Communication

The literature of the past decade draws focus to the need to moderate the observed rise of communication in a virtual setting with physical, interpersonal communication. In reflection on my and my team’s experiences, communication was more effective in Everest 2 than in Everest 1 with one exception to the rule. The findings infer that online interaction undermines the communicative process by fostering the disinhibition effect, unethical communication and filtering. Although they also point out that virtual communication can help clarify decision making by diffusing emotional cues. This analysis seeks to clarify these facets of communication and apply them to the issues in order to draw conclusions to help improve my and my team’s approach to team-work.

The disinhibition effect refers to the propensity of individuals to disregard social conventions, act impulsively and exercise poor risk assessment where personal interaction has been removed. It negatively affects the communicative process because it distorts meaning by removing interpersonal consequences.

This effect was manifest in our team prior to commencing Everest 2. A team member was unresponsive, after prompting within the course guide lines the member attempted Everest 1 but failed to attend Everest 2. I didn’t individually pursue the member so the disinhibition effect is more relatable through the team’s experience. Moments prior to Everest 2 the team members vehemently pursued the absent person, all at once, through various methods of non-face to face communication with blunt messages. It is relatable because it was outside social convention; despite none of us meeting him face to face the messages were blunt “where are you…you’re going to ruin our mark!”. They were impulsive because they were instant; they bypassed due process from the tutor or coordinator. While they exhibited poor