Roxanne wrote:
>What do you think? Do physical masks help or hurt communication? Do they
>make it easier for us to hide? Or do they serve a useful purpose in
>making us appear more socially acceptable? Should I change out of my
>bathrobe before I go visit a client this afternoon?
I found myself chuckling ruefully - Roxanne and Georgia O'Keefe
have it right (Thoreau agreed) that real issues transcend clothing and
appearances, and that events or undertakings or people who miss
understanding that are occasions for being wary! Yet another side of me
observes that clothes are also symbols and signals - signals that we're
"safe" or "appropriate" or "professional" (or, alternatively, "cool,"
"hip" and "not sold out to the establishment," depending on the context).
Seems to me that the choice to use that signal system is very much a
matter of personal mastery (an older line of discussion here). Who knows
him or herself, can use the system appropriately, choosing to "fit in" for
honorable purposes without surrendering sense of self, identity, or
commitment to deeper reality.
So, Roxanne, I suspect (from the common sense character of your
thoughtful inquiries and observations here) that you'll dress
appropriately, choosing to engage your clients on a level that allows you
to focus on what you feel is important, rather than being sidetracked by
explaining your bathrobe (whether to clients or to the cop on the beat or
the security personnel in the building you were trying to enter), fending
off unwanted advances, or worrying about the dern thing's falling open, or
whether the spot from yesterday's coffee is visible! (These, of course,
are all the things I would worry about!) These distractions would impede
solving the client's problem (which requires trust that you're capable of
helping, etc.), earning your living, achieving your work and professional
goals, etc. We choose, on the basis of what's most important to us, day by
day and act by act.
Still, there's an even larger issue lurking here. Roxanne names
what Sherry Turkle, among others, has pointed out, that communication
stripped of the usual status markers of physical appearance, gender,
implied social standing, etc. (like email) is very different from
communication in the midst of all the markers. It seems to me that the
conclusion this points to is that human beings are far more social and
emotional animals than rational machines of thought; we're more heart than
head. So we ignore the potential for miscommunication (due to status
symbol distortions) at our peril. Equally, if we ignore the differences in
communication that email permits and what they tell us, we lose a precious
opportunity to expand our understnading of how we "make meaning" between
us.
Thanks, Roxanne, for suggesting some deeper levels.
Sam
Mariann Jelinek
Richard C. Kraemer Professor of Business
Graduate School of Business The only enduring competitive
College of William and Mary advantage comes from changing
P.O. Box 8795 the rules
of the game.
Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795
--mxjeli@facstaff.wm.edu (Mariann Jelinek)
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>