Why I don't spend much time on the phone
I got a phone call today from someone that I really wish had called or emailed. Why? Because when I received the call I was in an area that was loud and I had a hard time understanding what she was saying. The matter was not urgent. I would have been just as happy receiving the information later in the afternoon. And it would have been nice to get a written record rather than only what I could remember.
But some people prefer the phone. Or even in person meetings.
Here's my problem. Every person has a limited number of face-to-face friendships they can manage. I send maybe 10-15 SMS messages a day. With another 15-20 emails or more. If I had to have conversations with all those people. The back and forth to finally connect and the inevitable 1-2 minute conversation would have me on the phone for 2-3 hours a day. There is no way I could keep up and handle my other responsibilities.
I was reading an article recently which shed some light on this feeling of mine. It talked about "slow time" versus "immediate time" and the need to figure out which is necessary for any given communication. The point was that many things could be moved to "slow time" and we wouldn't miss a thing.
If you can post something and three hours later someone can get back to you and then four hours later someone else can get back to you. And everything will work out just fine. Then it's a "slow time" communication.
Maybe it takes two or three days to have this conversation. And we do it over periods of 15 minutes here, two minutes there, four minutes there. And that’s fine. It doesn’t need to happen all at once. Most things are that way - even if people insist they are urgent.
Meetings basically make things happen all at once. And that means you’re pulling a bunch of people off their work or family to have this “right now” conversation. It’s very disruptive for a bunch of people. So if they can communicate over a long period of time instead, it’s much better.
Recognizing the difference would have lots of benefits. Less face-to-face meetings would mean that when there are face-to-face meetings, they would be more special. Less meetings would lead to saner working hours. One company moved to four day workweeks during the summer.
There is another category of meeting that was not covered in the article I read. Determining the difference between when a real live face-to-face is necessary and when it can be done virtually. Can skype of some related service help people be present who are not physically available?
There are three applications we are working on at Intl Church.
My big struggle is that since church work is so "people" oriented, there is resistance to using anything less personal even if it is for the benefit of everyone. The emerging generation doesn't feel "slow communication" is less personal. How to convince the late adopters?
But some people prefer the phone. Or even in person meetings.
Here's my problem. Every person has a limited number of face-to-face friendships they can manage. I send maybe 10-15 SMS messages a day. With another 15-20 emails or more. If I had to have conversations with all those people. The back and forth to finally connect and the inevitable 1-2 minute conversation would have me on the phone for 2-3 hours a day. There is no way I could keep up and handle my other responsibilities.
I was reading an article recently which shed some light on this feeling of mine. It talked about "slow time" versus "immediate time" and the need to figure out which is necessary for any given communication. The point was that many things could be moved to "slow time" and we wouldn't miss a thing.
If you can post something and three hours later someone can get back to you and then four hours later someone else can get back to you. And everything will work out just fine. Then it's a "slow time" communication.
Maybe it takes two or three days to have this conversation. And we do it over periods of 15 minutes here, two minutes there, four minutes there. And that’s fine. It doesn’t need to happen all at once. Most things are that way - even if people insist they are urgent.
Meetings basically make things happen all at once. And that means you’re pulling a bunch of people off their work or family to have this “right now” conversation. It’s very disruptive for a bunch of people. So if they can communicate over a long period of time instead, it’s much better.
Recognizing the difference would have lots of benefits. Less face-to-face meetings would mean that when there are face-to-face meetings, they would be more special. Less meetings would lead to saner working hours. One company moved to four day workweeks during the summer.
There is another category of meeting that was not covered in the article I read. Determining the difference between when a real live face-to-face is necessary and when it can be done virtually. Can skype of some related service help people be present who are not physically available?
There are three applications we are working on at Intl Church.
- We are talking about skyping in one of our church council members to a real live meeting later in May because she will be traveling. Is it possible for her to serve her leadership role while being out of town?
- We are pioneering a virtual home group for people that live too far away for any kind of mid-week contact.
- We are talking about "virtual" band rehearsal for special music on some Sundays to get a less pressurized rehearsal time since in Bangkok there is no way to gather everyone on a weeknight.
My big struggle is that since church work is so "people" oriented, there is resistance to using anything less personal even if it is for the benefit of everyone. The emerging generation doesn't feel "slow communication" is less personal. How to convince the late adopters?
