Part I
Part I begins with an emerging irony: the advance of technology doesn’t guarantee more effective transmission and sharing of complex information, especially involving groups of people in various electronic settings, such as phone conferences, webinars, and webcasts. To reach its potential, “high tech” must dance with an uncommonly skilled “high touch partner,” one who can interact with, coordinate, and guide “distant” learners and participatory team members. Four broad domains of conceptual and applied knowledge are outlined as critical to achieving “Effective, Efficient, and Emotionally Intelligent Electronic/Phone Conferencing.” The essay also focuses on the information processing glitch built into the electronic meeting/web experience: to compensate for reduced sensory input the human brain makes inferences, tentative assumptions, and hypotheses. And when insufficient time, need for control, or other personal “hot button” issues begin driving the perceptual experience, problems arise. Finally, Part I closes by examining the “Biasing Effect, especially the way perceivers differentiate how they explain the source of motivation and make evaluations, comparing themselves to others along two dimensions: a) Deed vs. Intent Filter and b) Attributional Error.
The Hidden Cognitive-Communicative Dangers in Phone/Web Conferencing – Part I
Disarming the Dangerous Alliance of Assumptions, Anonymity, and Aggression
Consider one of the ironies of our ever-changing and expanding technical world: Being a high tech specialist, “nerd” or even a “maven” is not sufficient to guarantee the effectiveness or success of electronic meetings, phone conferences, webinars, and webcasts. More critical is the ability to apply traditional yet foundational knowledge of “soft” or “people skills” in four vital areas:
1) an understanding of emotional insight-interpersonal intelligence; i.e., a “Four ‘C’-ing” Mindset” – being Curious and Compassionate, Critical and Creative,
2) verbal and nonverbal communication, especially active listening & questioning as well as interactive public presentation,
3) group dynamics, structure, developmental stages, managing conflict, individual and team performance, group process, along with “high task-high touch” cohesion and coordination, and
4) leadership-facilitation substance, style, and savvy, i.e., purposeful use of self as role model and catalyst; akin to being an orchestra leader who guides-supports-questions-confronts-dares individuals and teams to bring out their best music.
Though “smart” upgrading abounds, traditional barriers to “Message Sent = Message Received” remain; and new cognitive-communicative challenges sprout like weeds in our ever-growing technological web. Even with the most sophisticated, cutting edge devices, you can still only psychologically “touch” a colleague, client, or audience member, and then only by knowing how to project and connect with your head, heart, and soul.
Based on reading the incredibly learned new book, The Age of Insight: The Quest to Understand the Unconscious in Art, Mind, and Brain, (2012), by Eric Kandel, and my attempt at developing a “high tech and high touch” workshop/webinar program – “Designing Electronic/Phone Conferencing that’s Effective, Efficient, and Emotionally Intelligent: Skills, Structures, and Strategies for Mastering the Medium, the Message, and the Meeting,” I have finally perceived the obvious: there’s a weed-like information processing glitch built into the electronic meeting experience (and it’s not the devious use of the “mute” button). Actually, this perceptual dynamic has a powerful impact on the degree to which your evaluations and communication are “real, responsible, responsive, and respectful.” (Email stressdoc@aol.com for my article “The Four ‘R’s of PRO Relating.”)
Seeing, Not Sensing, and Distorting the Obvious and Ambiguous
Many people quickly recognize that one of the drawbacks of most phone conferences or webinars, even with video conferences, is the absence or limited nature of visual data – facial and hand gestures, overall body language, and especially the eyes as “windows to the soul,” eyes that sparkle or get “big” from wonder, greed or fear, along with tears of sadness/joy, etc. Such signals help place verbal information and exchanges in a nonverbal and more meaningful context. And while rapidity and pacing of speech, as well as volume, volubility, lability excitability, reaction time, pattern of interruption or accommodation, inflection, tone, exaggeration, hemming and hawing, repetition, pausing, silence, accent, repeatedly clearing the throat, etc. are all important nonverbal markers, they can’t fully compensate for the lack of visual data. As important, not all users of electronic meeting technology are sufficiently conscious of or versed in integrating this non/verbal-contextual data into their informational-communicational playing field. Clearly, eliminating or minimizing sensory input, signaling, and feedback cues and clues may adversely affect the probability of “Message Sent = Message Received” (MS = MR).
However, the informational and interpersonal issue is not simply one of sensory deficiency. For many, the real problem occurs when trying to remedy the absence or the ambiguity of data. And our brain is fairly compelled to take on this challenge... Alas, necessity may lead to invention that is less “brainchild” and more “fiction, fabrication, and fantasy.”
According to Kandel, our senses provide us data that is approximate and incomplete. Our brain attempts to fill in the gaps and often compensates for reduced or uncertain sensory input by making inferences, tentative assumptions, and hypotheses. While often accurate, a serious information processing problem may arise in ego-, identity- or performance-defining and challenging situations for a perceiver, especially when stimuli are not fully clear, rational, predictable, or explicable. However, when a brain is seeking closure, one does not have to feel overly anxious or threatened to quickly abandon the tentative and come to definite conclusions and judgments, often prematurely. In general, most want to replace an ambiguous, uncertain, or vulnerable state, to dismiss the tentative with a sense of confidence or competence; perceivers’ want to be comfortable, correct and in control, even if the belief is more fantasy than reality.
The Biasing Effect
For example, one of the reasons many rape victim’s often erroneously blame themselves for the dreadful event is that the notion that life could be so horrifically random or chaotic is just too disorienting or devastating. (And for the spiritually inclined, why would their God abandon them?) Believing they could have done something different and didn’t helps regain some semblance of future or anticipatory control, no matter how illusory the belief and self-damning the consequences.
However, social psychology research reveals that the potential for misperception and misjudgment also lurks in mundane, everyday activities. One important source of illumination comes from “Attribution Theory.” This theory examines how someone perceives another person’s motives and behaviors, especially in comparison to the way such an individual makes self-evaluations. Here are two attributional points to ponder:
1. Deed vs. Intent Filter. In general we are quicker to judge other people by their actions and deeds; we are skeptical of and do not simply give them a pass for their articulated intentions. Conversely, we are less demanding, we lower the evaluation bar, when it comes to our own behavior; having right-minded intentions, even without follow-up action or achievement, often lets us off the negative judgment hook.
This perceptual biasing tendency, however, may experience a 180 degree reversal for people with depressive dispositions. Such individuals at times selectively overlook environmental and/or biochemical constraints impeding or disrupting an ability to transform intentions into action steps, and they misjudge themselves accordingly. Or consider the example of a person grappling with some form of clinical depression who, nonetheless, accomplishes a significant task. Not surprisingly, this individual may lack both sufficient self- and diagnostic awareness or at, minimum, may be more pessimistic. Upon task completion he may still be critical because it took him longer or he had to work harder than his peers or colleagues. That is, he winds up questioning his intrinsic aptitude, intelligence, desire, and/or talent.
At the same time, there is research that reveals depressive individuals may have a more realistic assessment of the external constraints in a situation or task. That is, they are less naively “optimistic” about their degree of perceived control in comparison to “normal” subjects. Perhaps there is some optimal balance between optimism and pessimism, between one’s perceived internal and external “locus of control” for overcoming attributional bias and attaining objective self-recognition and evaluation.
2. Attributional Error. An area ripe for applied research is perceptual error based on an observer attributing a person’s motives or actions to personality factors, often to the exclusion of situational forces. Here’s an illustration. Let’s say a relatively new colleague at work (whom you don’t know well) has come in late two or three times in the past week. It wouldn’t be surprising if you (and others) began to start wondering about his or her motives and competencies, e.g., is the person lazy, disorganized, disenchanted with work, or just plain old passive-aggressive? However, if you were to come in late a couple of times, or were asked to speculate about reasons for your hypothetical lateness, research indicates you would likely quickly note, for example, the traffic conditions, needing to get a child to daycare, illness in the family, etc.
Can you see the bias? When explaining our own problematic behavior we first focus on situational or outside conditions affecting intentions and actions, thus providing a rationale or protective cover for any outcomes or consequences. In contrast, while observing others our initial predilection is to judge based on inner personality or motivational traits, not on environmental constraints. An assessment focused on the individual alone, not seen in context, is more judgmental, making it harder to be empathic or forgiving, or even just truly curious. (For example, “I wonder why she behaves that way?” said with obvious tone, and an emphasis on the “she”-word, is often more a disguised judgment than a question of genuine concern.) And this tendency to broadly, quickly, or indiscriminately place personal evaluation over situational factors is called “Attribution Error.”
Deficient Data and Perceptual Drama: Transcending the Electronic-Human Dilemma
As noted previously, an electronic, information transmitting-sharing medium that reduces sensory data and that heightens informational ambiguity, thereby facilitating a rush to understanding if not to judgment, is problematic enough. But add a perceiver ready to rapidly or selectively filter both because of a normative propensity for perceptual-judgmental error and:
a) festering negative experience or painful memories stirred by the person-situation context,
b) general time pressure, boredom, exhaustion, or distraction,
c) current emotional – personal, professional, family, work-life balance – stress or frustration,
d) competitive, career advancement, respect and reward, or workplace self-esteem issues, and
e) being overly invested personally in only one acceptable decision or possible outcome, that is, having a “believing is hearing” or “black or white” mindset, then misinterpretations, misjudgments, prejudgments, rigid viewpoints, and bias tends to happen.
Closing Summary
Part I begins with an emerging irony: the advance of technology doesn’t guarantee more effective transmitting and sharing of complex information, especially involving groups of people in various electronic settings, such as phone conferences, webinars, and webcasts. Four broad domains of conceptual and applied knowledge were outlined as critical to achieving “Effective, Efficient, and Emotionally Intelligent Electronic/Phone Conferencing.” The essay also focuses on the information processing glitch built into the electronic meeting experience: to compensate for reduced sensory input the human brain makes inferences, tentative assumptions, and hypotheses. And when insufficient time, need for control, or other personal “hot button” issues begin driving the perceptual experience, problems arise. Finally, Part I closes by examining the “Biasing Effect, especially the way perceivers differentiate how they explain the source of motivation and make evaluations, comparing themselves to others along two dimensions: a) Deed vs. Intent Filter and b) Attributional Error.
Stay tuned for Part II: “The Dangerous Alliance of Assumptions, Anonymity, and Aggression.” Until next time…Practice Safe Stress!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Part II
The BM2 -- Biased Mind X Blazing Mouth -- Syndrome in Phone/Web Conferencing: Disarming the Dangerous Alliance of Assumptions, Anonymity, and Aggression -- II
Part I begins with an emerging irony: the advance of technology doesn’t guarantee more effective transmitting and sharing of complex information, especially involving groups of people in various electronic settings, such as phone conferences, webinars, and webcasts. To reach its potential, “high tech” must dance with an uncommonly skilled “high touch partner,” one who can interact with, coordinate, and lead “distant” learners and participatory team members. Four broad domains of conceptual and applied knowledge were outlined as critical to achieving “Effective, Efficient, and Emotionally Intelligent Electronic/Phone Conferencing. The essay also focuses on the information processing glitch built into the electronic meeting experience: to compensate for reduced sensory input the human brain makes inferences, tentative assumptions, and hypotheses. This becomes a significant problem when lack of time, need for control, or other personal “hot button” issues begin driving the perceptual experience and hardening your assumptions. Finally, Part I closes by examining the “Biasing Effect, especially the way perceivers differentiate how they explain the source of motivation and make evaluations, comparing themselves to others along two dimensions: a) Deed vs. Intent Filter and b) Attributional Error. Part II provides strategies for surmounting the dangers when trying to maximize the “Effective, Efficient, and Emotionally Intelligent Use of Medium Message, and Meeting.”
The BM2 -- Biased Mind X Blazing Mouth -- Syndrome in Phone/Web Conferencing: Disarming the Dangerous Alliance of Assumptions, Anonymity, and Aggression -- II
So what is the necessary course of action (and not just having “good intensions”) for an electronic conferencing perceiver/participant desiring to be objective, insightful, knowledgeable, and empathic? Consider these “Paradoxical Information-Communication Insights, Tools, Techniques, and Tactics for Managing the Medium, Message, and Meeting”:
1. Pay Attention, Hold Fluid Assumptions, and Ask Clarifying Questions. When processing information that is intrinsically incomplete, sign up for Triple “A” Anti-Bias Insurance:
a) Pay Attention to Other and Self. Especially when data is limited in a meaningful way, paying attention to communicational nuances and subtleties is vital. Though essential, don’t just concentrate on the person’s words. Familiarize yourself with the aforementioned nonverbal markers, such as pace, tone, volume, excitability, pattern of interruption, etc. To enrich understanding, as much as possible, in your own and others’ communications, start attending to the presence or absence and/or intensity of these cues. Focus on this sensory input both when you are in the same room with the other party and when interacting electronically.
Actually, start building awareness by mindfully attending to your own conscious and fleeting, premeditated and spontaneous, verbal and nonverbal, physiological and psychological signals – for example, sighs, facial grimaces, and eye-brow raising “whatever’s,” as well as overt and covert emotional triggers, recurring thoughts, and the meaning of your actions for self and others. Appraise your responses and, especially, your defensive and oversensitive reactions in all manner of personally and professionally important or intimate interactions. For example, unresolved psychological issues involving past or present significant members of your family or relationship partners, especially painful early childhood or young adult experiences, are often a major biasing factor. Coaching or counseling can significantly aid this reflective and feedback-driven process.
b) Avoid Premature Hardening of the Assumptions. Often when sensory input is reduced, as previously noted, the brain makes inferences and fills in the gaps; our sense organs operate on the basis of “simplified physics,” not always providing us with complete or representational information. (It’s why we can be readily tricked, for example, by visual, tactile, or auditory illusions, e.g., think of the “phantom limb” syndrome, hearing voices, or the world of painting, video games, or the movies (i.e., the IMAX experience), whereby your brain enables an intense three-dimensional experience to be projected onto a two dimensional canvas or screen.) And when the setting or medium (or message and messenger) in some fashion is data-reception or transmission compromised or challenged, misperceptions are likely to happen.
Of course, mortal error, that is, subconscious or historical-emotional biasing looms ever-present in the human psyche. And painful subterranean memories, vague dissatisfactions, ego insults, as well as lingering conflicts or “grief ghosts” are quicker to surface under conditions of chronic stress, uncertainty, or vulnerability. Now a perceiver overlooks the tentative nature of a hypothesis, too hastily turning provisional, speculative, or unconfirmed assumptions into judgments or beliefs if not “hard facts.” This conversion process tends to occur when feeling anxious or “at a loss,” when expectations or role-identity-psychological-family security markers have been unexpectedly shaken or suddenly overturned and, especially, when possessing a rigid need to be correct, in charge, or in control. So in addition to an overdue stress management regimen, work-life-grief transition coaching, or some personal therapy, how do you protect against the obstruction or hardening of assumptive arteries?
c) Ask Clarifying, Hypothesis Testing Questions. Start developing the mindset of a researcher and coach by asking questions that clarify both the outer-environmental/situational factors and inner-psychological dimensions – from personality traits, aptitudes and attitudes to motivational or situation-specific states – impacting the emotions, thought, and behavior of the individuals or groups that are the focus of your attention. Reframe your assumptions as speculative hypotheses that need to be tested and retested. While a bit of hyperbole, as much as feasible, limited information needs to invite unlimited questions before reaching a conclusion.
Such questions help keep assumptions tentative and restrain premature judgment. For example, much better to tactfully say, “I really would like to understand your thinking here” rather than “I can’t imagine how you could possibly believe (or do) that!” And if you have a hard time keeping your provocative, inner CSI detective or attorney under wraps, remember the Stress Doc mantra: Count to ten and check within…when in doubt, check without (that is, check in with the other party).
The moral: stop imagining (or projecting) your judgmental beliefs and values, and start inquiring without being inquisitorial; unless, of course, you’re in a virtual courtroom or similar venue, where being adversarial is the functional norm. (Though we know how quickly this adversarial tactic becomes dysfunctional when carried from the courtroom to the boardroom or bedroom.)
What Are “Good Questions?”
Good questions are not intended for winning the “gotcha” game; especially when using electronic media, they need to close the knowledge gap between what you and others infer from message sent and what the messenger intended, believes, or hopes to achieve. (Of course, inferences are also frequently influenced by past transmissions, interactions, and overall experiences) When these questions:
1) are asked with humility - "I don't have all the answers" – along with a desire to truly listen and learn from the other party, and to more genuinely understand before confronting and judging,
2) reflect an interactive process that is not contaminated by hardened assumptions or “personal baggage,” and
3) help the other feel safe to express his or her mind candidly and even critically, then this process often is affirming for the individual being questioned. Now your message becomes: “I really want to know your thoughts and feelings; I value your perspective and position. And I will not lash out or wilt under fire (but won’t accept abuse either).”
While acknowledgement doesn’t mean agreement, (actually, most folks just want a fair hearing), such respectful dialog may even rebuild trust between one-time antagonists. But remember, especially in an electronic/phone conference, these questions may need to be posed frequently, as there are plenty of gaps and barriers to MS=MR.
Of course, in today’s TNT – Time-Numbers-Technology – driven and distracted world, there are many occasions when timelines and deadlines are critical, and delay leads to unacceptable consequences; decisions, judgments, and action steps must be made based on the data at hand, despite its limitations, information gaps, or uncertain nature. Nonetheless, whatever steps can be taken to check out inferences and assumptions, to uncover hidden agendas, to close the gap between what you imagine and what you might in fact discover, along with “clearing the air” between different interests or “silos” and getting real buy-in before launching, take them. Authentic start-up commitment is your most important process!
2. Are You Strong Enough to Be Vulnerable? Why do so many have a hard time asking questions, in addition to the often questionable assumption that they already have sufficient information and “the answer”? Some obvious points come to mind: a) people don’t want to be seen as nosey, rude, or presumptuous, maybe even a “know-it-all”; they don’t want to overstep their boundaries; others may become uncomfortable, defensive, or angry, b) in some contexts raising questions puts into question your blind loyalty; e.g., my “Law of the Loyalty Loop”: Those who never want you to answer back always want you to back their answer, c) there’s a fear that asking the wrong question may reveal a lack of knowledge, intellect, savvy, or maturity, or that the questioner will be so judged, d) in related fashion, some see asking questions as not being decisive or needing others’ approval, and e) it may open the floodgates; others may now feel free to put the questioner under scrutiny or the “Intimate FOE: Fear of Exposure” spotlight.
I suppose my going on four decades experience as a therapist, coach, wide-ranging psychological-organizational subject matter consultant, workshop leader, group facilitator, including a ten-year run orchestrating an AOL chat group – “Shrink Rap ™ & Group Chat” – and now webinar presenter motivated me to hone my questioning skills. Perhaps the most important qualities for being an effective and empathic questioner involve three “beings” and one “appearing.” Let’s examine Four Keys to “Good Questioning” that Cultivates Openness, Understanding, and Trust – being Humble, being Curious, being Mistaken, and appearing Naïve (facilitating, of course, all manner of coming OUT ;-):
a) Being Humble. Perhaps the foundation of good questioning is a sense of humility; the dynamics of life and people is complex, requiring an appreciation for both a common humanity and an uncommon diversity. We live in an “always on/upgrading” bio-psycho-social-cultural-geographical-global world. You must be able to acknowledge not having all the answers and that input and ideas from others are vital for achieving a more valid and valuable understanding of this interpersonal world, and the various and meaningful points of view. In fact, this approximates one definition of “respect” – paying close attention to another’s lived experience and world view. Alas, respect is often in short supply when compelled to rapidly jump from one person-situation task or problem to the next.
As noted previously, especially when using electronic media, you want to close the assumption-knowledge gap between inferred and intended message through messenger-receiver feedback. It may require some time, attention, and “good questions” to discern the goodness of fit between message received and what the messenger overtly proposed and covertly believes, what she expects and hopes to achieve, the tension between her fears and fantasies. (Remember, for many of us, a most intimate yet subterranean fantasy is often hidden at the core of a great fear.)
b) Being Curious. Clearly the above-mentioned humility doesn’t keep a good questioner in his or her place; to the contrary, it releases and exercises an individual’s exploratory senses and muscles. And curiosity isn’t all brain; it’s also brawn, or at least the backbone to ask tough or sensitive questions with a tactful, patient, yet persistent manner. You are not afraid to discover the good, the bad, and the ugly about this individual (or about yourself), and you will work hard to hold quick judgment in abeyance.
Sure you are seeking information for its own enlightening properties. But when it comes to the realm of multimedia and emotional insight-interpersonal intelligence, good questions say others are important to get to know, to understand, to connect with, and to learn from. Ultimately, back and forth questioning and sharing helps build empathy, trust, and partnerships.
c) Being Mistaken. While curiosity will not likely kill the chat, or other electronic media, curiosity often means moving out of a comfort zone, both your own as well as stirring or even provoking the object of your curiosity. (I’m using the word “provoking” or “provocative” based on its French derivation, “provocare” – to arouse or awaken energy or curiosity, to stimulate the mind.) Especially when visual/sensory data is reduced, a good questioner must be willing to ask about the apparent or even patently evident, to not assume there is comprehension or agreement when genuine and mutual understanding has not been earned. A listener might even wonder why you don’t know “that” answer, or is puzzled or put-out as the piece of information you seek seems so “obvious.” However, what seems obvious to one may not be so to another, especially when a questioner is exploring a deeper or more comprehensive person-situation assessment. Better to incur the other party’s judgment or incredulity than to bypass the necessary headwork, heart work, and homework.
In addition, when time is a factor in the quantity and quality of engagement, you must have the confidence to ask assumption-based, “big picture” questions even when you know you have not found or put together enough pieces of the puzzle. (You might want to say, “This question may seem out of left field, but I just want to check if there might be a connection between these two events, as unlikely as it may seem.”) Remember, your goal is less being right and more to help draw others out, thereby enabling the pieces-parties to connect. And being an active questioner, no matter how sensitive or tactful, you must be prepared for, if not fully comfortable hearing, “I disagree” and, even, “You are wrong!”
Again, the risk is often worth the reward: For authentic relationship building, based on my experience in trenches virtual and veridical (veridical: “corresponding to facts; not illusory; real; actual; genuine”; Dictionary.com; I needed to come up with a “v”-word counterpoint to “virtual,” when people are in fact physically, “fl-2-fl” – flesh-to-flesh – in the same room), it’s vital allowing others to be constructively critical. Acknowledging and mutually engaging with anger expressed in an acceptable manner (often by the receiver not confusing “attitude” or “face-saving” smoke for “hostile” or “abusive” fire) is a necessary condition for intimate sharing and connection as well as the evolution of trust. [Footnote: A pattern of hostility or abuse must be countered by one or more of the following:
(1) appropriate, preferably f-2-f, engagement, and limit-setting, if necessary, with the aid of a conflict mediator,
(2) momentarily withdrawing from the line of fire to lick any wounds and reflect upon resources and strategy, and/or
(3) reporting the problem to appropriate authorities, hopefully ones more responsible and responsive than some recent heads of academic institutions. If not genuinely or adequately responsive, the threat of an outside attorney may get the attention of the authorities. (Of course, taking on a company tends to be fraught with risk and requires the financial means along with courage, support, and stamina.)]
d) Appearing Naive. What I mean by “appearing naive” has less to do with such synonyms as “inexperienced” and “unsophisticated” as it does with guileless, trusting, or especially “artless,” which “stresses absence of plan or purpose and suggests unconcern for or lack of awareness of the reaction produced in others.” And while a good questioner usually has some purposeful motives and goals and is sensitive to other’s emotions and needs, there still is openness, even innocence, in one’s approach to people, problems, and possibilities. You momentarily let go of everyday assumptions or expectations, as if you are on vacation traveling in a foreign land; you have a tabula rasa or “blank slate” and mentally meander with fresh, childlike-eyes and ears open to whatever is encountered along the exploratory path. And an unexpected benefit: people focus on your energy and elan vitale; they frequently want to be plugged into you and your power source.
3. Recognize and Take Responsibility for Hurt, Angry “I”s, and Psychological “Hot Buttons.” Much like associating to the old Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), especially when attempting to assess the human drama without key sensory data, not only do people make inferences and jump to assumptions, but interpretations can readily become judgments and insinuations. And this phenomenon is magnified when the stimulus person-situation has touched if not triggered one of our “hot buttons.” A hot button is a psychic issue or complex of emotions smoldering in your psychic underground that get aroused (or may explode or implode) in reaction to another’s communication or behavior. However, the other’s presence, words, looks, or actions are usually not the “real” concern; the subjective perception of the other as aversive or an antagonist is exaggerated by the release of our own painful “emotional echoes.” In addition to this overt and covert emotional hurt, hot button behavior is often set off by one or more of the “Four Angry ‘I’s.” Again, let me briefly explain.
Anger is a state of heightened activation or arousal of the autonomic nervous system (for example, increased heart rate, rapid breathing, flushed face, chest pains, sweaty palms, raised voice, etc.) that is fueled if not fired by our cognitive – conscious and unknowing – interpretations. You experience those "Four Angry 'I's," that is, you have a palpable sense of:
1. Injustice. A rule of conduct, a cherished belief or instrumental goal is being threatened or abused; you see yourself (also others with whom you are psychologically dependent or connected) as a victim of an injustice, unfairness or disloyalty.
2. Injury. You feel disrespected, discarded or ignored; there's a sense of insult and humiliation along with injury – often psychological, at times also physical.
3. Invasion. You perceive your freedom, autonomy, boundary, and personal space/control as constricted, disrupted, or violated; your identity and bodily and/or psychological integrity are being threatened or attacked.
4. Intention. There is an energy and determination to do something about the above injustices, injuries, and invasions; you are ready – reflexively and/or purposefully – to challenge the status quo.
Hot Buttons: Morphing Fiction into Friction and Flame Throwing Tongues and Fingers
Of course, being highly sensitive to other’s pains and passions often makes for a caring and compassionate listener. However, this same sensitivity, when sufficiently stirred, if not conscious and consciously channeled, can lead to fighting deep-rooted, disguised, or misguided, “mountain over molehill” battles. By definition, it doesn’t take much for an overly sensitive or immature ego to be pushed beyond its pain, angst, or shame limit and for the “injured” or “insulted” party to self-righteously push back. It’s hard to listen above your own long-simmering, rumbling heat and friction. Subterranean static not only complicates the perceived and primary source – psychic vs. actual, past vs. present – of the message; it also compromises your ability to assess objectively whether the sender’s message was a reasonable or acceptable missive or intended as a dismissive aside or demeaning dart.
And when fiction morphs into friction, a “hot button” receiver’s push back may take the form of quiet passive-aggression, i.e., silence, forgetfulness or procrastination, and/or a condescending or intellectually cutting remark or “scarcasm,” in addition to loud or rapid, defensive or harsh growling, swearing, and ranting. And, of course, the electronic age allows for all kind of counterattacks. Hiding behind a keyboard or IPad screen or “Not so Smart” phone, it’s easy to take on a Dirty Harry, “Make My Day” avatar. Remember, your primitive brain is not only hardwired to a flashing and fiery tongue but also to those dart- and flame-throwing thumbs and fingers. I think we need a new mantra: Anonymity is the father of aggression!
An IT Officer of a bank shared how when the CEO holds electronic phone conferences he becomes a pushy, “little Napoleon.” When running a live, fl-2-fl, in-the-same-room meeting he’s still a no-nonsense, “let’s get it done” leader; however, the body postures and gestures along with the eyes in the room evoke a degree of, if not empathy, at least executive concern for how the living, breathing, emotionally sentient social group is appraising him. Some form of social approval-social control helps tamp down Mr. B.s excess testosterone and lurking, aggressive shadow side.
Anonymity, Aggression and Empathy
Actually, the absence or reduction of clearly discernible facial gestures, emotional and bodily expression, and an inability to look into people’s eyes is more than just a data issue. It is just this sensory input that heightens a sense of empathy and concern for fellow human beings. Without these cues clearly it is harder to detect and identify with another person’s emotions, intentions, pain and passion, and overall state of mind. Too often the other party at the end of the virtual line is less a person and more an anonymous, nameless, recipient or “message target.”
Alas, I warned about the effects of Internet anonymity and acting out aggression through electronic counterstrikes with the ‘90s essay, “Is It an Email or E-missile?” The essay was inspired by a DC “think tank” consultant who wasn’t thinking. In a heightened emotional state, our hero had mistakenly hit the “Send All” button; now a scathingly “hot” email reply was launched, not to the intended antagonist across the country but to about a thousand recipients across the globe. The Chief Executive had him in my office the next day for “Anger Management” sessions! There’s an inverse relationship between anonymity and aggression (perceiver aggression goes up) and anonymity and empathy (perceiver empathy goes down). Hmm…maybe some using the “mute” button not just for distraction but for detachment – to short-circuit morphing into a mutant monster – is not such a bad idea.
Okay, enough. I could go on and on embellishing our “hot button” topic mostly because I know this double-edged, emotionally-interpersonally sensitive creature on a very personal level. Suffice to say, I’ve had to work long and hard (and be ever-vigilant) to achieve some semblance of understanding and psychic control. (Email stressdoc@aol.com for “Surviving the Conference Call Battlefield: A Contentious Case Vignette – Part I.”)
Closing Summary
This essay begins by noting an emerging irony: the advance of technology doesn’t guarantee more effective transmission and sharing of complex information, especially when it involves groups of people in various electronic settings, such as phone conferences, webinars, and webcasts. Four broad domains of conceptual and applied knowledge were outlined as critical to achieving “Effective, Efficient, and Emotionally Intelligent Electronic/Phone Conferencing.” To be productive in this electronic media age, a leader, presenter, or participant needs awareness of and/or training in: 1) emotional insight-interpersonal intelligence, 2) integration of verbal and nonverbal cues and skills for active listening and questioning as well as interactive public presentation, 3) group dynamics, structure, developmental stages, managing conflict, individual and team performance, group process, along with “high task and high touch” cohesion and coordination, and 4) leadership-facilitation substance, style, and savvy, i.e., purposeful use of self as role model and catalyst; akin to being an orchestra leader who guides-supports-questions-confronts-dares individuals and teams to bring out their best music.
Drawing on evolving research in the field of neurobiology, the essay also focuses on a weed-like information processing glitch built into the electronic meeting experience: to compensate for reduced sensory input the human brain makes inferences, tentative assumptions, and hypotheses. This becomes a significant problem when lack of time, need for control, or other personal “hot button” issues begins driving the perceptual experience. In order to reduce the uncertainty or anxiety inherent when stimuli are not fully clear, rational, or explicable, many individuals are quick to abandon the tentative and come to definite conclusions and judgments, often prematurely.
Part I closes by examining the “Biasing Effect, especially the way perceivers differentiate how they explain the source of motivation and make evaluations, comparing themselves to others along two dimensions: a) Deed vs. Intent Filter and b) Attributional Error. Clearly a paradigm if not a philosophy shift is needed: To maximize the productive use of smart technology in today’s “always on,” rapidly changing complex social-business, productivity and wellness arenas, we will need to upgrade “high touch skills” to build a truly powerful “high tech and high touch bridge.”
Part II of this essay commences with “Paradoxical Information-Communication Insights, Tools, Techniques, and Tactics for Managing the Medium, Message, and Meeting”:
1. Pay Attention (to Other and Self), Hold Fluid Assumptions, and Ask Clarifying Questions.
2. Are You Strong Enough to Be Vulnerable?; this includes Four Keys to “Good Questioning” that Cultivates Openness, Understanding, and Trust – being Humble, being Curious, being Mistaken, and appearing Naive (facilitating, of course, all manner of coming OUT ;-):
3. Recognize and Take Responsibility for Hurt, Angry “I”s, and Psychological “Hot Buttons.” Hot button sensitivity, when sufficiently stirred, if not conscious and consciously channeled, can lead to fighting deep-rooted, disguised, or misguided, “mountain over molehill” battles.
Finally, discover: a) ways to prevent “fiction morphing into friction” or “deficient data leading to human drama,” and b) the inverse relationship between anonymity and aggression (perceiver aggression goes up) and anonymity and empathy (perceiver empathy goes down). More than ever we need to defuse this “Hot War”: “No more turning emails into e-missiles!” Until next time…Practice Safe Stress!
Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The Stress Doc" ™, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an acclaimed keynote, kickoff and webinar speaker as well as "Motivational Humorist & Team Communication Catalyst" known for his interactive, inspiring, and FUN programs for both government agencies and major corporations. In addition, the "Doc" is a Team Building and Organizational Development Consultant as well as a Critical Incident/Grief Intervention Expert for Business Health Services, a National EAP/Wellness/OD Company. He is providing "Stress and Communication,” as well as “Managing Change, Leadership and Team Building" programs for a variety of units at Ft. Hood, Texas and for Army Community Services and Family Advocacy Programs at Ft. Meade, MD and Ft. Belvoir, VA as well as Andrews Air Force Base/Behavioral Medicine Services.
A former Stress and Violence Prevention Consultant for the US Postal Service, the Doc is the author of Practice Safe Stress and of The Four Faces of Anger. The Stress Doc blog appears in such platforms as HR.com, WorkforceWeek.com, and MentalHelpNet. His award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" – www.stressdoc.com – was called a "workplace resource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info on the Doc's "Practice Safe Stress" programs or to receive his free e-newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com or call 301-875-2567.
