83,057
edits
Data modernism: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
===“[[Onworld]]” v “[[offworld]]” in business communications === | ===“[[Onworld]]” v “[[offworld]]” in business communications === | ||
[[File:Onworld and Offworld Comms.png|450px|thumb|right|A quadrant, yesterday]] | [[File:Onworld and Offworld Comms.png|450px|thumb|right|A quadrant, yesterday. I’m no happier about it that you are]] | ||
The same dynamic exists in a [[negotiation]]. The JC snookered himself into using a [[quadrant|four box quadrant]] to illustrate this, because there are two perpendicular axes at play here: ''How many'' people are you speaking to, and ''in what medium''. | The same dynamic exists in a [[negotiation]]. The JC snookered himself into using a [[quadrant|four box quadrant]] to illustrate this, because there are two perpendicular axes at play here: ''How many'' people are you speaking to, and ''in what medium''. | ||
In terms of our Onworld/ | In terms of our Onworld/Offworld distinction let us make some value judgments here: whether we like it or not, we inhabit a [[Complexity|complex]], non-linear world. In such a world, personal, immediate, and ''substantive'' communications beat impersonal, delayed, and formalistic ones. These best suit constructive, pragmatic, expert participants. | ||
Now your “medium of communication” can take a more or less ''personal'', and ''immediate'' form. The ''least'' personal and immediate communications are ''written'' ones (here the message is, literally, removed from the sender’s personality, and even where transmitted immediately, does not have to be answered in real time). The ''most'' personal and immediate ones are in actual, analogue person — and failing that a video call where you can see and hear nuance, then an audio call. But any of these is vastly superior to written communication. | Now your “medium of communication” can take a more or less ''personal'', and ''immediate'' form. The ''least'' personal and immediate communications are ''written'' ones (here the message is, literally, removed from the sender’s personality, and even where transmitted immediately, does not have to be answered in real time). The ''most'' personal and immediate ones are in actual, analogue person, like that ever happens these days — and failing that, a video call where you can ''see'' and ''hear'' nuance, then an audio call where you can just ''hear'' it. But any of these is vastly superior to written communication. | ||
How ''many'' people are in your audience is just as important. The more there are, the more formal you must be, the more generalised, the less opportunity for there is for nuance | How ''many'' people are in your audience is just as important. The more there are, the more formal you must be, the more generalised, the less opportunity for there is for nuance and that lubricating milk of human frailty, wit. The more people there are, the less will be their common interest — cue appeals to take things off-line. Plainly, the more people there, are the greater the cultural, social and human barriers to unguarded communication rise twill there be | ||
In any gauge of communicative effectiveness you can take, other than information dissemination, ''one-to-many'' is categorically worse than ''one-to-one''. | |||
''Most'' analogue/immediate is in-person, followed by a video call, then an audio call, then in writing (and there may be a spectrum of formality in that writing too: Instant messages at one end; couriered paper at the other). | ''Most'' analogue/immediate is in-person, followed by a video call, then an audio call, then in writing (and there may be a spectrum of formality in that writing too: Instant messages at one end; couriered paper at the other). | ||