Rol Fessenden wrote:
> Keith, you were well-intentioned, but you still got hammered.
> Your image suffered greatly. It is now 80% repaired. There is probably
> some lingering suspicion that your apology was not honest.
> Not to let myself off the hook, however, as a responsible listener, I too
> have to invest some effort in ensuring that I am understanding what you
> intend for me to understand, and that I have not 'received' a different
> message than you intended to send. This is particularly the case when you
> have stepped on my values toes.
Carol Sager wrote:
============ quote ============
A thought: How can we not occasionally step on each other's values -
especially as we communicate with more and more people over longer and
longer distances? Are there groundrules that would help such as "clarify
the intent of comments made before responding?" Hmmm -Maybe not. I would
hate to see any one develop a tarnished image as a result of sharing in an
electronic discussion group. People's values are often hard to determine.
============ end of quote =======
And here's my little thought, for what it's worth: Maybe we need to keep
in mind that we're not communicating directly - we cannot see each other's
faces, hear each other's voices or perceive each other's body language.
Sometimes I am acutely aware of this when reading a message; particularly
when someone mentions circumstances such as 'it's one in the morning' or
'I'm in a hurry' I find myself wondering where they are, what chair or
sofa or floor they're sitting on, what they look like, whether they're
yawning, drinking coffee or whisky, having the cat sitting on their feet
or the children rushing around causing chaos... all those little things
that add to the meaning of our words when we talk to each other, and that
help us understand each other's values (especially the 'belly' ones!).
E-mail communication is not as formal as letter-writing, but it's more
formal (or that's how I see it) than talking. Informal communication seems
to rely a lot (more than formal) on common assumptions and situational
cues - which are not available here. So we need to spend more time/effort
on clarification, methinks...
Does this make sense?
Sheffield Hallam University
"Matzdorf, Fides" <F.Matzdorf@shu.ac.uk>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <firstname.lastname@example.org> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>