In today’s fast-paced digital world, email has become known as an essential communication tool. However, it’s crucial to recognize its limitations and potential drawbacks, as highlighted by the insightful words of Gatz and Hirt (2000).
Even if email is efficient and convenient, some complicated problems are better handled in person or over the phone, so details can be communicated and answers may be received right away.
A recent personal happening showed the difficulties of relying entirely on email to resolve critical issues. When I discovered an small error in the information entered for my pet’s microchip, I promptly called the company to correct the problem. To surprise me, the process of fixing was far from easy. Despite having all of the necessary evidence and only needing to fix one letter of my pet’s name, I was advised to fill out a long form, email it, and wait for a response, which generally takes 5-7 business days. This delay not only inconvenienced me but also highlighted the common feature of delayed responses in email communication.
The inherent delay in email communication can cause misunderstandings and discomfort, especially when time-sensitive and easy problems are at stake. Such as I feel like this pet microchip company has low efficiency, and I hard to avoid assuming they lack responsibility in other possible situations in the future. Unlike real-time contacts, when details may be clarified and decisions made quickly, email exchanges may extend the resolution process, leading to uncertainty regarding deadlines or priorities.
Furthermore, the fundamental attribution error can worsen these problems by changing how we understand the tone of email messages. When someone receives an email, they may relate the perceived tone completely to the sender’s personality attributes, ignoring environmental considerations such as time restrictions or stress. For example, a short or abrupt email may be interpreted as rudeness or impatience, while in fact, the sender may be dealing with other unrelated issues.
To reduce the possibility of misconceptions in email conversations, practice active listening and assume the sender’s good intentions are the best. Rather than drawing inferences just based on the perceived tone of an email, examine other elements that may alter communication dynamics. In addition, explain any confusing remarks or requests as soon as possible to guarantee mutual understanding and productive teamwork.
In short, while email remains an important medium for communication, it is critical to understand its limitations and potential risks. Recognizing the issues of delayed responses and fundamental attribution errors allows us to come up with ways to improve the clarity and efficacy of email conversations. Let us attempt to communicate effectively and empathetically in all modes of communication, resulting in stronger connections and smoother interactions in both personal and professional settings.
Reference
Kruger, J., Epley, N., Parker, J., & Ng, Z. (2005). Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we communicate as well as we think? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 925-936. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.925
Gatz, L. B., & Hirt, J. B. (2000). Review of Higher Education.
Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (Eds.). (2016). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
Your View