With the variety of electronic communication tools available to businesses today, have you ever felt that face-to-face communication has been relegated to the method of last resort? And if so, have general communication processes been affected as a result? Is clarity sacrificed for speed and convenience?
I believe that Yes is the correct answer to each of the above questions.
Businesses today communicate by phone, teleconference, video conference, instant messaging, postal mail and, of course, the ubiquitous email. The speed of communications is lightning fast, the range far and wide. Information flows in massive amounts, across borders, no matter the time of day or night, all at the touch of a Send button.
While it is impractical in today’s world to think that face-to-face communications should be the method of choice for all occasions, there is certainly a price to pay when it is the last option. Consider these clear advantages of face-to-face communications:
1. Less chance of misinterpretation.. Personal discussion remains the basis of communication. Speakers and listeners are acutely aware of the non-verbal components that comprise 70-80% of communication. Can the writer of an email or text message detect confusion? Maybe. Can the sender assume that the message has been interpreted correctly? Again, maybe. But the chances of misinterpretation should be much less likely if the message is delivered face-to-face.
two. Greater responsiveness. Important message cues (words, images, tone of voice, facial expression, body language, and presence) are available at the same time only in face-to-face communications. These are all important elements that skilled communicators use to the fullest. Listeners respond to those cues, sometimes silently, sometimes not, and the overall effectiveness of the message is influenced as a direct result.
3. More immediacy. Listeners react to speakers; speakers also read and react to listeners. The communication process is thus expanded and strengthened. The give and take happens in real time, often with real results. It’s just not the same in cyberspace.
Four. Greater overall efficiency. Electronic methods are not as effective at resolving conflict, imparting emotion, or establishing and then emphasizing priority as face-to-face communication. Could the football coach email his pregame pep talk before the big game? Could the president of the United States defend the programs most critical of him through text messages? Could a peace agreement be negotiated between the warring parties through a conference call? You understand. Face to face has always been, and still is, much better.
Don’t lose sight of the necessity and effectiveness of face-to-face communications when conditions warrant. It is still the best way to get the message across.
