by Daniel B. Griffith
Kate Kultsevych/Shutterstock
In The Need for Face-to-Face Conversations, I made the case for face-to-face meetings for important conversations. By face-to-face, I mean in the same room, at the same time — without filters such as the distance created through video conferencing. Though I acknowledged the occasional need for virtual meetings when face-to-face isn’t feasible, I couldn’t have imagined it would become our daily reality. We must, therefore, acknowledge that meeting virtually is less than ideal for important conversations and then account for the deficits.
Face-to-face is preferable to other meeting modalities because it facilitates participants’ ability to engage in the full range of empathic communication processes. Beyond the words we speak, we can more readily pick up on a person’s complete message by observing, face-to-face, the non-verbal messages that give meaning and context to the words and the para-verbal signals — the grunts, groans, heavy sighs, tone, inflection, rhythm of speech, and so forth — that add further emphasis to the true meaning of the speaker’s message. We can also better demonstrate empathy by the verbal and para-verbal language we communicate around our words to signal understanding, concern, and support for others. Each time we subtract from this full panoply of communication tools — first, audio-visual only (video conferencing); second, audio only (phone; teleconferencing); and third, text-only (email, instant messaging, etc.) — we lose an additional element of the total message that is essential for empathic communication.
Others write about the impacts of Zoom and other platforms on the deeper levels of interpersonal communication. “Zoom fatigue” has entered our vocabulary to illustrate how the overuse of virtual technologies challenges our efforts to maintain authentic communication. By necessity, instructions are available on how to use technology platforms to account for these communication deficits (though only partially). I offer here additional considerations, beyond technology, to account for these deficits to foster and maintain empathic communication in the time of COVID-19.
Anticipate the potential need for increased empathy. General business meetings in a virtual environment might proceed as they would normally. Then again, with the stresses people face at home and generally as they cope with the “new normal,” perhaps all meetings involve more than “just business.” Consider checking in beforehand with team members to see if there are any particular concerns team members wish to discuss that may be impacting work and team efforts. If a team member communicates a more personal concern or you sense such a concern, seek to discuss it off-line so the person may be more focused for the group meeting later. Unlike the office where you see others daily, you can’t sense concerns through observation so you may need to reinforce your availability to connect one-on-one as needed to support team members who are struggling.
Acknowledge deficits and establish ground rules and expectations to account for it. Even in face-to-face meetings, we often jump right into discussion mode rather than first establish ground rules and expectations for supporting effective communication. When meeting virtually, it is especially important to acknowledge upfront what is missing in the communication process so you can account for it. Simple matters like encouraging cameras on, setting the display to gallery view, and muting to avoid interference when someone else is talking are only part of the equation. It is also important to acknowledge the absence of non-verbal cues and other messaging we would normally pick up on in face-to-face interactions. Help participants understand the need for greater attention to how others are communicating and to be mindful about assumptions they might make regarding what someone has said, how they said it, or when they are silent, which may not mean what we might otherwise conclude in a face-to-face exchange.
Slow down. I recently met with a small group over the course of three one-hour Zoom meetings. The meetings covered issues of mutual concern related to the current environment. The group was small enough to see everyone in Hollywood Squares/Brady Bunch view (i.e., approximately nine participants). The meetings were intended as planning meetings, yet participants needed time to process concerns before we could collectively decide on next steps. Accounting for small technology glitches (freezes, delays), waiting for the next person to speak, and simply expending energy to focus on one another and respond empathetically became exhausting. An hour was not sufficient time whereas it might have been face-to-face. Listening and responding with empathy shouldn’t be a hurried process anyway. Where more processing time is needed, slow it down. Schedule extra time, incorporate breaks, and take other measures to address the slower process of communication exchange that virtual spaces require.
Apply extras doses of attentiveness and sensitivity. When we sit with someone and engage in empathic listening, we engage in practices like attentive listening (head nods, saying “hmm hmm,” and establishing eye contact) and reflective listening, such as saying, “if I understand you correctly, you are saying . . .” and “you must feel frustrated by that situation; I know I would.” We provide the gift of being present so we may engage in supportive communication practices that demonstrate immediate attention, sensitivity, and desire to understand the other person from their point of view. Empathic listening also allows us to make educated guesses of what we observe and sense to reflect our best understanding of what the other is feeling and experiencing. Presence, immediacy, and educated guesses are compromised in a distanced virtual environment because we lack all the information normally afforded through non-verbal cues. You must still engage in these practices, but, again, slow down the process and beg the other person’s indulgence as you take more time, ask more clarifying questions, and become more exhaustive in your efforts to confirm that the person feels you’ve demonstrated your understanding of the person’s concerns in the way they intend.
Recognize the limits. We shouldn’t pretend that virtual spaces will address all our communication needs, even when we try to account for deficits. One suggestion for combatting “Zoom fatigue” is to call someone instead to talk through concerns. Video’s inability to allow us to pick up on non-verbal cues with the same immediacy as face-to-face may at times be worse than having only auditory cues through a phone call. A phone call may also force us to listen more deeply to compensate for the loss of visual cues. Also, as we slowly return to our work spaces, our face-to-face encounters may still be somewhat limited as we continue to wear face masks; yet, being present together in the room may still be preferable to virtual spaces for important conversations. Technology should not be our master and we must find creative ways to overcome the communication barriers that technology imposes.
