Should I Write or Should I Call?

Before the arrival of the Internet, and before text messaging, the choice of how to contact a colleague could be based on urgency. The more urgent the need for an exchange, the more likely we would be to choose telephone over snail mail. It was a clear choice. But today, with wide availability of email and the various forms of text messaging, the advantages of one medium compared to the others are unclear.

For example, a text message can get a quicker response than telephone if your correspondent is in a meeting or in some environment that isn't voice friendly, such as an airplane or a dentist's office waiting room. But telephone can be quicker if your correspondent is engaged in some activity that isn't keyboard-friendly, such as driving a car or working out on a climbing wall.

Some commonly used criteria for choosing a communication medium

What criteria are available to guide the choice between a text-based medium, a voice medium like telephone, or some form of video connection? Some criteria are obvious:

• The amount of ambient noise present in the respective environments of the participants
• How safely all participants can attend to composing or reading text
• The importance of reference material needed for full participation in the exchange
• The comparison between the time each participant has available for the exchange, and the time required to carry on that exchange

Interactive exchanges

One more criterion that provides guidance for many situations is the need to interact. Interactive exchanges have two distinguishing characteristics:

Turn-taking

In an Today, with wide availability of email and
the various forms of text messaging, the
advantages of one medium compared
to the others are unclearinteractive exchange, the participants take turns making contributions. That is not to say that each participant gets equal time, or that interruptions never occur. Rather, generally, the choice of who speaks next is orderly — controlled either formally by a facilitator, or informally by custom or courtesy. Generally, there is one and only one speaker at a time. [Jepson 2005]

If, by contrast, speaker choice is chaotic, with multiple people speaking at once, the exchange is less interactive, because chaos interferes with the second characteristic of interactive exchanges, namely, threading.

Threading

A threaded conversation is one in which the current topic is clearly defined. Contributors generally stay on-topic. The conversation might have multiple threads, but the transition from one thread to another is clear to all, and usually controlled.

Threading results in a conversational structure in which most contributions are shaped, in part, by the content of the collection of all previous contributions to that thread.

The first attribute of the interactive exchange — turn-taking — is what distinguishes it from lectures, webinars, and to some extent, all-hands meetings. The second attribute — threading — enables the participants to efficiently and effectively develop ideas and solve problems collaboratively.

Indicators of the need for interaction

Interactive exchanges can be expensive. Because they require real-time connection between participants, the infrastructure involved can be pricey. Specifically, the more interactive media include videoconference, teleconference, and telephone. The less interactive media include text-based messaging such as text message, instant message, email, and snail mail. In between are wikis and other collaboration media.

But a factor that contributes even more to costs is the time of the people involved. During the conversation, they must be fully attentive to the conversation. They cannot (and should not) do anything else. This requirement creates opportunity costs and scheduling problems.

For these reasons, we use interactive exchanges sparingly. To do that we need to know the indicators that an interactive exchange is needed and justified. There are many such indicators, but three stand out in my experience.

Controversial subject matter

Controversies require resolution, and resolution requires debate, which is an inherently interactive activity. A medium that supports interaction well is a necessary prerequisite for resolving controversies. Choosing a medium that doesn't support interaction well is equivalent to stifling debate. It risks a poor outcome.

Uneven distribution of relevant knowledge

When relevant knowledge is distributed unevenly, those who lack the knowledge are likely to be asking questions of those who possess it. These exchanges are inherently interactive. There are actually two objectives. The group must both distribute knowledge and drive out misconceptions and prejudice.

Elevated probability of resource contention

If the group is engaged in developing a deliverable or executing an action plan, one additional condition — resource contention — can create a need for interactive communication. Any resource that's in short supply, or any individual with skills in high demand, can become a bottleneck and an obstacle to the group's success. Interactive conversation might be a necessary step to resolving the contention.

Last words

If a successful result is expected to require interaction between the participants, they would do well to choose a medium for the exchange that supports question-and-answer, backtracking, interruptions, and all the other kinds of exchanges that we find in lively conversations. The more closely the medium can mimic face-to-face conversation, the more likely it is to support interaction.  Top    Next Issue

Are your virtual meetings plagued by inattentiveness, interruptions, absenteeism, and a seemingly endless need to repeat what somebody just said? Do you have trouble finding a time when everyone can meet? Do people seem disengaged and apathetic? Or do you have violent clashes and a plague of virtual bullying? Read Leading Virtual Meetings for Real Results to learn how to make virtual meetings much more productive and less stressful — and a lot shorter. Order Now!

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Effective Communication at Work:

See No Evil

When teams share information among themselves, they have their best opportunity to reach peak performance. And when some information is withheld within an elite group, the team faces unique risks.

Recognizing Hurtful Dismissiveness

"Never mind" can mean anything from "Excuse me, I'm sorry," to, "You lame idiot, it's beyond you," and more. The former is apologetic and courteous. The latter is dismissive and hurtful. We have dozens of verbal tactics for hurting each other dismissively. How can we recognize them?

Exasperation Generators: Opaque Metaphors

Most people don't mind going to meetings. They don't even mind coming back from them. It's being in meetings that can be so exasperating. What can we do about this?

Unintended Condescension: II

Intentionally making condescending remarks is something most of us do only when we lose control. But anyone at any time can inadvertently make a remark that someone else experiences as condescending. We explored two patterns to avoid last time. Here are two more.

Formulaic Utterances: I

With all due respect is an example of a category of linguistic forms known as formulaic utterances. They differ across languages and cultures, but I speculate that their functions are near universal. In the workplace, using them can be constructive — or not.

See also Effective Communication at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming October 1: On the Risks of Obscuring Ignorance

A common dilemma in knowledge-based organizations: ask for an explanation, or "fake it" until you can somehow figure it out. The choice between admitting your own ignorance or obscuring it can be a difficult one. It has consequences for both the choice-maker and the organization. Available here and by RSS on October 1.

And on October 8: Responding to Workplace Bullying

Effective responses to bullying sometimes include "pushback tactics" that can deter perpetrators from further bullying. Because perpetrators use some of these same tactics, some people have difficulty employing them. But the need is real. Pushing back works. Available here and by RSS on October 8.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info