- Der Menschenschlag der Europa verlassen hat um Amerika zu besiedeln............. - 2good4you, 10.11.2000, 16:35
- Re: Der Menschenschlag der Europa verlassen hat um Amerika zu besiedeln............. - BossCube, 10.11.2000, 23:11
- Re: Der Menschenschlag der Europa verlassen hat um Amerika zu besiedeln............. - Baldur der Ketzer, 10.11.2000, 23:28
- Re: Der Menschenschlag der Europa verlassen hat um Amerika zu besiedeln............. - JüKü, 10.11.2000, 23:33
- Re: gibt es kollektive Traumata?.... - Baldur der Ketzer, 11.11.2000, 00:01
- Re: gibt es kollektive Traumata?.... - JüKü, 11.11.2000, 00:07
- Du schreibst mir aus der Seele! - Taktiker, 11.11.2000, 01:21
- Wen werden Sie dabei mit in den Abgrund ziehen? owT - Dschariskazi, 11.11.2000, 01:42
- Re: Wen werden Sie dabei mit in den Abgrund ziehen? - Oldy, 11.11.2000, 04:28
- Wen werden Sie dabei mit in den Abgrund ziehen? owT - Dschariskazi, 11.11.2000, 01:42
- Re: gibt es kollektive Traumata?.... - Baldur der Ketzer, 11.11.2000, 00:01
- Baldur: Re: Der Menschenschlag der Europa verlassen............. - Dschariskazi, 11.11.2000, 01:40
- Re: Der Menschenschlag der Europa verlassen hat um Amerika zu besiedeln............. - JüKü, 10.11.2000, 23:33
- Re: Der Menschenschlag der Europa verlassen hat um Amerika zu besiedeln............. - Baldur der Ketzer, 10.11.2000, 23:28
- Re: Der Menschenschlag der Europa verlassen hat um Amerika zu besiedeln............. - Toni, 11.11.2000, 12:45
- Re: Der Menschenschlag und Lessons Learned - Toni, 11.11.2000, 13:31
- Re: Der Menschenschlag der Europa verlassen hat um Amerika zu besiedeln............. - BossCube, 10.11.2000, 23:11
Re: Der Menschenschlag und Lessons Learned
Wie leicht es gehen kann mit den Missverständnissen, ob interkontinental, international, national, jedenfalls interpersonal: Hier ein Text (nicht als Link vorhanden), dann ein Kommentar:
x - - x - - x - - x - - x
Office E-Mail: It's Fast, Easy and All Too Often Misunderstood
By Sarah Schafer Washington Post Service (Herald Tribune November 1, 2000) WASHINGTON
The e-mail seemed so innocent.
''Betty, hi,'' he remembered cheerfully typing to his colleague. ''I haven't been successful reaching you by phone, so I'll try e-mail instead.''
And so Bill Lampton - then an employee of a large hospital - dashed off the rest of his note on some trivial office matter and hit the send button.
Betty never got past the greeting.
''I have no idea what you mean about my not returning phone calls,'' Mr. Lampton recalled Betty firing back.
''To have you accuse me of ignoring your calls is unthinkable and inexcusable,'' she wrote. ''As to the purpose of the e-mail that you sent me, I prefer not to respond, as I dislike dealing with anyone who assumes the worst of me.''
Mr. Lampton had learned the hard way - as have many managers and workers - that there can be serious downsides to relying on exchanges over the ether. The same qualities that have made e-mail such a boon to office efficiency - the air of informality, the speed with which someone can compose and click - are often the cause of countless, costly misunderstandings that can stall team projects, turn co-workers against one another or their bosses, and twist simple negotiations into months-long gripe sessions.
Although researchers are just beginning to study the effects of e-mail-induced disputes, some of the same companies that once vigorously promoted e-mail use are now taking steps to limit it. Some personnel managers, for example, have asked employees to e-mail only utilitarian information, such as scheduling requests, according to Vault.com, a research firm in New York.
Companies such as Cisco Systems have tried to build more ''face time'' into the workplace by designing work spaces that encourage employees to mingle and communicate directly.
In a recent survey of 1,000 workers, Vault.com found that 51 percent of respondents said that the tone of their e-mails was often misperceived - as angry, or too casual or abrupt, for example. One survey respondent said, ''I wrote a question to my boss, one day; she thought I was being insubordinate by the tone. I almost lost my job!''
The problem, according to those who have studied online communication, is that the rapid-fire e-mail message arrives without all the facial expressions, body language and vocal cues that richly color human conversation. Humor, sarcasm and double entendres - best delivered with a smile, a raised eyebrow or a smirk - often fall flat or are taken literally in e-mail exchanges.
''We have millennia of history in learning how to manage an impression in person,'' said Patricia Wallace of the University of Maryland, author of ''The Psychology of the Internet.''
''We know how to soften what might seem like an abrupt remark with a smile or a wink,'' she said, ''but we are clumsy with the new tools online, and people are making blunders all over the place.''...
When someone sends an e-mail, ''it's very hard for the other person to know what the exact tone and rhythm is and it's very easy for them to misinterpret what you say,'' said Peter Wylie, a Washington psychologist who counsels business partners.
Even letter writing is safer than e-mail, experts contend, because of protocols developed over hundreds of years to show proper respect to the recipient.
To cut down on confusion, some people have devised ways to inject tone and emotion into their electronic exchanges. There are abbreviations such as LOL, which stands for ''laughing out loud.'' And then there are the ''emoticons,'' symbols that have evolved into a sort of shorthand for simple emotions. Among the most widely recognized emoticons are:-) - a smiley face often used to mean ''this is a joke'' - and:-( - the sad face, which can mean ''too bad.''
But while this form of online slang has been mastered by many teenage and college-age e-mail addicts, it has not caught on in the workplace.
The anonymity people feel behind a screen and keyboard often exacerbate e-mail miscommunications. Simple exchanges often devolve into venomous sessions of e-mail ping-pong.
''The overall effect of e-mail makes for a kind of disinhibition, and people say things that they would not normally say face-to-face or any other way and it gets some people in trouble,'' said Kerry Sulkowicz, a New York psychiatrist and president of the Boswell Group, a consulting firm on the psychology of management....
Sometimes it takes good, old-fashioned chemistry to solve a problem, said Mr. Wylie, the Washington psychologist. ''If you're bent out of shape with me, you can see me nod respectfully and really convey to you that I understand your point of view, how you feel,'' he said.
Two people can get from conflict to resolution sometimes through nothing more than a pat on the back or a squeeze of an elbow, he said: ''All of a sudden, some kind of understanding develops. You just can't do that in e-mail.''
x - - x - - x - - x - - x
Toni hat sowas neulich selber durchexerziert.
Da schreiberlt man im Plauderplapperblödel-Modus daher, plaziert unachtsamerweise Wörter und Informationsstückli nicht deutlich genug im Zusammenhang eingebunden und erwischt beim andern ein Interpretationsschema, das keineswegs beabsichtigt war. Anhand dieses Schemas wird dann jeder weitere Satz interpretiert, selbst dann noch, wenn es um die Klärung des mittlerweile erkannten Missverständnisses geht. Man kommt gar nicht mehr raus; ein höchst interessanter Mechanismus.
Am Ende weiss keiner, ob er beleidigt sein oder sich nur saublöd vorkommen soll und ist alles wie ein Scherbenhaufen. Das muss man dann irgendwie wieder flicken.
Herzliche Grüsse
Toni
<center>
<HR>
</center>

gesamter Thread: