Consider one of the ironies of our ever-changing and expanding technical world: Being a high tech specialist, “nerd” or even a “maven” is not sufficient to guarantee the effectiveness or success of electronic meetings, phone conferences, webinars, and webcasts. More critical is the ability to apply traditional yet foundational knowledge of “soft” or “people skills” in four vital areas:
1) an understanding of emotional insight-interpersonal intelligence; i.e., a “Four ‘C’-ing” Mindset” – being Curious and Compassionate, Critical and Creative,
2) verbal and nonverbal communication, especially active listening & questioning as well as interactive public presentation,
3) group dynamics, structure, developmental stages, conflict, performance, and process, and
4) leadership-facilitation substance, style, and savvy, i.e., purposeful use of self as role model and catalyst; akin to being an orchestra leader who guides-supports-questions-confronts-dares individuals and teams to bring out their best music.
Though “smart” upgrading abounds, traditional barriers to “Message Sent = Message Received” remain; and new cognitive-communicative challenges sprout like weeds in our ever-growing technological web. Even with the most sophisticated, cutting edge devices, you can still only psychologically “touch” a colleague, client, or audience member, and then only by knowing how to project and connect with your head, heart, and soul.
Based on reading the incredibly learned new book, The Age of Insight: The Quest to Understand the Unconscious in Art, Mind, and Brain, (2012), by Eric Kandel, and my attempt at developing a “high tech and high touch” workshop/webinar program – “Designing Electronic/Phone Conferencing that’s Effective, Efficient, and Emotionally Intelligent: Skills, Structures, and Strategies for Mastering the Medium, the Message, and the Meeting,” I have finally perceived the obvious: there’s a weed-like information processing glitch built into the electronic meeting experience (and it’s not the devious use of the “mute” button). Actually, this perceptual dynamic has a powerful impact on the degree to which your evaluations and communication are “real, responsible, responsive, and respectful.” (Email stressdoc@aol.com for my article “The Four ‘R’s of PRO Relating.”)
Seeing, Not Sensing, and Distorting the Obvious and Ambiguous
Many people quickly recognize that one of the drawbacks of most phone conferences or webinars, even with video conferences, is the absence or limited nature of visual data – facial and hand gestures, overall body language, and especially the eyes as “windows to the soul,” eyes that sparkle or get “big” from greed or fear, along with tears of sadness/joy, etc. Such signals help place verbal information and exchanges in a nonverbal and more meaningful context. And while rapidity and pacing of speech, as well as volume, volubility, lability excitability, reaction time, pattern of interruption or accommodation, inflection, tone, exaggeration, hemming and hawing, repetition, pausing, silence, accent, repeatedly clearing the throat, etc. are all important nonverbal markers, they can’t fully compensate for the lack of visual data. As important, not all users of electronic meeting technology are sufficiently conscious of or versed in integrating this non/verbal-contextual data into their informational-communicational playing field. Clearly, eliminating or minimizing sensory input, signaling, and feedback cues and clues may adversely affect the probability of “Message Sent = Message Received” (MS = MR).
However, the informational and interpersonal issue is not simply one of sensory deficiency. For many, the real problem occurs when trying to remedy the absence or the ambiguity of data. And our brain is fairly compelled to take on this challenge... Alas, necessity may lead to invention that is less “brainchild” and more “fiction, fabrication, and fantasy.” According to Kandel, we need to compensate for reduced sensory input by making inferences, tentative assumptions, and hypotheses. And a serious perceptual problem may arise in ego-, identity- or performance-defining and challenging situations for a perceiver, especially when stimuli are not fully clear, rational, predictable, or explicable. However, when a brain is seeking closure, one does not have to feel overly anxious or threatened to quickly abandon the tentative and come to definite conclusions and judgments, often prematurely. In general, most want to replace an ambiguous, uncertain, or vulnerable state, to dismiss the tentative with a sense of confidence or competence; perceivers’ want to be comfortable, correct and in control, even if the belief is more fantasy than reality.
The Biasing Effect
For example, one of the reasons many rape victim’s often erroneously blame themselves for the dreadful event is that the notion that life could be so horrifically random or chaotic is just too disorienting or devastating. (And for the spiritually inclined, why would their God abandon them?) Believing they could have done something different and didn’t helps regain some semblance of future or anticipatory control, no matter how illusory the belief and self-damning the consequences.
However, social psychology research reveals that the potential for misperception and misjudgment also lurks in mundane, everyday activities. One important source of illumination comes from “Attribution Theory.” This theory examines how someone perceives another person’s motives and behaviors, especially in comparison to the way such an individual makes self-evaluations. Here are two attributional points to ponder:
1. Deed vs. Intent Filter. In general we are quicker to judge other people by their actions and deeds; we are skeptical of and do not simply give them a pass for their articulated intentions. Conversely, we are less demanding, we lower the evaluation bar, when it comes to our own behavior; having right-minded intentions, even without follow-up action or achievement, often lets us off the negative judgment hook. (This perceptual biasing tendency, however, may experience a 180 degree reversal for people with depressive dispositions. Such individuals tend to overlook environmental and/or biochemical constraints impeding or disrupting an ability to transform intentions into action steps, and they misjudge themselves accordingly. Or consider the example of a person grappling with some form of clinical depression who, nonetheless, accomplishes a significant task. However, this individual lacks both sufficient self- and diagnostic awareness. Upon task completion he may still be critical because it took him longer or he had to work harder than his peers or colleagues. That is, he winds up questioning his intrinsic aptitude, intelligence, desire, and/or talent.)
2. Attributional Error. An area ripe for applied research is perceptual error based on an observer attributing a person’s motives or actions to personality factors, often to the exclusion of situational forces. Here’s an illustration. Let’s say a relatively new colleague at work (whom you don’t know well) has come in late two or three times in the past week. It wouldn’t be surprising if you (and others) began to start wondering about his or her motives and competencies, e.g., is the person lazy, disorganized, disenchanted with work, or just plain old passive-aggressive? However, if you were to come in late a couple of times, or were asked to speculate about reasons for your hypothetical lateness, research indicates you would likely quickly note, for example, the traffic conditions, needing to get a child to daycare, illness in the family, etc.
Can you see the bias? When explaining our own problematic behavior we first focus on situational or outside conditions affecting intentions and actions, thus providing a rationale or protective cover for any outcomes or consequences. In contrast, while observing others our initial predilection is to judge based on inner personality or motivational traits, not on environmental constraints. An assessment focused on the individual alone, not seen in context, is more judgmental, making it harder to be empathic or forgiving, or even just truly curious. (For example, “I wonder why she behaves that way?” said with obvious tone, and an emphasis on the “she”-word is often more a disguised judgment than a question of genuine concern.) And this tendency to broadly, quickly, or indiscriminately place personal evaluation over situational factors is called “Attribution Error.”
Deficient Data and Perceptual Drama: Transcending the Electronic-Human Dilemma
As noted previously, an electronic, information transmitting-sharing medium that reduces sensory data, and that becomes more ambiguous and thereby conducive to rushing understanding if not to judgment is problematic enough. But add a perceiver ready to rapidly or selectively filter both because of a normative propensity for perceptual-judgmental error and:
a) festering negative experience or painful memories stirred by the person-situation context,
b) general time pressure, boredom, exhaustion, or distraction,
c) current emotional – personal, professional, family, work-life balance – stress or frustration,
d) competitive, career advancement, respect and reward, or workplace self-esteem issues, and
e) being overly invested personally in only one acceptable decision or possible outcome, that is, having a “believing is hearing” or “black or white” mindset, then misinterpretations, misjudgments, prejudgments, rigid viewpoints, and bias tends to happen.
Closing Summary
Part I begins with an emerging irony: the advance of technology doesn’t guarantee more effective transmission and sharing of complex information, especially involving groups of people in various electronic settings, such as phone conferences, webinars, and webcasts. To reach its potential, “high tech” must dance with an uncommonly skilled “high touch partner,” one who can interact with, coordinate, and guide “distant” learners and participatory team members. Four broad domains of conceptual and applied knowledge are outlined as critical to achieving “Effective, Efficient, and Emotionally Intelligent Electronic/Phone Conferencing.” The essay also focuses on the information processing glitch built into the electronic meeting/web experience: to compensate for reduced sensory input the human brain makes inferences, tentative assumptions, and hypotheses. And when insufficient time, need for control, or other personal “hot button” issues begin driving the perceptual experience, problems arise. Finally, Part I closes by examining the “Biasing Effect, especially the way perceivers differentiate how they explain the source of motivation and make evaluations, comparing themselves to others along two dimensions: a) Deed vs. Intent Filter and b) Attributional Error.
Stay tuned for Part II: “The Dangerous Alliance of Assumptions, Anonymity, and Aggression.” Until next time…Practice Safe Stress!
-----
Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an acclaimed keynote and webinar speaker and "Motivational Humorist & Team Communication Catalyst" known for his interactive, inspiring and FUN programs for both government agencies and major corporations. A training and Critical Incident/Grief Intervention Consultant for the National EAP/Wellness Company, Business Health Services in Baltimore, MD, the Doc is also leading “Stress, Team Building and Humor” programs for various branches of the Armed Services. Mark is the author of Practice Safe Stress and of The Four Faces of Anger. See his award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" -- www.stressdoc.com -- called a "workplace resource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info on the Doc's programs or to receive his free e-newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com.
