How can I reach you?

As I said at the end of last week’s post, there isn’t a full pod this week, because of the urgent personal issues which made last week’s show a day late and the short week this week (if you’re reading this outside the UK, Monday 26th May was a holiday for us).

On the pod so far, as well as talking about fundamental communication skills, I’ve laid the foundations for a more detailed look at the context which shapes the content of our interactions, including:

·         Relational connection (Ep5),

·         Physical space/place (Ep7) and

·         Time (Ep8).

This week, I want to talk about an element of context which can make or break the rest – media.  I’ll do that by outlining five media theories I’ve found useful.  To be clear, these are ‘theories’ in the scientific sense - explanations and interpretations of observable facts:

1  Media Richness Theory - Context shapes content:

Theories abound about how we choose and use a medium of communication.  The jumping off point for several of them is Media Richness Theory (MRT).

The richness (or leanness) of a medium is measured by how much understanding it can transfer in a particular time-frame.  That flows from the number of channels it offers (sound and vision etc) and how easy it is to

·         Use natural language

·         Give and get responses and

·         Focus on the person we’re communicating with.

MRT was designed to deal with the two organisational communication challenges I mentioned on Ep3 of the pod:

‘Do You Make Yourself Clear?’ –

·         Equivocality (where information is unclear, because it’s open to more than one interpretation) and

·         Uncertainty (where the information is incomplete).

MRT says:

·         Richer media work best in equivocal situations (more channels mean more context, which helps with interpretation) and

·         Leaner media can deal more effectively with uncertainty (fewer channels are needed– and may mean less distraction).

Brace yourself for a blindingly obvious statement – which we all overlook at times:

When we really need a richer medium to make ourselves clear, using a leaner one (perhaps because it’s more immediately convenient) raises the risk of one of the most common causes of conflict – misunderstanding – along with a false economy. 

Using a richer medium when a leaner one would do is less likely to cause a problem.

2  Channel Expansion Theory Perception begins with perspective:

One of the challenges with MRT is that ‘’richness’ and ‘Leanness’ are defined objectively; but our media choices are often very subjective.  So, for instance, we regularly use leaner media than MRT would suggest we need.

CET says people expand their perception of the richness of a channel based on their personal perspective – shaped by things like their:

·         Age and

·         Past experience.

Someone who has grown up in the digital age is more likely to see text as ‘richer’ than would their parents, unless, of course:

The parents have had a particularly good experience with texting – or

The kids have had a particularly bad one!

Who we’re dealing with also strongly influences how rich or lean we think a medium is.  Some people are great at doing a lot with a little; and the better the relationship between sender and recipient, of course, the easier that is for any of us to do.

Talking of influence, the wider social variety plays an important part here.  Interacting with a group where either Richard or leaner media are the norm, can shift our preferences.

Finally, although the scientists didn’t mention it, I will – how we naturally invest our attention resources is a major shaper of our media perspectives and perceptions. 

On Ep4 of the pod:

‘Can I Have Your Attention, Please?’

Prof. Michael Proulx of The University of Bath talked about how it’s possible to change your perception of phone call quality, just by shifting your focus.

On the blog from that show, I talked about attention investment in terms of different kinds of lighting.  A ‘spotlight’ (who naturally focuses their resources very specifically), is likely to prefer leaner media; but a ‘floodlight’ (who spreads their resources wide) is probably going to incline towards richer media – and both will do that regardless of what they want to achieve from an interaction.

As a ‘floodlight’ myself, I can confirm – everything else being equal, I’d almost always prefer to talk to someone than text.

That said, when time and attention resources are under pressure, we all go leaner.

3  Media Naturalness Theory - Mother Nature still knows best! – sometimes …:

One of those objective claims of MRT is that face-to-face (ftf) interaction is easiest for us - that any other means of communication, which gives us either less, or more information, is more cognitively demanding. 

According to the developers of MNT, that’s because through many thousands of years of our history (WHEN it was all we had), our brains evolved to be optimised for ftf interaction. 

It’s easy to see how not having enough information can be more demanding for us, isn’t it?; but too much information can also get in the way of understanding, by overloading our limited attention resources.  One example of that is what happens when the medium we use for a virtual interaction subjects us to someone else’s bad lighting or soundscape!

Looking back to CET, though, I have to wonder how much of that is individual learnt behaviour, rather than something handed down by evolution?  I can think of several young people who find face-to-face interaction much more demanding than something like sms.

4  Media Synchronicity Theory – for clarity, we need real time:

Media Synchronicity Theory (MST) is particularly relevant to remote collaboration.  It emphasizes the value of ‘real time’ interactions when we need to make sure we’re creating a shared interpretation of information pulled together from different sources.

There are two stages in collaborative communication:

‘Conveyance’ – the exchange of information and

‘Convergence’ – the amalgamation of the information exchanged.

When we’re sending and receiving portions of information, time-shifted media let us make sure what we’re exchanging is complete; but when we’re combining it all into a coherent whole, it really helps to be able to talk to each other – physically and in real time, to achieve clarity.

5  Social Presence Theory – yes, you can be in two places at once:

Social Presence Theory (SPT) is (as the name suggests) all about being there in spirit, when you can’t be there in the flesh.  To do that, you have to be:

·         Aware of another person and

·         Focused on them.

By now, I hope what I’m about to say is obvious – but not blindingly so?:

The more channels available to you, the easier that is.

Normal service will be resumed on the pod next week.  In the meantime, if you need help with any aspect of conflict management at work, come and talk to me – any way you want to!  All my details are on the website –

http://www.savvybusinessresolutions.com