Template:Onworld and offworld negotiation: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
(Created page with "The same dynamic exists in a negotiation. The JC snookered himself into using a four box quadrant to illustrate this, because there are two perpendicular...")
 
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
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 — he has an irrational fear of four-box quadrants because thought-leaders are so fond of them — but they do seem to fit to make a general point here because there are two perpendicular axes at play: ''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 [[Formal|formalistic]] ones. These best suit constructive, pragmatic, expert participants.
In terms of our [[Onworld]]/[[Offworld]] distinction let us make some value judgments: whether we like it or not, we inhabit a [[Complexity|complex]], non-linear world. Players of “keepy-uppy” and like-minded constructive, [[Infinite game|infinite games]] get along, and get on, a lot better than those who play backward-looking, bounded, [[finite game]]s.  


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.
In such a world, personal, creative, immediate, and ''[[substantive]]'' communications beat impersonal, delayed, and [[Formal|formalistic]] ones. 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, need not 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
So the sorts of communications you favour depend to an extent on how good a communicator you are. Constructive, expert, imaginative, pragmatic, empathetic participants will be good at immediate interpersonal communications. Negative, defensive, inexpert, heartless, wooden communicators tend to be better at delayed, written communications.
 
''Why would you design your communication channels to favour negative, unempathetic, inexpert, defensive people?''
 
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 will 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''.  
In any gauge of communicative effectiveness you can take, other than information dissemination, ''one-to-many'' is categorically worse than ''one-to-one''.  

Navigation menu