With charity fundraisers, nobody really wants to be your friend either - but at least we have the guilt factor on our side, I guess.
(gasps). It's Duellin' Pog Shortilocks!
Say, um, are you happy with the job they did on your hair?
Sorry, no decent way to make that sound Wild West.
Guilt, eh? So that's the secret...
Yur durn tootin' right *hawks*
The crop's just fine - as long as my hair takes less than 30 secs to dry in the morning that's fine. Nobody seems to mind me looking like a startled meerkat. Not much, anyway.
Yup. Guilt. Works every time.
The only downside to e-mails are miscommunication. We pick up a great deal of our conversational cues from the body language of the individual we're speaking to, and that dimension of interaction is obviously lost when e-mailing. Big deal. The bottom line is always the bottom line. E-mails are efficient for businesses, and I don't think I've met a businessman (or woman) that didn't like to save time and be efficient.
In a face-to-face meeting, the distance between the person you're meeting and their real personality is greater than that anyways.
Spot on.
We pick up a great deal of our conversational cues from the body language of the individual we're speaking to, and that dimension of interaction is obviously lost when e-mailing.
That's why I prefer emails... Nobody gets to know that I'm a socially awkward pleb.
They do now, obviously.
Also, don't you just hate having to hold a smile on your face while talking to someone? Smiling gives me the look of someone trying to hold still while a tarantula crawls through his hair.
Afraid they don't tend to save that much time for me - I spend far too much of my life chasing people for answers to emails. Again, downside of working for a charity, I guess. I've worked in the diplomatic service, publishing, lobbying and the corporate sector and now for a charity. I've never met such an unbusinesslike bunch as I have since I've worked here. Mind you, the front-line staff have tough jobs and the pay is far from generous - but when was the last time you worked for an organisation where offices close down completely between 1 and 2 pm? By and large nobody within the organisation seems to be able to prioritise in any sane fashion and getting answers out of people is like wading through treacle.
Fortunately for me, most of my job involves working with people outside the organisation, as a fundraiser - but even then, I spend half my life chasing responses and end up on the phone.
Oops. Sorry. Slipped into rant mode there. It's been a bit of a frustrating day.
Sort of defeats the object if you have to phone people to remind them to read your emails, doesn't it?
Sorry you're having a bad 'un. Sounds like you deserve something chocolatey.
=:+ (a sympathy rabbit)
Oh they read them - they just don't respond. But yes, it does.
I have eaten approx my bodyweight in muffins and cake today - for charity again, of course. Ahem.
Very cute. But a rabbit? Really? Such innocence .... bless.
Also, we at HTS don't want to be seen, heard, smelled or touched. Because we're all heavily tattooed circus runaways.
Curious office culture....that'd make a great sitcom. I'm laughing just thinking about it.
Recorded voice messages? That one passed me by. I'm still waiting for the whole Star Trek thing to become standard. Or holograms! Or the use of projected astral doubles.
How good is today's voice recognition technology? Can it deal with homonyms and mumbling?
Today’s VR is not bad. It’s actually standard on Windows XP, but few people turn the feature on. The program I have is reasonably good but better if you speak with an American accent. It will not pick up ‘August’, only ‘Ahgust’. Since my accent is alcohol-dependent (southern when sober, Manchester after four betters, Edinburgh after three whiskies), it is a problem.
Since my accent is alcohol-dependent (southern when sober, Manchester after four betters, Edinburgh after three whiskies), it is a problem.
Har!
There's a definite gap in the market for a VR package that you can set to 'Slur'.
There's a definite gap in the market for a VR package that you can set to 'Slur'.
I'm sure they have that on the newer Macs.
Excellent! 'With all the functionality you need for your work as a blind-drunk jeans-wearing digital agency web optimiser just back from your liquid lunch of the day.'
Yes, I have Mac envy.
It's weird... if you know someone really well, you can often pick up the subtextual 'tone' of an email. At other times, emails are emotionally inscrutible. I think that in business this inscrutibility is fine, since you're trying to keep things functional; in close relationships it can lead you into all sorts of mischief. Having said that, most of the times I say something idiotic, it's because I feel under pressure to say something. With email, there's not so much pressure to fill gaps.
When I was a boy I thought that by the year 1999, scientists, having successfully colonised Mars, would turn their attention to discovering the secret of telepathy. How wrong I was, thank God.