Communicating Persuasively, Email or Face-to-Face?

Jeremy Dean writes "Our intuitive understanding is that face-to-face communication is the most persuasive. In reality, of course, it's not always possible to meet in person, so email wins out. How, then, do people react to persuasion attempts over email? Persuasion research has uncovered fascinating effects: that men seem more responsive to email because it bypasses their competitive tendencies (Guadagno & Cialdini, 2002). Women, however, may respond better in face-to-face encounters because they are more 'relationship-minded'. But is this finding just a gender stereotype?"

Comments

Email has failed

[Anonymous Coward]

ask the Airline industry, we invent all these ways to communicate over vast distances, VOIP, Telephone, IM, Email etc etc and people are flying to meet each other more than ever

Re:Email has failed

[Red Flayer]

First of all, if you are running a business you should not have to persuade your employees, coworkers, or higher ups. Persuading your employees to comply shouldn't be that hard of a task and if they don't then it isn't because you aren't a good persuader but rather perhaps they are the wrong employee for the job (or perhaps you are asking them to do something they simply can't do or isn't actually their job in the first place).

Management by decree is a great way to ensure that you lose good talent. If you are having trouble getting them to comply, it is possible that there's a problem with the employee. But it's more likely that they need to be brought "on board" -- full participation. That is what the persuasion is for. All the staff at my company already have their hands full. If management needs someone to do something additional, then the employees must be persuaded that the new project is more important than the work they have pending. Or they need to be peruaded to work some additional hours.

As for work that "isn't actually their job in the first place," that's a valid argument only in companies with well-defined roles (typically large ones). In small and mid-sized business, many people wear many hats.

However, persuading higher ups and coworkers isn't your job either. If you have to do a song and dance with a power point presentation every time to the CEO every time you need to get something approved to do your basic job functions then perhaps your employers don't trust you or they just don't care well enough to put into place a system into which you can perform your job independently but with oversight. Of course thats more of a management issue...

Also way off base. A manager is responsible for what goes on in their department; what happens when their boss asks why X was implemented at a cost of $Y? This is one reason why you need to persuade your manager of what is necessary. Another reason they need to be persuaded is that they are balancing a lot more in the decision-making process than you probably realize. They may be privy to information you are not. They may have been given a directive that runs counter to your proposal.

In fact, people with authorization to buy products or services should be hired on the sole fact they are not easily persuaded and do not take bribes from vendors.

What do you mean by 'bribes'? That's a harsh word for a business lunch, or a couple drinks in the evening. Kickbacks are a problem, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.

They should be the ones cold calling the vendors and then asking for plain cold information in emails and then not respond to the vendors relentless voice mails and not wasting company money going to meetings with countless vendors when they already know what product/service the company should buy.

You don't do a lot of purchasing, do you? How do you think you get vendors to offer you their absolute best terms? How do you think you build a relationship with a vendor so that when you need a part delivered *right now* they do it with a smile and at no charge? What about when you need to negotiate looser payment terms? Or when a part dies a month after warranty expiration, and you want to get a free replacement anyway?

I used to think that purchasing etc should be a matter of pure numbers, as you seem to think. But as the years have gone by, I've discovered that all those non-quotables really pay off when push comes to shove, and it's the personal relationships that drive them.

The next time you have a complaint about shoddy service (and we all have them) maybe you should think about building a relationship with a supplier so that *you* matter to them?

Depends on the recipient

[BadERA]

The more technologyically-friendly one is, the easier it is to persuade them by email. The more details-oriented one is, the easier it is to persuade them by email. The more "frat boy and golf games" on is, the harder it is, typically, to persuade them over email.

Enough PC Bullshit Please

[MarkPNeyer]

Can't we do science without worrying about whether we're hurting someone's feelings? This is just getting ridiculous.

Re:Enough PC Bullshit Please

[MarkPNeyer]

If that's so, ask the question 'is this science valid,' not 'is this a stereotype?'

Eh, email sucks

[hsmith]

When I am writing something personal, I always end up over analyzing everything I write. I sit, rewrite, write it again, delete it all write again and it just seems to never end so it sounds "perfect."

At least for my personal life I like face to face because I am forced to be more "genuine" and say what pops into my head.

Medium has to fit the message!

[redelm]

Marshall McLuan said [of TV]: "The Medium is the Message." That is an atstute observation, but turn it around and it really says the medium is part of the message.

Media have characteristics. Messages have characteristics. It is best they work in harmony.

For a concrete example, I usually avoid communicating a complex controversial idea verbally. It's too confrontational and recepients may miss key points or react too early and get themselves locking into an unnecessarily contrary position. Beter they read and react in private, then calm down before replying.

In person is very good for using body language when sincerity or other emotions are important components of the message. Phone is not quite as good, but often a very workable intermediate.

But I certainly don't consider in-person to be any sort of "gold standard" in communications. Too many different messages.

Perhaps another interesting question applicable...

[electrosoccertux]

What do you do if you suck at persuasion face to face? Or simply talking, for that matter? When I write an email I'm able to think about what I say before I say it and rearrange things after the fact if it comes out wrong. Can't do that in conversation, you have to get it right the first time, and know exactly where you're going and how you're going to get there before you start. Been trying for years, but simply can't. What then? In my opinion a good email would be better than a bad face to face impression.

Email is permanent, conversations evaporate

[tinrobot]

Face to face time is certainly important, but I'm always amazed at how differently people remember conversations, and how quickly people forget key parts of those conversations. Without some sort of record, it's hard to pin people down on what actually transpired. Email is less personal, but at least you have a written record.

For important things, you always have to follow up the conversation with an email just to keep things straight. (unless you're in politics, then you should never use email so you won't get caught in your lies)

Re:Perhaps another interesting question applicable

[BadERA]

I hear ya there, and used to feel like I was in the same boat. Practice makes perfect though -- the more f2f time you get, the more refined your skills become.

fear of being mocked at?

[gr8dude]

Can't do that in conversation, you have to get it right the first time, and know exactly where you're going and how you're going to get there before you start.

Correct; the only problem is that you want it to happen instantly - which is exactly why it ends up in failure.

I've been researching this issue myself and I concluded that the solution is not to let somebody push you towards a quick answer. Things done/said in haste are usually not well-planned. What email does is that it gives you that ability to take your time and think things over; you can do the same in a real discussion by not replying if you don't have an answer. Tell them that you don't know yet, tell them that you need some extra time, but don't talk out of /dev/random.

Many people know this and use this against us - the trick is to force someone provide a quick answer to a question. The person who answers focuses on providing a fast solution, rather than providing an optimal solution - this is where we lose. I also have to add that those who generate the questions that are 'designed' to knock us down are people who carefully plan their attack. In conversations they can bring up non-essential things that you will waste your CPU cycles on, while they think about their next 'hit'.

Another idea is that you are afraid that the person you're having a conversation with will laugh at you (in the worst case) if you tell them you can't provide an immediate answer. But fear that not, any reasonable human being is understanding and only someone unpolite and ignorant will have something against your taking your time. Personally, I never push people towards making decisions in a rush, I admire those who are not afraid to tell me that they are 'not ready' yet, and I try to avoid those who consciously use this technique as an 'offensive weapon'.