Welcome to the (Too Much) Information Age

There is nothing that will make the effects of a vacation or long weekend disappear faster than the realization that we have hundreds of messages to deal with. The electronic networks that were supposed to make our lives easier and more efficient have become sticky spiderwebs of complexities that attract and trap time and effort.

Because of the mobility of many families, electronic media have become more and more important in communicating with one another. With children who are away at college, spouses and partners who are doing business in another part of the world, parents who have retired and moved, and siblings and friends who live far away, our personal lives are also filled with opportunities to influence electronically.

At work, many of us belong to teams with members scattered across the globe, many of whom we may never meet in person. We frequently participate in video-, web-, or teleconferences. Leaders and those who report to them may be based in very different time zones, with little opportunity for face-to-face conversations. Our workday can stretch to accommodate our global team, partners, or customers.

Like it or not, we live in a world in which we must communicate with and influence people whom we seldom see. Realistically, much of our communication, and thus much of our influencing, will take place through these channels. We might as well learn to do it in the most effective way we can.

Electronic influence can be synchronous (in real time) or asynchronous (participants can communicate intermittently at their own convenience). Each has advantages and disadvantages related to the immediacy of the need. Synchronous media, such as teleconferences, text, chat, or IMs, can be positive when it's important to find support or make team decisions quickly. However, teleconferences or web meetings can lose effectiveness when members multitask or zone out during important discussions. Video meetings can work better, at least with small groups. The more senses that you can involve, the more engaged participants are likely to be.

Influencing asynchronously, such as through e-mail, is challenging and should probably not be your first choice for important opportunities if other means are at hand. In some organizations, people who sit in adjacent offices or cubicles will send e-mails in preference to speaking directly, especially about difficult issues. Unfortunately, the perceived importance, and thus the impact of a message, is often directly related to the effort and risk the sender has put forth.

Some situations in which e-mail is not a good means of communicating or influencing include

• When the issue is complex or urgent and the other person is potentially accessible
• When there is a conflict involved and the other person may see you as attempting to avoid it
• When you want the other person to understand how important the issue is to you
• When you want the other person to recognize how important his or her opinion is to you
• When you need time to draw the other person out in order to gain his or her ideas and support

In all of these cases and others, it's best if you can arrange a face-to-face meeting or, if that is not possible, a video chat or telephone meeting.

A common problem with e-mail, in particular, is that people tend to treat it as if it were a conversation and don't plan or screen their remarks. Once a message has been sent, it's difficult to unsend it. And you don't know how many other people have had an opportunity to eavesdrop on the conversation. Voice mail and e-mail differ from real-time, instant communication in that there's a record left that can be shared with others—at times, including those for whom the message was not intended. You would think that everyone from business and political leaders to terrorists would have figured this out by now, yet scandals or scoops based on intercepted electronic communications continue at this writing.

E-mail (and voice mail—less used now than in the past, but still possible in most organizations) in general follows the same principles of influence as in face-to-face influence opportunities. The behaviors are the same, although you don't have the reinforcement of voice tone (with e-mail), facial expressions, or gestures to clarify the meaning of your words. Over time, you should balance expressive and receptive influence; you can often include both types of behavior in the same message. In fact, it's often a good idea to err on the side of receptive behavior, since you have fewer clues as to how the other person is reacting than you do in face-to-face interactions. Video chats provide a broader band of information and thus are particularly valuable with people who are new to one another. Once you have become more “real” to one another, two-way influence is usually easier.

Learning how to use these media in conscious and productive ways can greatly expand your sphere of influence. While many people today communicate continually through electronic means, few have developed the skills to use these influence opportunities well. Failing to do so can lead not only to missed opportunities, but also to unprecedented and costly misunderstandings and conflicts.

First, You Have to Get Their Attention

Influence messages require a response so that you know whether you're getting closer to or further from your objective. Among the large number of asynchronous communications most business people receive daily, only a few will earn a thoughtful response. Given limitations of time and energy, we tend to select the ones that look most important or interesting.

These will probably include

• Messages from people who are key to our success or with whom we have an important relationship
• Messages about something in which we have an immediate interest or strong need
• Messages that look as if we will not get into trouble by the way we respond
• Messages that can be responded to easily and quickly
• Messages that are sent to us personally, rather than to a long list
• Messages that are brief and succinct; large blocks of text are not likely to invite the recipient to review the message quickly

We're unlikely to respond quickly or productively to messages when we perceive that our responses will create problems or more work for us, provide no benefits, or have no impact on anything we care about.

Knowing this, it's possible to design messages so they are more likely to attract the recipient's attention. First, the recipient must be interested enough to open the message rather than ignore it. Next, he or she must read and respond to it. The subject line of your message should influence the recipient to open and read it, if your name alone won't do it (and it probably won't unless you are the person's boss, best friend, or current romantic interest). A subject line that reads, “I need your inspirations about a topic for the meeting,” for example, will probably get a better hearing than, “Why haven't I heard from you?” Electronic whining is still whining.

Let the other person know up-front, in the first line or two, what you need and why he or she would benefit from responding to your message. For example, “Tell me where you think we should hold our next meeting. I want to make sure you don't have to travel as far as you did last month. I need to book the meeting by Friday.” In this case, the response needed is clear, the benefits are obvious, and the deadline is specific. If it's necessary to send a long message electronically, breaking the message into shorter segments through the use of bullets or numbered lists can help.

Anything you can do to make it easy to respond by chat, phone, or return e-mail, such as offering options A, B, or C, will make it easier and thus more likely that you'll receive a response. When you leave a message on voice mail, it may be helpful to brief (and it should be very brief!) the person on the issue, then say that there's no need to call back unless a discussion is needed, and that, otherwise, you will assume the other person accepts or supports the idea or will attend the meeting or commit to the responsibility. This works best with relatively simple and noncontroversial messages; it can save time and is useful in uncovering areas of disagreement of which you were not aware.

Stimulating a Productive Response

As in any other form of influencing, you'll want to avoid creating defensiveness. Using words that are accusatory or inflammatory will create a fight-or-flight reaction, just as it would in real time. Either you will not hear back from the person, or you'll hear something you would rather not have heard. In either case, no influence will occur.

Use words that are nonjudgmental, businesslike, and that assume that the other will respond productively. Snide or snarky messages are easy to ignore. It also helps to acknowledge your understanding that it will require some time and effort on the other's part, but avoid obsequiousness.

A good example: “I know you're on a tight deadline. Let me know a good time to get ten minutes with you to review the report.”

A bad example: “I suppose you'll be too busy to meet with me again.”

Preventing Misunderstandings, Embarrassment, and Other E-mail Disasters

All of us have heard stories of e-mail disasters, such as the man who sent his girlfriend a very explicit love letter and accidentally copied it to everyone in the company. Most e-mail disasters, however, occur because we “write out loud” and then press the “send” button without thinking about how the other might react, or whether this message will help achieve an influence objective.

The one certain way to prevent such occurrences is to leave some time between composing an important e-mail message—one that is intended to influence—and sending it. This is almost an unnatural act, given the instantaneous nature of most e-mail communication, but it has many benefits.

A good exercise is to write the message as a first draft, then set it aside for a while. (Even a few minutes can help.) Reread it and ask yourself the following questions:

• What is my influence objective here?
• Am I using the most effective possible behaviors to achieve that objective? What might work better?
• Is there a balance between expressive and receptive influence?
• What other interpretations of my words might be possible? Is there any possibility the other person might be put off or made defensive by any of these interpretations? What is the “worst case” interpretation he or she might make?

Err on the pessimistic side of things; it is amazing what people can read into messages if they're having a particularly paranoid sort of day. Once you have identified all possible misunderstandings (or, for that matter, correct understandings that won't help you reach your objective—yes, you really do think the marketing VP is a yo-yo, but you have to do business with him!), you will want to rewrite the message. Send a really important influence message only when you've reviewed it at least twice (and sometimes it's good to have someone else whom you trust look at it as well).

Virtual Teams: Culture and Context

These days, many of us participate in global, virtual teams. We're also more and more likely to belong to families with diverse cultural backgrounds. Since much of our communication with global colleagues, family, and friends is done through electronic means, it's useful to educate ourselves in cross-cultural norms regarding communication and influence as applied to virtual meetings as well as e-mail and messaging. Edward T. Hall, a well-known anthropologist in the twentieth century, suggested terms that describe two different types of culture:^*

• High-context cultures, such as Thailand, in which members share a good deal of unspoken but understood meaning. People in these cultures tend to use fewer words to communicate or influence, assuming that the other will know what he or she wants to express or ask for. Relationships tend to be highly valued and feelings may be expressed in a nuanced way. There is more focus on the group and mutual support is expected.
• Low-context cultures, such as Germany, in which members make no such assumptions and tend to explain their meaning in detail. There is greater focus on facts and logic, more individualism, less reliance on traditional ways of doing things, and needs are expressed more directly.

It's no surprise that these differences can create difficulty in face-to-face conversations as well as virtual ones. In fact, even when the organizational culture is held constant, such as in the work of Geert Hofstede,^† the differences between national and ethnic cultures remain. If you are part of such a team, it may be worthwhile to do some cultural research or find a “coach” who's familiar with one or more of the other cultures represented on your team, so you can minimize cultural misunderstandings.