In our modern, hurried days, there is always the risk of making an object of the people around us, turning our relations mechanical only because of the speed of things. Such risk is twice as common with electronic communication, whose immediateness, which is great, also has its drawbacks, and the distance between parties makes it easy to forget that we are not dealing with the machine in front of us, but with the human fellow on the other side.
E-mail, for instance, is one of the best instruments ever created to make a fool of oneself: reliable, instant, with no backwards step, you press the send button and then remember something you really wanted to tell the other person. When communications are merely functional, an oversight has no consequences, but, when it comes down to personal relations, it does make an important difference: a second email would look “reheated” (you can write a second mail to say that you forgot the Hutchingson files, but you won’t write a second time to say “I hope your father is doing fine after his operation”. Psychologically, it leaves a bad taste because it stresses the difference in your priorities; silence is better than a second mail, and besides, you don’t always have the time).
A good thing to remember is that you don’t have to answer right away. It is a powerful temptation, especially with systems like Getting Things Done, with its “2 minutes rule”, to challenge yourself to answer everything as it enters in your radar. You can do it with simple mails, but many of them require further pondering. The person on the other side is in your same situation, he also requires and thanks some time to produce a quality answer. Computers are fast but stupid. Take your time to elaborate. Don’t be a computer.
Some mail programs also have a useful option to delay the delivery for fifteen minutes after you press the send button, which allows you to include/suppress/improve all those things that you’ll start to remember after that.
But the trick that I have found really helpful is doing a quick mental scan through the other person’s areas of development. What do I know of him? What can I say to make him know I’m in touch? I use Stephen R. Covey’s methodology (Physical, Spiritual, Mental and Social-Emotional areas), as exposed in his archisupermegaclassic “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People”, but any systematic division will do. The point here is applying a “scientist” methodology to our vague good will, in order to avoid becoming a victim of hurry.
This process, of course, is not necessary or suitable for everybody. And other times the interaction is so superficial that the scanning will throw no results. But, even in those cases, I have found that this exercise is a good habit to promote healthy relations. In a way, it is all about the changes within oneself. It’s a bit like that advice of smiling while talking by phone because, although the other cannot see you, he will notice. Of course areas of interest always differ, of course human beings are not clones, of course many times all you can do is guess; but trying to guess is already a huge step.
And besides, on the other hand, we all humans are indeed quite alike when seen from the 20.000 feet perspective. We all have families, something that enjoy the most doing, we all need leisure and love and make plans and meet people. Try to apply these categories one low inbox day, for example. Once you practice, it takes only the time of a deep breath to make the full scanning, and it is an easy way to keep connected with your fellow humans and avoid becoming a plain data-spitting machine.
What do you think? Any (not classified) omission in your e-emails recently? What classification of areas of development you like better for a quick scanning?
Related posts:
The GTD First Aid Kit (and 4)
How to become optimistic with very little effort
Use verbal icons for your projects
Keep your brain at hand (part 1)
The magic of journaling