|
|
| 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. I’m no happier about it that you are]]
| | {{onworld and offworld negotiation}} |
| 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/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, 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 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).
| |
| | |
| With how many people you are communicating is obvious: one is best; after that it gets worse
| |
|
| |
|
| | ===Averages=== |
|
| |
|
| So we tend to “extrapolate” central figures from random noise: economic growth. The intention behind expressed electoral preference. Average wages. The wage gap. Why the stock market went up. ''That'' the stock market went up: these are spectral figures. They are ghosts, gods, monsters and devils. They are no more real than religions, just because they are the product of “science” and “techne”. | | So we tend to “extrapolate” central figures from random noise: economic growth. The intention behind expressed electoral preference. Average wages. The wage gap. Why the stock market went up. ''That'' the stock market went up: these are spectral figures. They are ghosts, gods, monsters and devils. They are no more real than religions, just because they are the product of “science” and “techne”. |