Haste makes waste. Measure twice and cut once. Both expressions, common enough to be cliché, remind us of the perils of under-thinking and over-acting. But, where is the balance? In the modern age of instant communication and irretractability of comment, many of us have been the victim of our own hasty “Reply to ALL.” Some off-handed remark intended only for one, is distributed to the entire office. The passing irritation becomes a point of contention. The snide quip exchanged between friends becomes a careless and unnecessary misunderstanding lacking both the context of the relationship the sender had with the intended recipient and their shared perspective.
Yet in a world where busy folks can expect to receive dozens (if not hundreds) of telephone calls, faxes, emails and texts each day, how can we manage volume without failing in accuracy and intention? Some would advise that we should restrict our communication to only the professional and antiseptic. Does this approach allow for the most effective and authentic style to building deep and lasting relationships? Not knowing if a co-worker has a kid with cancer might best avoid an unintentional HIPA transgression, but does it preclude us from connecting in the greatest human and intimate of ways? If we restrict our communication to remarks sanitized and “fully vetted by legal” have we, in insulating ourselves from risk, insulated ourselves from others?
In this past year, our email service counts my sent messages well into five figures. Of those, at least one ended-up in the hands of the unintended. Perhaps many others could have been more thoughtfully expressed. But is it better to communicate honestly even if not entirely empathetically? Is the risk of a misplaced word too great ignore? Or is the real waste not in the haste of the reply but in not replying at all?
Yet in a world where busy folks can expect to receive dozens (if not hundreds) of telephone calls, faxes, emails and texts each day, how can we manage volume without failing in accuracy and intention? Some would advise that we should restrict our communication to only the professional and antiseptic. Does this approach allow for the most effective and authentic style to building deep and lasting relationships? Not knowing if a co-worker has a kid with cancer might best avoid an unintentional HIPA transgression, but does it preclude us from connecting in the greatest human and intimate of ways? If we restrict our communication to remarks sanitized and “fully vetted by legal” have we, in insulating ourselves from risk, insulated ourselves from others?
In this past year, our email service counts my sent messages well into five figures. Of those, at least one ended-up in the hands of the unintended. Perhaps many others could have been more thoughtfully expressed. But is it better to communicate honestly even if not entirely empathetically? Is the risk of a misplaced word too great ignore? Or is the real waste not in the haste of the reply but in not replying at all?
This column was published on Tuesday, December 20, 2011 in the Current in Carmel, Current in Westfield,
Current in Fishers, and Current in Noblesville - http://youarecurrent.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment