How to Have Powerful & Productive Virtual Conversations | Andrew Brodsky

LinkedIn : [00:00:00] Linkedin presents.

Jonathan Fields: [00:00:13] So ever feel like the rise of virtual communication has kind of turned your workdays into a jumble of endless emails, frantic messages, and back to back video calls? One minute you're on a zoom wrangling meeting attendees, the next you're desperately trying to craft the perfect slack message before your manager thinks that you've gone AWOL. If so, you're not alone. The chaotic world of remote and hybrid work. It can leave our heads spinning. But what if I told you there are secrets? There are straightforward strategies to virtual communications that can bring clarity to the disorder. And a whole lot of ease. My guest today has spent years studying the science of how we can all become better virtual communicators. Andrew Brodsky is an award winning professor at the University of Texas at Texas at Austin and CEO of ping Group. He is an expert on workplace technology, communication, productivity, and his new book, Ping The Secrets of Successful Virtual Communication, provides a roadmap for navigating our digitally infused lives. Andrew earned his PhD from Harvard, was named one of the world's 40 Best Business School Professors under 40 by Poets and Quants, and frequently consults with major companies. So whether you are struggling with your latest video presentation or just can't seem to tame your inbox, get ready.

Jonathan Fields: [00:01:32] Andrew's brilliant insights are about to really help you win at virtual communications once and for all. So let's dive in. I'm Jonathan Fields and this is SPARKED. So we're having this conversation at this really interesting moment, sort of like in in work communications and conversations. We went through the season where for, you know, generations, a lot of people just showed up at a physical workspace and we interacted in person. The classic water cooler, you know, the open office, closed office, all sorts of iterations on that. We learned kind of how to function in that environment. And then that was sort of, you know, grasped away from us in the blink of an eye. Through the pandemic, so many people were remote. And now we're in this third phase, this sort of like new season where everything's just kind of like a big mash up. Some people are remote, some people are in person, some people do a little bit of both. And I think a lot of people's heads are spinning. So talk to me a little bit about the the state of virtual communications today.

Andrew Brodsky: [00:02:39] When it comes to work. Part of the reason why I wanted to write this book is there's been so many conversations going on in the media amongst executives is remote work good, is remote work bad? And the thing that all these conversations are missing, in my view, is that regardless of whether you work from home, office, hybrid, whatever, We're all virtual communicators. The old way in the office was whenever you had a question, you'd go knock on your coworkers cubicle or office door and ask them. Now, that's often seen as rude to go interrupt whatever they're doing. Anytime you have a question. So instead, we send an instant message or a slack message in advance of any kind of conversation. So what's happening is that even in the office, virtual communication is still one of the primary modes of communication, even if you're sitting a few feet away from somebody. So in my mind, finding ways to help other people understand all the research behind this, how can we be more effective at choosing the right mood at using different modes? Felt like a really valuable thing to add to this conversation.

Jonathan Fields: [00:03:43] Yeah, I mean, it makes sense. I think a lot of people are struggling to. What are you seeing coming up as sort of like when you're having conversations with people and you're diving into the research around this, what are the breaking points that people are really grappling with right now around this Breaking points.

Andrew Brodsky: [00:03:58] I'd say the big ones are that people often feel like they can't get what they want out of their communication. So there's a lot of frustration with I'm overloaded with emails. I'm checking my phone all the time, even at home or with my family. And on the other side of that, people are frustrated that they've got hours and hours and hours of just meetings every week that are often exhausting. So communication overload is the big thing that I'm hearing from a lot of people in terms of their frustrations with all of this.

Jonathan Fields: [00:04:29] Yeah, I mean, that makes a lot of sense. Let's dive into some of those pieces a little bit individually. Let's start with meetings, because people just love meetings as a general principle. This is like the bane of so many people's existence is like the classic meeting. But now it's gotten so much more complicated because instead of, hey, you know, like we're all showing up in a conference room for an hour or half an hour or 15 minutes to, like, dive into this one thing. Now we've got okay, so some people are in a conference room, some people are remote and you're trying to navigate all these different dynamics, and there are personal social dynamics going on. There are power dynamics going on. There's the thing that apparently you showed up to talk about. Take me to like what's actually happening in meetings these days.

Andrew Brodsky: [00:05:12] So it's a big question asking everything about it. So there's obviously the characteristics of the meeting. There's the mode the frequency. But let's start at a high level okay. There's a lot of organizations that are taking different approaches to this. So for instance Shopify is saying let's get rid of as many meetings as possible. They auto delete them off of people's calendars. There's a meeting calculator that actually calculates the cost of the man hours for each meeting. And then there's other organizations that are saying, hey, we've got way too many emails here. Like, we really should be just talking predominantly, synchronously, real time and stop relying so much on text based communication. And my view on what matches the research on this is that both extremes are Dreams are problematic. I don't think I need to explain too hard why having hours and hours of wasted meetings each week is a bad idea, when they should have been in email. Most of us kind of feel that at our heart because we've all experienced it. But the thing that people miss is that email's instant message text message, text based communication can be just as big a waste of time, if not more. So, for instance, the conversation we're having right now, if I'm fairly talkative. So, you know, maybe I'm giving a few paragraph answers each time there's a bunch of questions.

Andrew Brodsky: [00:06:25] You know, if you would email me these questions and I had to type out answers to them, it probably would take me days of writing them, perfecting them. Whereas just doing this live takes us, you know, half an hour maybe to have the conversation. So that's like an example where text based communication is much less productive than meetings. So really what it comes down to is being strategic and thinking about what is our goal in this interaction and what are the characteristics of that, and then using that information to choose the right mode. So is there going to be a lot of back and forth? Okay. We should do a meeting. Are we just relaying information? That should be an email. Instant message. Is it something that's complicated, then meeting? Is it something that requires like brainstorming, for instance, more creativity where we don't want people to be anchored on other's ideas? Then that's better to do over text based communication. So really understanding your goal and getting okay, well, what works better when as opposed to just defaulting to what we've always had a meeting for this or it's already an email chain. So it feels weird to switch to a phone call. That's where companies and people go really wrong with us.

Jonathan Fields: [00:07:30] Yeah. So it sounds like what you're saying is really explore the context of the meeting before you actually, or the context of what you're looking to actually have the outcome be exactly before you decide should this be meeting, should this be a slack thread, should this be email or whatever it is, and then use the one that feels like it's going to get you to the the place that you want as efficiently, as effectively as you can.

Andrew Brodsky: [00:07:53] Yeah. And ideally you have a good framework behind, you know, figuring that out, right? In my book I give an example of one. So whenever I have a read a business book myself, I like there to be a framework because it helps me remember 200 pages of various advice. So for mine, I did the pink framework because the books make it easy to remember. So, you know, the idea with this is p perspective taking. It's so easy in virtual communication to forget the other person you you're staring at. Just text. Or maybe a small square of the video of the other person on the screen. So taking that moment to consider maybe something's better for someone else, or maybe they might interpret this differently than me is useful. There's the I the initiative, which is adding whatever back in to any mode that's missing. So, for instance, if your goal is to build a relationship, there's often less small talk that happens in email instant message. So trying to bring some of that socialness back in can be useful for that. You know, N is nonverbal. And think about how important is nonverbal behavior to the situation and what different ones are sent across different modes.

Andrew Brodsky: [00:08:55] People often miss that unless rich communication like text based. There's a lot of nonverbal behavior we don't realize. People interpret emotion from typos. They interpret things from what time of day you reply to messages. There's so many different parts here that are key to understand. And then lastly, which gets to what we've been talking about is the G the goals. Every mode is different, has different strengths and weaknesses. I wish I could say there's just one great mode to use all the time, but for instance, if you want cameras on or off during a meeting, cameras on are better for building relationships and showing you're engaged. Cameras off are good because video meetings cause zoom fatigue or video conferencing fatigue that tires out. So turning cameras off can actually save energy. Reduce burnout, reduce stress. So again like is this example, is your goal to show engagement to form a relationship or is it to conserve energy and conserve focus. And those factors are what drive your choice in both the mode and then how you leverage it.

Jonathan Fields: [00:09:54] I mean, and I love that. And the framework is I love that it's really straightforward. Simple. So perspective taking initiative nonverbal and goals. So here's what immediately pops in my head when you share that each person in a conversation or a meeting or on a team is probably going to go through that exact same framework and have a different outcome, one person is going to be like, look, I've been working here for 25 years. I really don't need the face time or the interaction. I don't need to rise up the ladder. I'm kind of exhausted. So this is the way that I want to actually step into this communication. Another person, you're six months in and you're an extrovert, and you really want to actually be interacting with people and building relationships and showing what you have to offer. So how do you how do you navigate sort of like the same type of interaction or moment where people probably by and large, have like this similar business goals? They may have different personal goals, but they're going to take this framework and apply it to the same interaction in very different ways.

Andrew Brodsky: [00:10:58] Yeah. So this gets to this idea, the initial part of it, the perspective taking. And when I talk about in the book a lot, is this idea of making the implicit explicit. Right. And as opposed to coming with assumptions, I actually just have conversations about this together. One of the big areas where this comes up is something called the email urgency bias. So a pair of researchers found that when you receive an email, you expect that the other person wants a response much quicker than they do in reality. So, Jonathan, if you'd sent me an email, I would say, oh, you know, here's so important. They run big podcasts. They probably want me to respond in 15 minutes. Whereas reality on your end, you're like, I don't care if he responds in a few days. And the problem with this misestimation is that for the recipient, it causes a tremendous amount of stress because you feel like you need to be constantly checking your phone for messages, constantly responding. And what these researchers found was that when you add a line saying, hey, it'd be great if you could get me a response by two days or within the next six hours. It removes that ambiguity and reduces stress very heavily. So with communication technology, for instance, one of these conversations amongst a team might look like say, okay, we're a team. Let's figure out how quickly do we expect responses to email. How quickly do we expect responses to instant message? What if there's an emergency? Something urgent? How do we do that? Is it text message? Do we put an urgent tag in somewhere? And this has a really huge benefit because one you're constantly not having to check messages multitasking, which really decreases focus and productivity. Two it's all clear what we're supposed to do. Many people, when they're in relationships, for instance, or early on, you know, they send someone a text and they're like, it's been three hours. Do they hate me?

Jonathan Fields: [00:12:44] Or three seconds?

Andrew Brodsky: [00:12:45] Exactly. Right. And this is the same thing that happens in work. And it's this idea that like, well, if we know they're supposed to respond to email within a day, instant message within two hours so that they have a meeting or they're focused, they don't have to do it. We have an understanding of kind of the norms that are expected with these. So we're not left wondering on the recipient side either. So having those group conversations and coming to consensus can be one of the best things that teams can do.

Jonathan Fields: [00:13:08] Yeah, I love that I love that and use that word norms also. I love having that sort of like established across a group of people or even just two people. There's this agreement beforehand that says we know how we're going to interact in these different modes of communication, like this is the norm, this is the expectation. That doesn't necessarily mean that 100% of the time we're going to abide by this, but we know that that's the expectation. We agree that that's the expectation. So if we're going to violate that norm, we also understand that we may see some raised eyebrows, and we may even want to almost anticipate that and and explain why, you know, like, hey, listen, I'm actually at an offsite for most of the day. I'm not going to be able to able to get back in in a meaningful way for another 24 hours or something like that, just to reset expectations, to almost like tell people why you're you're going to violate the norm. I mean, does that does that make sense?

Andrew Brodsky: [00:14:02] Yeah, it definitely does. And part of the useful things with this is you can have conversations about when should we set out of like busy as our status. So people know we're doing deep work and it's not interrupted. I have some really interesting research with Hayley Blunden from American University that looks at typos in emails, and we find that typos in emails, unsurprisingly, make you look less intelligent. But we find that in the context of emotional emails, instead of intelligence, those typos are attributed more to emotion. So in happy emails makes you seem happier and angry emails. It makes you seem angrier. The idea is that you're so emotional that you didn't proof your message, for instance.

Jonathan Fields: [00:14:40] Oh, that's interesting.

Andrew Brodsky: [00:14:41] But people are penalized less for those typos in emotional context because you say, oh, it's emotion, right? And there's similar research that shows when you have sent from your iPhone at the bottom of an email, typos are penalized less. Or if someone knows you're from a different culture, then mistake language. Mistakes in your message are penalized less. So this gets this idea of giving extra information can actually be make people more okay with your norm violations because they get it. The problem is, if you violate what other people expect, whether it's response times or anything else, they often get annoyed and they have these negative views of it. But if you said, hey, I was just really I wanted to get back to you on the go. I was like writing my message as I was walking, um, or something like that. That gives them that other reasoning that can be really useful, especially because virtual communication, we're often having to fill in the gaps a lot more than we would in person. If we're talking to them in person, we could see they're engaged. We can see they're not checking their email on their other monitor when it's happening virtually. And we do something that violates those norms. Actually disclosing more can be really useful for helping the other person understand why something happened in a way that doesn't harm you.

Jonathan Fields: [00:15:51] Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. You brought up something a little bit earlier in our conversation also, which I want to touch back into. You talked about brainstorming and how sometimes email is actually the better way to do that. A lot of people are going to raise their eyebrows when they hear that because they're like, wait a minute. Brainstorming happens in a room when we're all together or in a zoom room, and we're all together with a whiteboard and post-it notes and all those things. Like, you have a different take.

Andrew Brodsky: [00:16:17] Yeah. So this is what research shows on this stuff. So let's think about a group brainstorming session. The limitations when you're talking synchronously. So in person or on zoom or teams video call there's a few issues. The first is only one person can talk at a time. So there's an immediate productivity loss because only one person can add an idea at a time. The second thing that's happening is that everyone else is staring at you while you're talking, so you're often more afraid of doing divergent ideas because other people might criticize them or might not like them. And then the third thing that happens is someone says an idea. Then all of a sudden, all of your ideas stick to the idea that was already said. You're kind of anchored on that idea now because it's been said out loud. So what happens is when you do the early stages of brainstorming remote and separately, ideally over text, you don't have the productivity lost. People tend to be more creative because they're not anchored by others, and they don't feel as restricted by other's criticism, potential criticisms. And you end up with more ideas that are more novel. But for the latter stages of brainstorming, where you're trying to reach an agreement on an idea or you're potentially trying to improve amongst a few finalists, that's when the synchronous meetings are more useful, because that's where a lot of back and forth and coming to agreement is really useful, as opposed to just the individual creative brainstorming process initially.

Jonathan Fields: [00:17:38] Yeah, I mean, that makes a lot of sense. It's like the the open divergent first part where you're just looking for everything happens a lot faster and also with less sort of like influence by what other people are doing. If you're just kind of like all doing it simultaneously and sharing. But then when you're trying to narrow and figure out, like, okay, we need to focus and like end up choosing the thing, it would make sense then at that point that, you know, the convergent part of it, like you're coming together more and in a room. Um, so it's almost like you to you to stage it.

Andrew Brodsky: [00:18:08] Exactly. It's to stage it. And like, you can think about it this way. If you were going to write down 20 ideas for a brainstorming, assuming you come up with them, you could write them down probably in just a minute or two in a document or email or whatever else. If you're in a room, you're not going to be saying 20 ideas out loud in a group. You're just going to have the ability to do that. So there's just this restriction, especially in that what you want as many and as creative ideas as possible in that early stage that is hampered by synchronicity. But for the latter stage, you want to do a second stage where you're agreeing and kind of tweaking the ideas. That's when coming together as a group is really, really useful.

Jonathan Fields: [00:18:44] That that makes a lot of Sense. You know, one of the things that you dip into in paying, which I thought was interesting, I think this is something that a lot of people grapple with and, um, is how they're actually showing up, um, in a virtual communication space. You know, um, and there's this expectation that I think a lot of folks had I think I remember reading some research during the pandemic that like, you know, like makeup, um, like the amount of money that people were spending on makeup, um, of all genders, by the way, changed. Um, it went up fairly like, substantially because all of a sudden people were in front of their screens and they're realizing, oh, this is what I look like on my screen. Um, and like, people are buying lights and buying all this different stuff. Um, you talk about this in the notion of sort of like the virtual mask that we tend to wear in the context of virtual communications. Um, and that maybe it's actually a better idea not to try and make it so clean and you're like, perfect.

Andrew Brodsky: [00:19:48] Yeah. So it depends on the situation is the answer to that. If you show up to a job interview over a video call and you're like, all disheveled and you look like a hot mess, that is not going to go well. But for teams where your impression of how competent you are is already established, right? They know that you're a good hard worker. They know that you're smart. In those cases, there can be value in letting some of your personal self show through. We tend to trust those we feel more familiar with. That's why small talk, which many people hate because it's unproductive. And it is. It takes time away, but it does serve a useful social purpose. It helps us feel like we get to know somebody and we trust what we're familiar with. Um, and there's similar research that shows, for instance, in video backgrounds, if you've got something that's similar to someone else. So, you know, let's say you have a number one dad mug is one of the things they had in this research study. And the other person's a parent that actually increases liking because they're like, oh, we're similar, you know. So it makes us feel like we like each other more because we tend to like people like us. So showing that personal side can be useful for building those stronger relationships. But of course, you do want to be wary of seeming unprofessional, especially in early interactions where the person hasn't really established a strong impression of you yet.

Jonathan Fields: [00:21:21] I mean, does this distill down to then really just fundamental skills of rapport, you know? And if so, I wonder when a lot of people basically came up in a world where, you know, you got a job, you showed up at a place of work and you were around people all day, every day, and you had to develop some level of rapport building skills because that was just how you navigated and not survived, not only survived, but thrived and sort of like moved forward in the space that we had this time out, like this 3 or 4 year time out, um, where people were removed from that environment. And I often wonder what the effect was, especially of the generation that was just coming out of school when that was happening, and never having those early years where you're like, thrown in and you kind of have to do this and your head is spinning, it's uncomfortable and awkward and vulnerable, and you're like, this really kind of sucks. But the net effect of it is it gave you a skill set that was really useful for the rest of your working life. Take me into this a little bit.

Andrew Brodsky: [00:22:23] So when it comes to what we're used to here, it really depends on what we're talking about. So generations that are used to interacting in person, sure. They have more experience with that. They're potentially better with it. But also younger generations who are forced to interact via technology, they're also better at that. And that's still being used heavily in in-person workplaces. And yes, there are many core. Aspects of rapport that are really key here. But a lot of things differ virtually. So for instance, let's use eye contact as an example. Research shows that during. For instance video job interviews eye contact is one of the things that predicts. How well recruiters rate candidates. But eye contact virtually over video calls is. Actually different than in person? Because for most of us, our webcams are located on the. Top of a monitor. Or if we have two monitors in the middle. So to maintain eye contact you're. Often having to stare at your webcam as opposed to the person you're talking to. Whereas in. Person you just naturally stare at them. But if you do that on your computer with your webcam is positioned wherever I just noted. It looks like you're kind of staring off screen. Maybe you're checking your emails on something else. Even though you're staring at them. And there are some fixes for this, aside from just staring at your webcam and not seeing the other person. You can make sure to drag your video display screen right under your webcam. There's hanging webcams. There's like certain webcams that stick in front of your screen. There's now some AI tools which will center your eye contact for you, although that looks a little creepy at times. Um, if you look too far away. But the idea here is, yes, this is kind of a course concept, but it functions quite differently virtually. And if you hadn't had the experience there, or you're too anchored in the way that things work only in person, you're going to mess up when you get to those virtual interactions that we're all doing.

Jonathan Fields: [00:24:14] So. So the lesson, I guess then, is we all need to be build those skills that are going to be appropriate and helpful in multi domains, like we can't just be the people who are like, I'm really good, you know, like around the water cooler in the office or in an interview when it's in person or I'm awesome when it's virtual. We kind of have to learn how to code switch to a certain extent.

Andrew Brodsky: [00:24:38] Exactly. And I'm a professor, so I'm always going to say to say continual learning is one of the best things you could do. The technology is adapting. Workplaces are constantly changing, so continually understanding the different strategies, the different research and all these different ways of how can we communicate better, how can we interact better is one of the best things you can do, not just for improving your career, but building better relationships and increasing your own happiness as well. You know, figuring out how you can do things like what's the best way to disconnect from this as well. So I think you need a big toolkit, unfortunately, because there are so many different ways and so many different contexts in which we're all communicating with each other.

Jonathan Fields: [00:25:17] Yeah, and it's not going to get simpler. I mean.

Andrew Brodsky: [00:25:19] Probably.

Jonathan Fields: [00:25:19] Not. Um, you you write about another topic that I thought was really interesting, which is this notion of, okay, so let's say you're in a job and, you know, all if not all part of your work is remote. You know, like so. And you're maybe in the younger part of your career. So you want to become a known entity. You want to show what show what you're capable of? You want to actually like. You want to show your work. You want to show that you're putting like, not in not just the time in, but the effort and the energy. And you're creating really good stuff. But it's a lot harder to do when you're doing that in the virtual domain, because people can't just walk by and see it.

Andrew Brodsky: [00:25:56] So the advice I have when it comes to being present virtually, and this also holds in the office, unless your manager is one of those who's like, constantly breathing over your shoulder, uh, is to think about how you communicate about your work when it comes to work. The big problem is the vast majority of work does not have objective, objective measures of performance. Yes, if your sales, maybe you have a sales number, but if you're in human resources or accounting or finance, maybe there's some objective measures, but they only encompass a small part of your performance and job. So what happens is managers are making subjective evaluations of performance and the filter through which the subjective evaluations happen by managers and your actual work is how you communicate about that work. They're seeing about your work based on how you communicate it. And it's like the idea, you know, if a tree falls in the woods and no one's there to hear it, did it fall? If you did a spectacular job on your work, but no one hears about it, did you actually do a spectacular job there? And one of the strategies I give in the book, for instance, about this is if you think about two different employees.

Andrew Brodsky: [00:27:03] So let's pretend you're a manager. One of your employees checks in with you each day. They just send you a few sentence updates at the end of the day saying, hey, here's what I did for the day. Then there's another employee who you don't hear from all week until Friday, and then they send you a five paragraph long email about what they did. Which employee seems hardworking to you? If you're like most people, you'd say, well, definitely the former one. But here's the thing. Both employees communicated the exact same amount of text. Right, right. The first one did only a paragraph a day. The second one did five paragraphs on Friday. So in theory, they may be working just as hard as each other, but by communicating more frequently, it signals, hey, I'm present this day. Hey, I'm doing something without actually increasing the overall quantity of information you're communicating. You're not communicating more paragraphs or more words. It's just you're doing a little bit more frequency to show your presence, as opposed to just assuming it's understood by others even though they can't see you.

Jonathan Fields: [00:28:01] Yeah, I love that. Just as a strategy. Um, and, and, you know, someone might be sort of like hearing this and saying, oh, but that sounds kind of aggressive for me to every day be sort of like pinging my boss and saying, look what I've done today and look what I've done today, and look what I've done today. But there's there's a way to do it in just a very straightforward and even humble way. Say, hey, listen, I just want to let you know where I'm at today and like, like what I was able to accomplish and like, looking forward to diving into this tomorrow. Like, it doesn't have to be ego driven.

Andrew Brodsky: [00:28:29] Exactly. And you should read the room. I'm not saying every organization, every day for every job. Some jobs require you to ping your boss multiple times a day, some that would be really weird to weird to send them a message once a day. Just the idea is figure out what the norm of communication frequency is within an org. That's going to seem reasonable. And if you're making the choice, saying, well, maybe I should just do one long email once every few weeks, or maybe I should do more frequent but shorter touchpoints. That latter one tends to be seen as more effective because it shows you're there, you're present, and you're engaged in the work tasks.

Jonathan Fields: [00:29:01] Yeah, I mean, it goes back to the initial P and you're paying framework, right? Like the perspective taking, you got to really sort of like scan and understand like who's what's really happening here and what's appropriate in this in this context.

Andrew Brodsky: [00:29:11] Exactly.

Jonathan Fields: [00:29:13] Yeah. I do want to touch on one other thing because it's so of the moment. We can't not talk about it. And that's, that's I in the context of virtual communication. So you know like I am getting messages on a regular basis. We're deep into I with what we do. And we're working with a lot of different systems and tools and, and exploring a ton. You can now very easily and very readily build a clone of yourself. Um, anyone can do this. An individual can individual can do it. It's the investment has rounded down to so very little. That is a clone that's been trained on depending on who you are a massive body of work. But you know like vetting video, audio, text and now you can actually have your clone show up on a video call on your behalf. Um, and not only respond in real time as if people are having a conversation, asking you questions, but also respond in real time to every single question in the chat simultaneously. How do you feel about this?

Andrew Brodsky: [00:30:10] Well, as a communication person, my view is that there's always going to be a value to the human component of communication. The problem is, is if the other person sees you're using AI, they're going to wonder why are they communicating with you in the first place? So of course there are situations where it's going to be really useful. So let's just say it's basic customer service interactions that are very repeated. They don't necessarily care as much about the relationship with the particular person they're talking to. And this chatbot or AI video bot might have more information. Sure, those are situations that might be useful, but let's think about like an ongoing work relationship. You have an important client. For instance, if you go on a video call with them and it's your AI talking to them, your client's going to suddenly question why they're hiring you in the first place, or if it's your boss and you're doing that, they're going to have the same question. And that's going to go really bad for you. And the same is true for email or instant message. When you're if you're just having AI, right, the full message for you and you copy it in there, there's a risk they're going to know. Maybe it uses a word you don't normally use like prolific. Maybe you and your coworker talked about something that past weekend. You know, they mentioned that they just got engaged to their fiance and you and your AI message says, I hope you had a good weekend exclamation mark. Completely not acknowledging. You just talked about this at the water cooler on the phone a few minutes earlier.

Andrew Brodsky: [00:31:31] They're going to know. And if they figure out once that you're using AI to communicate, they're going to going to question every single interaction you've had in the past. And even if you're not using your AI video bot, maybe you're reading off AI written scripts or something else like that, and that could be a major problem. And there's one other issue too, is something called cognitive offloading, which is the idea that if you let the tech do this kind of stuff. So for instance meeting summaries. So we have AI bots that will now summarize meetings for you. Right. Which can be really good to have that record. But the problem is, is that if you know the AI has a summary and let's do an extreme example, let's say it's a 20 person meeting. You've got your camera off because you need to talk and you have the AI summarize it. You're not really paying attention because you know you have the summary later. Then a few days later, your client or boss asks you something that was said during the meeting. You don't remember it because you weren't the one taking the notes. You weren't the one paying attention. And this is what research shows in cognitive offloading, is that we tend to learn less. We tend to remember less because we know, oh, we can rely on what the technology did, but you can be caught off guard if you don't have access to that information when you're then asked about it in person, potentially.

Jonathan Fields: [00:32:43] Yeah. I mean, I know that I have been that person myself and I was like, I think we're so tempted. And so many of us feel so busy and often overwhelmed with so many things going on simultaneously. We're like, oh, I'm not really doing harm by just what a great feature that's just been added. Now I can kind of like give, you know, 25, 50% of my attention to this thing. Know that I'm going to be covered by the note taking and then go do this other work on a really tight deadline than a project that actually is due today. And it's going to be okay. And what you're saying is the reality is it's not going to be okay maybe once in a while. But like this is not the default that we should all accept.

Andrew Brodsky: [00:33:21] So my view on it is I definitely has its purposes. So it's great for editing. It's great for brainstorming, it's great for low stakes or repeated interactions. And these tools for summarizing are definitely useful, but you should understand the Understand the weaknesses of them. So you could still make sure that you've read the AI transcript afterwards so that it's actually in your mind. The problem is, when we get too used to using these things, we forget about the weaknesses because we're so overreliant on them. So I don't think we should necessarily use them, at least for the summaries, but rather like we need to understand why this might work against you and make sure to take the initiative to add that part back in. So you do get that learning so that you actually do absorb any information that might be necessary for you.

Jonathan Fields: [00:34:04] Yeah. Okay. So now I want to ask you about because you okay. So you're a professor, right? Do you see in class now students in class where you kind of know that they've just got their note taker on, on their computer or on their device or whatever it is, and they're basically just counting on the fact that everything that you're going to say is going to be summarized and put into the note taker, and they're going to have their notes afterwards and kind of tuning out while they're there.

Andrew Brodsky: [00:34:25] For my classes, uh, initially, my students don't appreciate it, but I love doing cold calling. Uh, so it very suddenly doesn't work. But what I do for my class to make it actually fun, more enjoyable is I do what I call softball cold calling. So I never call on students for the hard questions. I only ask for volunteers for those. But I do a lot of easy questions to keep the conversation going, especially when I'm teaching virtually via zoom or teams, because that's a situation where you need to make sure that people aren't zoning out, because otherwise they're not going to absorb the information and be able to use it in their careers later on. So what I do is I do these easy questions, keeps everyone engaged. We hear from each other, and because they're easy, it builds a culture where people feel comfortable answering questions and they don't mind answering them, as opposed to the professors putting them on the spot. They're going to get it wrong. All their classmates will think they're dumb. So that's a good tool that I use to make sure that people are engaged, but also it creates a culture and feeling of okay, safety in speaking. You know, I'm going to get it right. Everyone's going to think I get it right in the process.

Jonathan Fields: [00:35:30] Yeah. And that's actually probably a great approach to like look for a leader or a manager in meetings as well. Like, you want to try and find ways to keep bringing people in and feel comfortable sharing what they're sharing. Even if some of those students may have the note taking thing on their app, you know, happening in real time so that they can reflect on it afterwards. You know, I think if you're I think maybe part of what you're saying here, at least what I'm hearing is the note taking thing isn't isn't by default bad. It's like, are you also engaged and paying attention and present while it's happening at the same time?

Andrew Brodsky: [00:36:01] Exactly. And for many people, that note taking app is a lifesaver. Yeah, some people just process information more slowly. Some learning structures are better when they kind of can repeat it really well. And for people, some people this is a huge advantage. So I definitely wouldn't you know, the cliches throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's you want to make sure you use these things effectively, but that you're not causing other problems as a, as a part of implementing them.

Jonathan Fields: [00:36:25] Yeah. I mean, and that brings up just one other sort of like point here, which is that especially if you like, for folks who are neurodivergent and they just they learn differently. They have to process stimuli and information differently. Learning the different modes of communication and the different tools that are available can be just stunningly helpful in the way that you're actually able. It allows you to process the way that actually works for you.

Andrew Brodsky: [00:36:49] And it's one of the things I talk about in my book. And it's not just those who are neurodivergent. Those who have hearing difficulties might prefer to have those transcripts. Those who have difficulty seeing might prefer video calls, for instance, because they can more easily read lips. And it's not just about disabilities as well. People from other cultures may prefer text based communication because it gives them the chance to edit and make sure their words are correct. People who might have childcare responsibilities might prefer to have video off if their kids are sick from daycare that day. One of the tips that I give is we often just send off a meeting invite via video or a phone, or we just assume something via email, and we kind of try and figure out what's best on our own. One of the best things you things you could do often and just ask other person saying, hey, do you want to do this via a phone call video meeting, email? It's a message like what's best for you? And this serves two purposes one, it helps include other people who might not be able to communicate as well via that mode. And two, selfishly, people are going to start liking you a lot more because you communicate in the way that they want to. If someone really likes seeing you, you'll do that. If someone hates having their camera on, you'll do that. And because you're easier for them to communicate with, they'll seek you out more. They'll offer you more resources when you need them. So this is one of those strategies that's really nice for other people, but actually benefits you on the back end as well.

Jonathan Fields: [00:38:11] Yeah. And I love the fact that you're also you're sort of showing them that you care about that. You want them to actually like get what they came for. Also in a way where they feel respected and that they're receiving it. I remember years ago interviewing somebody who was in person with cameras in a room and she was someone who stuttered when she spoke. And and about halfway through the conversation, my mind had a whole separate script going. I'm like, like, am I like, should I finish the sentences? Should I not finish the sentences? What's respectable? What's not respectable? I kind of, I think I know where she's going, but. And then halfway through I just said, hey, listen, can I just share something with you? This is I have this script going through my head right now, and I just and this was all on camera. And because I was like, If I'm feeling this, everybody listening to and watching this is probably feeling the same thing. Can we just make the hidden overt? And I just said, like, what's what's the best way for like, how do I handle this right now? Like what? What is the most respectful way for you to actually have me interact with you in a way where you feel like this, this feels good and it feels comfortable and alive? And her answer was like, first, just ask the question. I'm so glad you just asked. And didn't just sit there and assume that you knew. She's like, that is the single big thing. And that's kind of a similar thing of what you're talking about here.

Andrew Brodsky: [00:39:29] Exactly. I mean, that's one of the best things you could do is make the implicit, explicit ask, see what people's preferences are. Stop making assumptions. And rather than having to guess their perspective and what makes sense for them, ask them what they prefer, you know. Did they mean what you thought they meant? Uh, so many misinterpretations spiral out of control because you assume they meant something and you never asked for clarification of it. So just always asking those questions can be a really useful strategy.

Jonathan Fields: [00:39:55] Yeah, I love that. And it kind of brings us back to your original framework. Also the framework perspective taking initiative, non-verbal and goals. And I think if we keep pulling ourselves back to that, it sounds like everything else will kind of figure itself out.

Andrew Brodsky: [00:40:09] Yep. Pretty much so. And like everything is tied to those and all the research, all the strategies they fit into one of each of those categories.

Jonathan Fields: [00:40:17] Beautiful. Thank you so much. Really enjoyed the conversation.

Andrew Brodsky: [00:40:20] Thanks. It was a really fun one.

Jonathan Fields: [00:40:25] And remember, if you are at a moment of exploration In looking to find and do or even create work that makes you come more fully alive, that brings more meaning and purpose and joy into your life. Take the time to discover your own personal Sparketype for free at sparketype.com. It will open your eyes to a deeper understanding of yourself and open the door to possibility like never before. And hey, if you're finding value in these conversations, please just take an extra second right now to follow and rate SPARKED in your favorite podcast app. This is so helpful in helping others find the show and growing our community so that we can all come alive and work in life together. This episode of SPARKED was produced by executive producers Lindsey Fox and Me, Jonathan Fields. Production and editing by Sarah Harney. Special thanks to Shelley Adelle for her research on this episode. Until next time. I'm Jonathan Fields and this is SPARKED.