-
Website
http://www.chrisbrogan.com/ -
Original page
http://www.chrisbrogan.com/communication-tools-and-levels-of-interruption/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Interesting that you chose to leave presence aware tools off of the list--IM, Skype, and geolocation. That adds another dimension of intelligence to whether and how we can reach people, as it provides more information to the sender about whether the recipient can handle such an interruption or request.
Clearly there are an abundance of ways to reach people and a larger group of people we're often reaching out to... I could go into lots of stuff on this, but I'll just suggest a few tips:
* Consider whether the message is more timely to you or to the recipient. Often we gauge this incorrectly and the person gets the message when they can't deal with it...or too late.
* Consider if you're using a medium out of convenience or after having really considered it. The most convenient method for you is often neither convenient nor appropriate for them. For instance, Twitter has terrible organizing capabilities and is not as real time when it comes to DM as we'd like to think. Facebook may be a low hanging fruit, but it's nowhere near as flexible as email. Note that often the more you go out of your way the bigger a deal it is for the recipient (think: letter through USPS = high impact)--so you using the most convenient method for you doesn't necessarily reflect as well on you
* Combining methods of communication can be a big step in the right direction: IM'ing before you call, or scheduling a call rather than just making it when you're ready shows respect for the recipient but allows a better flow of communication
* When back and forth gets passed a certain number of messages for clarification and adding details, you probably ought to switch to something synchronous like phone or walking into their office--because you're wasting mental energy and probably frustrating yourself or the recipient
The main thing, I guess, is that the sender often fails to place themselves in the head of the recipient before choosing the method to use. So our new product (AwayFind Orchant -- sorry for the plug, thought you might be curious) is giving the sender that power (to turn an email into an IM or SMS or voice call, etc). Tools like Google Voice are also doing that, and we should all be looking into these options as we get more overwhelmed.
It's going to be interesting to see how and if we become better educated at choosing our medium for correspondence...or whether certain methods of communication will just become the status quo and we won't have choices like these in the future. I doubt that.
As far email it's amazing how many people forget about it's power and importance. Tools have changed tremedously. While email is; email and it holds its value.
Great read..
Owen JJ Stone
Often a phone call can reveal new information that lead to opportunities, clarify situations, or help to improve outcomes. Technology fails to communicate with the same level of nuance as the human voice. Email shows no hesitation or reluctance. Sarcasm, enthusiasm, humor, and more can be hard to discern.
Certainly the synchronous nature of telephone communications can be a challenge but there really is no substitute when you really want to build a relationship or achieve something important.
I could really drone on about this topic, but I probably should just write my own blog post rather than continuing to spill characters here. Or perhaps just give you a phone call :)
With work I eventually learn the style of the people I have to communicate with. Some find e-mail a nuissance and prefer a phone call when something is urgent or really needs their attention. Others don't.
Person: "Hi. Got a minute? This won't take long. Here's some information you need or the meeting is at 9, or, there's a typo on page 5..." on and on and on forever.
Me (thinking): *Could have emailed/twittered/Facebooked all that stuff to me*
I find that sharing details and factual information are better delivered with a written medium, whereas emotion and strategy conversations are best held in person or over the phone. I'm most likely to loose facts and details over the phone or in person or not have access to them on the road, whereas with electronic medium I can access them anywhere. However, I'm more likely to take emotion the wrong way over email.
The problem is that the new media has injected itself in the social and work spheres and retraining needs to happen to effectively use them as better options for the sender and receiver.
Texting is something that I reserve only for people that I actually know. I don't text business associates; just friends. I find that sending a quick text message is a little more personal than sending an @mention on Twitter, and if I want to convey, "Hey! I'm thinking about you", then a text is a nice way to do that. A response isn't necessarily required, and the recipient can do it on his own time.
Phone calls, I save for things that are REALLY important. My schedule is busy enough that, if someone calls me, they'll get my voicemail, almost invariably. I know I consider phone calls to be pretty disruptive, so I try to save them for times when things that are just THAT pressing.
You are, again, right on the money. Too often, people fail to consider the ramifications before "reaching out and touching someone".
I would add "overcommenting" to the list. When someone posts a comment, I feel compelled to respond - and when that becomes a "chore", it tempers the way I feel about the commenter.
I find that if an email exchange has gone back and forth a few times on the same topic, it is truly best to pick up the phone. Plus, I find that my relationships with my customers are often stronger because I do take the trouble to pick up the phone from time to time.
When we connect and communicate with people 93% of how we do this is through body languge and the tonality of our voice. Only 7% are the words we use, and this is why we often misinterpret emails. I think this has to be taken into account when we decide how we should get in touch with someone.
Also, you can spend more time sending texts, emails etc to and fro then you would just getting on the phone.
I think what you say is very valid, but actually having a conversation with someone, at at time which is convenient for both parties, willl be much more productive in the long run.
http://ddwweb.blogspot.com/2009/09/antibodies-m...
My default is email, it is by far my favorite method of communication. If I feel that an issue needs more intense discussion then I schedule a phone call. Like you, the reality of my life is that I am rarely able to answer my phone and unscheduled calls just become a game of voicemail tag which annoys everyone.
Doug
5. Walking over to a person's desk and interrupting what they're doing... not possible when you're geographically distributed, but sometimes it's an option we forget about in large office buildings.
Also, I think a major cause for using ineffective interruption methods is when we get balled up in our desire to be efficient and do dozens of things at once. It becomes a lot easier to blast off E-Mails and put a little tick on the to do list, thinking that you've done what you needed to do, than taking the extra seconds or minutes to do something that will be effective.
Still, this is always good advice to consider.
Otherwise, email works out best for me because I can check it in between - so I get the important information right away - and then I can respond based upon the urgency of the email and what else I have going on. It works out a lot better productivity-wise. And benefits everyone involved.
My constant dilemma is balancing my creative work, which has its own time schedule (social media, concept generation and writing) with the management side if my business, which often has other people's schedule (meetings, day to day mundane details, calls, etc)
My favorite encapsulation of this dilemma is here: http://www.paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html
Made you a video reply here: http://www.utterli.com/u/utt/u-OTE4NjExOA#utt-O...
That is, not only is a video call a greater interruption than phone, but it's of a different sort in the sense that you have a much greater chance of holding someone's full attention when it's video as it's harder for them to do other stuff on a video call.
Also, we use it to share links (real work-related links) and code snip-its.
I decided to see how others used or didn't use IM and created a survey, which I thought you and your readers might find userful. The results are here:
Ask500 Chart of How People Use IM At Work
They can be working on a math assignment, talking to a friend, take a short break to respond to a text, and keep on going without missing a beat. This used to drive me nuts as I saw it as an interruption, but they do it so seamlessly that I am rethinking how to deal with texts in my classes.
I also think, if it is someone you deal with a great deal, it is a great idea to ask them their preferred form of contact. What they prefer may be different from what you think is the least intrusive.
The phone is a huge distraction. It's also the most personal. A bit of a catch 22 I'd say when it comes to keeping business "human". Ideally we could talk to everyone in a personal way via the phone, but that's just not possible in the business I'm in.
I'm trying out Google Voice now. It's got some great features to help with these types of communication hurdles.
Twitter is not as much of a direct business communication tool for me, but it does have business value and is HUGE for me with respect to networking and reaching out. It's also a way for me to stay "pluged-in" and be helpful to others. As you point our Chris it's pretty low interruption. It's probably less than email for me personally.
http://twitter.com/franswaa
This post was broadly labeled "Communication" but what you outline is one to one communication. The channel choice changes perhaps when its one to many- when I need an answer to something I don't know it, be it a technical issue or what kind of pizza to order, there's hardly any comparison to putting a query out on twitter.
Also, as an FYI, your blog does not display this comment field on the iPhone.
thanks for your thoughts.
All those different messaging and communication tools are very nice but also they are sometimes very annoying.
I mean all of them make sense when you look at them in context, but what happens when you use all of them at the same time?
For instance if you join several networks, you have several different inboxes. It really would be easier if you could handle them like a normal email account. You wouldn't have to log in to the social network community to answer them all the time.
Maybe a tool for that will come up in the future, or is it already available?
Cheers
Tom
http://www.relenet.com
But these are all just info. exchanges--not relationship building. Email, IM, or Tweet me to set up a phone call, or better yet, coffee if you're in my time zone. I want to get to have the opportunity to follow the random threads and the nuances of communication that are only available when you hear someone's tone of voice; generate a shared laugh or get to see their face (in person, or even via Skype). Let's slow down long enough for the occasional relationship built over the archaic method of "a visit".
Another thing to consider when choosing the appropriate method, would be how much or little the person you're reaching out to knows about you.
---Do they need to read your email signature for a quick synopsis of your professional persona?
---Do you want them to read all your latest tweets or your Twitter bio?
---Are you certain you're listed as a contact in their phone, or might you receive a "Who is this?" response via text?
Sometimes, I've even had to resort to using FAX when I am trying to communicate with folks in remote areas or that are technically challenged. In my customer service communication, I will often ask customers: what is the best way for me to contact you? This makes it more convenient for the customer.
Not to mention advertising vehicles: direct mail, billboards, magazines, television, radio...all interruptions.
So yes, I totally agree! When I need to communicate with others, be it individuals or mass groups, I try to pick the best message and medium before sending it out.
Thanks for the reminder!
And after the first meeting (!) all the other levels are suitable. You can even ask from the person how he/she would like to be contacted.
Thanks!
Our office receptionist on a well earned vacation at the moment and I have taken this as an opportunity to answer all inbound calls to our general agency number. For the last few days I've got a real feel for the flow of our business - something that it's all too easy to loose touch with as our business has grown over the years. This morning I took a general sales call from a vendor asking to speak to one of my co-directors. If the call had been answered by our receptionist, he would probably never have made it past Jess because she's a great gatekeeper, and the sales approach was fragmented and difficult to understand. Well, I was able to glean enough info from the call to pique my interest. It turns out that this guy is selling exactly what I need - right now. But if it hadn't have been me who answered the phone, on this day, under these circumstances, it is quite possible I would have missed this quite excellent opportunity.
So what am I getting at, I hear you say. Well it's this. The phone is definitely the most disruptive form of communication in that it forces you to focus on particular point in time. But the dialogue you have on the phone. Literally the 'conversation' can lead you in directions you might not normally expect, and be pleasantly surprised about, because it allows immediate, permutateable, uninterrupted and intuitive dialogue.
I consider myself a digital native and I have often had moments of sublime serendipity with tools such as Twitter. But at least for the remainder of today the good old telephone wins for me!
You've left out one option that I still use periodically--the fax. I find that fax is a good "in-between" option...gets more attention than an email, but can be less intrusive than a phone call. And yet it still receives a pretty high priority in many places, especially when people receive a very high volume of email.
For me the most important point you make is the importance of considering the impact of your communication on the listener. How else can you communicate effectively? All too often the choice is made based on what is efficient for us at the expense of the ultimate effectiveness of our communication.
As far as Twitter, e-mail, and Facebook, these can be time-thieves too if a person isn't careful. E-mail should really only be checked at certain intervals of the day, and being distracted on Twitter and Facebook can be really time consuming when trying to market.
I found a tool that helps me with this. Its called Digsby (NOT A REF LINK!!! http://digsby.com ). This takes alerts from FaceBook, Twitter, Yahoo messenger, and Gmail, and puts them into a single application that interfaces quite like Yahoo Messenger itself.
Now, whenever someone posts something on Facebook and Twitter, I get a pop up showing me exactly what was said, and I can determine whether I want to comment or not. I'm shown each e-mail that I get, so I know first thing if there is an e-mail that needs my immediate attention. And all my Yahoo contacts are able to contact me through this as well.
Which brings me to a distraction that I did not see, Messengers. People, even those that are marketing alongside you can be time thieves as well, chatting you up on non-important stuff while you are supposed to be marketing. The best way to prevent this is to set your messenger setting to stealth; only allowing people that are important to your business, and will take heed to any alerts stating you are busy, to see your status online. This way you will not be bombarded with inane questions and random chit-chat while you are supposed to be marketing.
It’s half twitter, half shared-to-do-list.
Was hoping to add svn integration, but oh well.
There’s only so much time.