Connections and disconnections

By Russ Newman, PhD, JD
APA Executive Director for Practice

No one doubts the value of the many new information and communication technologies, such as the Internet, e-mail and listservs, that make it possible for anyone to communicate with anyone and for some to communicate with everyone. In fact, the societal transformation away from hierarchical organizations to a network form of organizations as described in my May 1999 column is possible only because these new technologies are breaking down hierarchical and bureaucratic boundaries while making efficient organizational networks a reality.

Yet, not all the consequences of increasing reliance on new communication technologies are good. One insidious development involves information overload. More precisely, the constant, overwhelming stream of electronically driven communication tends to be only about current developments with a very narrow focus. The recipient is pressured to act quickly, if not instantaneously, in response. All too often the result is action without deliberation, and response without consideration of the consequences.

Perhaps an even more problematic result of a constant narrow focus on the immediate is a growing detachment from the past. E-mail information is often in "snapshot" form, removed from its context and origins. Even replies to specific questions have a way of becoming separated as e-mail communication proceeds on a subject. Taken to its logical extreme, abandoning a sense of history and tradition is the potential result for an organization, or even a society, that relies too heavily on electronic communication. To the degree that we become overly reliant on technology-based networks, we run the risk of becoming ahistorical and losing our institutional histories. Ironically, while communication technology is exponentially increasing connections of one sort, it may actually be eliminating connectedness of another sort.

Another problem concerns the use of electronic communication in place of face-to-face communication. E-mail, for example, is the very thing that enables small, scattered, autonomous groups to consult, coordinate and act in concert for mutual goals and objectives across boundaries and across great distances. There is a tradeoff, however, between the increased efficiency of electronic communication and what is lost in the absence of face-to-face communication.

A growing body of literature articulates how electronic communication is effective with some tasks but not others. Electronic communication does well in monitoring the status of an issue, sending alerts, broadcasting information and invoking action. Indeed, our legislative Federal Advocacy Network relies on electronic communication for these purposes. Electronic communication, however, is not as helpful as face-to-face communication for discussing solutions to problems, and it is not well suited for dealing with shifting priorities. Research shows that electronic communication is also much less effective than face-to-face interaction under conditions of ambiguity and uncertainty. Negotiation, conflict resolution and consensus are easier and quicker with face-to-face communication. In fact, the anonymity and distance that electronic communication provides can actually serve to escalate conflict rather than help resolve it.

According to some (Nohria & Eccles, 1992) who have closely analyzed communications processes, electronically mediated exchange limits the ability to construct a meaningful identity of the person or persons communicating. This, in turn, interferes with a person's ability to orient to and develop strategies for interacting with another. If the participants' identities are unimportant for the issues being discussed by people who have never met, electronic communication will work well. If, however, effective communication depends on a better understanding of the people involved, such as knowing how much you can trust someone or whether or not a person is being made uncomfortable by a discussion, electronic communication becomes a poor substitute for face-to-face communication.

Ultimately, some combination of electronic and face-to-face communication is likely to be optimal. For example, if people's position on an issue can be exchanged electronically before a face-to-face meeting--with no expectation of agreement or consensus at that point--problem resolution, decision-making and consensus may be achieved more efficiently when the meeting occurs. As with any new technology, the question to be asked about electronic communication is not whether it is useful but, rather, under what conditions it will be most useful.

The implications of electronic communication, both positive and negative, become all the more important when the medium is being used for purposes of health-care services delivery, as with telehealth. That discussion, however, is beyond the scope of this column. Suffice it to say, we must not simply assume that the application of electronic communication, or any new technology, will make things easier, better or more efficient without a careful understanding of the impact of that technology on who we are and what we do.



Read our privacy statement and Terms of Use

Cover Page for this Issue

PsychNET®
© 1999 American Psychological Association

APA Home Page . Search . Site Map