Think Fast Talk Smart: Communication Techniques

In the age of virtual communication, here’s how to ensure your messages convey what you mean.

Texts. Emails. Slacks. Zooms. We’re communicating in more ways than ever, but Andrew Brodsky has a word of warning: Your virtual communication might be sending messages you’re not aware of.
Brodsky is the author of PING: The Secrets of Successful Virtual Communication. And as a professor of management at the University of Texas McCombs School of Business, he researches the impact of technology on workplace communication. “In virtual communication, there's often missing information,” he says. “As recipients of it, we're searching to fill in the gaps. The problem [is] that the recipient who's making these guesses is often guessing incorrectly.” As his research reveals, variables like typos, the time you schedule a meeting, and even your choice of email signature affect how your messages are received — and how you’re perceived.
In this episode of Think Fast, Talk Smart, host Matt Abrahams and Brodsky explore his PING framework (perspective-taking, initiative, nonverbal awareness, and goals) for mastering digital communication. From understanding when to choose email over a phone call to navigating cameras-on versus cameras-off meetings, he offers practical strategies for ensuring your virtual messages communicate exactly what you intend.

To listen to the extended Deep Thinks version of this episode, please visit FasterSmarter.io/premium

Episode Reference Links:
Connect:

Chapters:

  • (00:00) - Introduction
  • (02:38) - What Is Virtual Communication?
  • (03:24) - Choosing the Right Channel for Your Goal
  • (06:09) - The Ping Framework: Secrets to Virtual Communication
  • (10:05) - Understanding Communication Richness
  • (13:07) - Nonverbals in Virtual Communication
  • (16:51) - The Final Three Question
  • (25:14) - Conclusion

********
Thank you to our sponsors.  These partnerships support the ongoing production of the podcast, allowing us to bring it to you at no cost.

This episode is brought to you by Babbel. Think Fast Talk Smart listeners can get started on your language learning journey today- visit Babbel.com/Thinkfast and get up to 55% off your Babbel subscription.

Join our Think Fast Talk Smart Learning Community and become the communicator you want to be.

Creators and Guests

Host
Matt Abrahams
Lecturer Stanford University Graduate School of Business | Think Fast Talk Smart podcast host
Guest
Andrew Brodsky
Author | Management Professor

What is Think Fast Talk Smart: Communication Techniques?

One of the most essential ingredients to success in business and life is effective communication.
Join Matt Abrahams, best-selling author and Strategic Communication lecturer at Stanford Graduate School of Business, as he interviews experts to provide actionable insights that help you communicate with clarity, confidence, and impact. From handling impromptu questions to crafting compelling messages, Matt explores practical strategies for real-world communication challenges.

Whether you’re navigating a high-stakes presentation, perfecting your email tone, or speaking off the cuff, Think Fast, Talk Smart equips you with the tools, techniques, and best practices to express yourself effectively in any situation. Enhance your communication skills to elevate your career and build stronger professional relationships.

Tune in every Tuesday for new episodes. Subscribe now to unlock your potential as a thoughtful, impactful communicator. Learn more and sign up for our eNewsletter at fastersmarter.io.

Matt Abrahams: If you think about your
communication over a week or even a day or

even an hour, think of how many different
types of virtual communication you use,

texting, slacking, emails, virtual calls.

We need to make sure that we are as
efficient and as effective as we can

be when we are communicating virtually.

I'm Matt Abrahams and I teach
strategic communication at Stanford

Graduate School of Business.

Welcome to Think Fast,
talk Smart, the podcast.

Today I am excited to
speak with Andrew Brodsky.

Andrew is an expert in
workplace technology,

communication, and productivity.

He teaches and conducts research
at the McCombs School of Business

at the University of Texas, Austin.

His latest book is Ping: The Secrets
of Successful Virtual Communication.

Welcome, Andrew.

Your work is so relevant
and of the moment.

I appreciate you being here.

Andrew Brodsky: Thanks
for having me on the show.

I've been a long time fan of your work,
so I'm really excited getting to talk.

Matt Abrahams: Thank you for that.

So shall we get started?

Andrew Brodsky: Yes, let's go for it.

Matt Abrahams: Excellent.

So your latest book, and work,
focus on virtual communication.

I'm curious what counts as
virtual communication for you?

Is it just Zoom, Meet, or Teams, or
is it something even more than that?

Andrew Brodsky: For virtual communication,
it's simply defined as anything that

involves communicating through some
kind of electronic device or computer.

So that is, of course, Zoom,
Teams, those video calls.

But it goes all the way down to
text messaging, instant messaging,

email, and now phone calls are
virtual because they all happen via

our smartphones or voiceover IP's.

So anything that happens electronically.

So basically not face-to-face
interactions and not snail mail,

where you're writing letters and
sending them via the post office.

Matt Abrahams: I'm not even
sure younger folks know how to

do that latter part anymore.

When we communicate virtually,
we have choices about tools

and channels, et cetera.

Do you have advice and guidance
for which tools are better for

which certain communication goals?

So do I use a text to let my
boss know I'm gonna be late?

Do I send an email?

What's advice and guidance
on these different channels?

Andrew Brodsky: I wish I could say that
there was just one best mode, although

that would make for a very short book.

The key general advice here is you
wanna think about, what are the core

things you're trying to do here,
and what mode serves that best?

For instance, if we're considering
meetings versus email, are

you relaying information?

Do you want to have a back and forth?

Once you get the basics down, you start
to think more into the granularity

of what you're trying to achieve,
interaction, and then the dynamics

that are going on in each one.

For instance, let's talk
about brainstorming.

So brainstorming many people
think is better in person.

We can bounce ideas of each other.

We got a nice whiteboard in front of us.

But generally, what research shows is that
the earlier stages of brainstorming are

better done separately and electronically.

And the reason is a few fold.

When we're sitting in a group,
only one person can talk at a time.

That's productivity loss right there.

If you're all trying to generate twenty
ideas, it doesn't really work well in a

meeting with ten people because we don't
have time to say twenty ideas out loud.

If you're all typing them down
separately, that is much more productive.

When we have a group of people
staring at us, we're afraid

often of saying something really
non-conforming because they'll judge us.

But when we're sitting behind our
computer typing, that fear, that presence

of the other people's less salient.

And lastly, when we hear an idea in person
during brainstorming, our mind kind of

sticks on that idea, and it's hard to
come up with divergent thoughts from that.

So basically, research shows that
early stages of brainstorming, you

get more and more novel ideas when
you do it separately and virtually.

But then later on when you're trying
to decide an idea or tweak an idea,

that's when you wanna meet as a
group, because that's when you have

that back and forth, that's when
it's good to work off of each other.

Matt Abrahams: So what I'm hearing
you say is the biggest determinant

of which channel you use is what
you're trying to accomplish.

If you're expecting some back and
forth, or you really rely on somebody

else's response, maybe the more
interactive approaches are better.

But if you're really trying to do
things like ideate and brainstorm.

It might make more sense to do
that more isolated where you don't

need that real time connection.

Andrew Brodsky: Exactly.

And those are some key examples
of thinking about when one versus

another might work better or worse.

Matt Abrahams: Yeah, I think so many
of us just want to get the message

out that we don't really think about
the channel and how that channel

can impact what we're trying to do.

So that's a really key bit of advice.

Your new book has the subtitle,
The Secrets of Successful

Virtual Communication.

So I gotta ask, what are
some of these secrets?

Let us in.

Andrew Brodsky: When it comes to books
on business or improvement, I really like

when there's a framework to organize all
this stuff 'cause it helps me remember it.

So I think the best answer for this
is to think about the framework that

I introduced in the book, which is the
Ping framework, which should be easy to

remember, 'cause the book's titled Ping.

The Ping framework stands
for, P, perspective taken.

And that's the idea that when
you're interacting virtually you're

often much more self-focused.

So whether you're just looking at
text on a screen, or even if you're

doing video, there's just a little
square of the person you're looking

at, and it's not the same as when
they're standing right in front of you.

So we end up looking at things from our
own perspective, and we tend to be much

more overconfident than we should be
about our communication because we're not

taking the other person's perspective and
realizing that it's different than us.

They might read our emotions different.

I is initiative, so it's thinking
about what is missing from a given

mode and how can I edit back in?

One of the examples that I often talk
about with my students and executives

is about when it comes to small talk.

So I know it's been a topic on
your show previously, but the

thing about small talk, many
people hate it, for good reason.

It takes up time.

So it's a productivity waste.

But on the other side of that, small
talk is useful for building trust.

We trust what we know, we trust
who we know, and it creates warmth.

Research has found that, for instance,
in negotiation studies, when they had

participants negotiate over text-based
communication, there was much less small

talk than when there was in person.

So what they did is they had some of
those participants who are engaging in

a text-based negotiation have a quick
phone call where they just schmoozed

for a few minutes and then they went to
text-based communication and negotiate.

And those negotiators ended up doing
a whole lot better than those who

didn't engage in schmoozing beforehand.

So taking that initiative just to have
a short phone call before some intense

interaction can be really useful.

Then N, nonverbal, that's the idea
that we send a lot of different

nonverbal behavior over virtual
communication than we do in person,

and it's important to be aware of that.

Typos can send emotion, time of
day can send singles of power.

There's a whole bunch of different
things that happen virtually

that just don't happen in person.

And those are really key for
making sure that our messages

are interpreted as we intend.

And then lastly is G, for goals.

There's not one best mode.

It depends on what your goal is in
a situation, for example, cameras

on versus cameras off calls.

The idea here is people have
strong preferences on it.

But research shows that it
depends what your goal is here.

So if your goal is you wanna make a strong
impression for someone you don't know,

well, you wanna show you're engaged,
video on is really good for that.

But if you are trying to save
energy, if you're trying to focus,

video off is better because research
has evidence showing Zoom fatigue

or video conferencing fatigue.

This idea that being on camera is really
exhausting 'cause we're staring at

ourselves, analyzing nonverbal behavior.

And there are all these things that
happen when we're not in person that

can drain energy from interactions.

So if it's a new interaction,
maybe videos on or better.

But if it is someone you know really
well, strong impressions already built,

they know you're gonna be engaged, then
you might as well turn that video off

because it'll help you to save energy.

Bringing it all together, the Ping
framework P, perspective taking, I,

initiative, N, nonverbal, G, goals.

Throughout my book, I tie each
of the recommendations into

that framework to help make it
more memorable and more usable.

Matt Abrahams: I love a good
framework and I love one that I can

remember, and Ping is very memorable.

You spend in your book a lot
of time talking about richness.

What does richness mean in the
context of communication and why

should we be concerned about it?

Andrew Brodsky: Richness is this
idea about how similar is a mode

to face-to-face interactions, and
that's generally how it's defined.

But you can't think about
it as a single dimension.

There are different components
that make up richness.

The two main ones are
synchronicity, whether it's real

time or not, and cue variety.

How similar are the degree of
cues or nonverbal behaviors

to those that are in person?

And just because two modes seem similar in
one dimension, doesn't mean they aren't.

For instance, email and
instant message, both have a

similar type of cues available.

You can use emoticons, texts,
but they different in terms of

expected synchronicity, people
tend to respond to instant messages

quicker, hence instant messages.

But the thing is, even small differences
on richness have a huge impact on

the outcomes of our interactions.

Thinking about video calls and
in-person interactions, fairly similar,

except you can't see the bottom half
of the person, which in many video

meetings is probably a good thing.

What also happens is with video calls,
there's a very slight lag due to data

transfer speeds over the internet.

Whereas in person, there's no lag 'cause
you're just talking to each other.

Some studies have found that even that
slight lag in video calls can make

conversations run a little more awkwardly.

There can be more silences, we can
interrupt each other more because

we're both waiting for the other
person to finish, or we thought

they finished but they didn't.

Even these lags in the milliseconds
can end up changing the conversational

dynamics, and there's a variety
of other ways that richness

also plays into interactions.

As an example, when we're interacting
virtually, it can feel awkward to

use richer modes of communication.

So if you're reaching out to help someone
or to reconnect with an old colleague,

there's this idea that people would just
rather do it via email, and the research

shows email just feels less awkward.

What authors who studied this found
is that richer modes like telephone

or video end up being more effective.

It builds trust more 'cause it's
richer, and then when participants

rated it after the fact, they note that
it's not actually any more awkward.

So we think it's gonna be awkward
before the fact to move from email to

just calling someone or having a video
meeting, but in reality, it works out

better and it's not any less awkward.

That said, especially in the work
context, try and proceed a call

with an instant message or email.

That way you're not interrupting
whatever the other person is doing,

so you could still get the benefits of
that mode without necessarily having

the interruptive effect of forcing
them to talk whenever you decide.

Matt Abrahams: Thank you for defining
richness and for giving some useful

examples and insight into what it
is and how we can consider using it.

I wanna dive deeper into what you
just said about alerting people

in advance of reaching out.

In your Ping model, the nonverbal
piece, you've got a lot of ways

of looking at nonverbal that I
don't think many of us think of.

You even use the example of the
time of day you set a meeting can

be a way of establishing power.

Can you share your way
of looking at nonverbal

communication when we're virtual?

Most of us who study nonverbal
communication think about what you do

with your body and your voice, but there's
also the use of time, the use of space.

Can you share some of
your thoughts on that?

Andrew Brodsky: For nonverbal
communication, one of the most illustrated

examples to think about this is one
that Hayley Blunden from American

University actually led a research project
with me on, and its on email typos.

In this set of studies,
we've had three findings.

First, email typos generally
make you look less intelligent.

The second finding was that
email typos can relay emotion.

It's like putting your fist up in the air,
where your fist up in the air can make

you seem happier or more proud or more
excited, but it depends on the context.

So in angry emails, typos made
you seem angrier and happy emails,

they made you seem happier.

And then we had a third finding,
which was in the context of emotional

messages, there was a decreased
penalty on intelligence for typos.

So put simply, typos make
us look less intelligent.

But if there's another reason, such
as emotion, the other person says,

oh, it's because they're emotional.

This matches other research.

Studies show that having sent from
my iPhone in your email signature

decreases the penalty of typos 'cause
they assume it's sent from your iPhone.

Knowing someone's from a different culture
reduces the penalty for intelligence

for grammar errors because English
might not be their first language.

So the key kind of theory behind
all of this is this idea that

in virtual communication there's
often missing information.

As recipients of it we're searching for
reasons for this missing information.

Whatever is there, is
what we attach it to.

It's clear the person was emotional
or rushed or whatever else, we

use that information to fill in
the gaps in our understanding

and assume it's because of that.

The problem becomes that the person on
the recipient side who's making these

guesses is often guessing incorrectly.

So realizing how other people interpret
our messages and making sure we add in

extra information to make sure they don't
have to fill in those gaps can be one

of the most useful things that you did.

Matt Abrahams: Wow.

That's a lesson in attribution theory,
but also in some practical things.

You've just totally changed
my perspective on something.

One of the first things I do when I
upgrade my phone is I remove the automatic

signature that says, sent from iPhone.

Because I felt like that
was not useful information.

But based on what you've just said, maybe
what I should do is change it to say,

sent from iPhone while likely rushing,
so that everybody who gets one of my

typos attributes it to that and not to
the fact that I'm not as intelligent.

Andrew Brodsky: It depends if your goal
there is to typos or not, 'cause that

also is sending other information as well.

You didn't feel the need to sit
down at your computer to email them.

Maybe sometimes it's a good signal
that you're sending it from the go.

Maybe other times that's a bad
signal, and that could be seen

as a power play potentially.

So you do have to be wary of what other
information you're sending from that.

But with typos, it helps.

With other things, it may not.

Matt Abrahams: And that's that
nonverbal piece I was thinking about.

So people are reading into,
oh, he just sent me a text.

She sent me an email about that.

Maybe there's some meaning behind it.

Maybe she was more thoughtful than,
and so not only do we make choices

for ourselves, but we have to think
about the impact of the choice of

channel, what message is that sending?

Andrew, this has been a
fantastic conversation.

I, I am certainly considering
changing a lot of my behaviors

based on what we've said.

Before we end, I like to ask
all my guests three questions.

One, I make up for you, and the
other two are similar for everyone.

Are you up for that?

Andrew Brodsky: Yep, definitely.

Matt Abrahams: Excellent.

So not everybody has the
benefit of actually seeing

you as I do as we're speaking.

What's your advice and guidance on
what we do with what's behind us

when we're virtually communicating?

Are there some best
practices we should follow?

Andrew Brodsky: The evidence when it
comes to video backgrounds or how you look

on video does show that they do matter.

Having good lighting, having a
good camera, and in terms of what's

behind you, so there's been some
studies on the virtual backgrounds

and they show that having virtual
background over bookshelf or plants

tend to be seen as most professional.

Blurred is somewhere in the middle,
and then the novelty ones, an example I

used in the study was a walrus on ice,
were seen as the least professional.

So you wanna use some common sense if
you're using a virtual background, but

then there's another set of studies about
what shows in your actual background.

And what they've found is that
when there are things that show

who you are, so you wanna of
course have the professional stuff.

So bookshelf is always good.

Maybe some plants.

So in my case, a picture of my
dogs and a couple other little

tidbits about me can be useful
for creating some social cohesion.

An example in the study they had things
that showed people were parents, number

one dad mug, and they found that for
other people who were parents, they

felt they could trust that person more.

So having those opportunities to
potentially have conversations to show a

window into who you are, while remaining
professional, can be incredibly helpful.

Matt Abrahams: So the fact that I have a
Lego flower that I made behind me gives

some insight into something about me.

I'll take that as a positive.

The one thing I want to advise people
against, and I assume you would agree

with this, is you need to be authentic.

I can imagine somebody hearing what
you just said and said, oh, I'm gonna

manipulate by putting a number one
dad mug and I don't have any kids.

We need to be authentic because just
like you mentioned around AI, that

if the language you use influences
how people see you, if somebody were

to find out that you're not telling
the truth, that would be a problem.

Andrew Brodsky: Exactly.

And I have some research to it in
virtuality and authenticity, and

it's a major factor that drives
satisfaction of the other party.

So it's not just being authentic what
you say or do, but also being seen as

choosing the right mode, making sure
that you don't have unintentional

nonverbal behavior leaking through.

When video calls, for instance, people
might see that we're trying to be

happy for them, but we're actually
not, because maybe something happened

earlier in our day that's really bad.

So authenticity is a topic that is
not just relevant for in person, but

is incredibly relevant to virtual
interactions, especially because

the person can't physically see you.

So they're making a lot of assessments
of authenticity to fill in those gaps.

Matt Abrahams: Really, I wanna
put an exclamation and point.

Authenticity is so important in
all communication, and what I'm

hearing you say is, in virtual
communication it's even more important.

Let me ask question number two.

I'll be curious to hear your answer.

Who is a communicator
that you admire and why?

Andrew Brodsky: I'm guessing there may
have been a chance you would've gotten

this answer before because he's many
peoples, but for me it's Adam Grant.

I took his first class
that he taught at Wharton.

It was just inspirational, the degree
to which he motivated students.

It was one of the driving factors that
drove me to getting a PhD and, and

coming into academia was just seeing
the impact he had on students and how

he was able to just draw everyone into a
topic that many people came in thinking

wasn't gonna be that interesting.

Matt Abrahams: So this notion
of your passion and connecting

that and, and sharing that and
making it relevant to others.

Final question.

What are the first three ingredients that
go into a successful communication recipe?

Andrew Brodsky: For a successful
communication, I recommend

three things that start with
pausing and taking a breath.

We're overloaded by communication,
especially virtual communication.

We've got full inboxes.

We've got a back-to-back video meetings,
and it's so easy to just keep on

going and not take a second to pause.

And step two is consider if what
you're doing is actually the best.

We tend to follow this trap of the
default bias, which is this idea that

we just do whatever we've normally
done or what's right in front of us.

So if we always have a meeting for X,
we continue to have a meeting for X.

Or if we have an email for Y, we give
an email for Y. Or if the conversation

is already happening in email, we
don't take the initiative to say, hey,

let's switch this to a phone call.

I think that'd be more productive.

And so actually getting out of that
default mindset can be incredibly

helpful for improving productivity, your
relationships, and your overall wellbeing.

'Cause you may find that you
decrease your communication load by

being thoughtful about what's the
most productive mode and when, as

opposed to just going with the flow.

And lastly, my third
ingredient is keep learning.

Especially when it comes to technology
and communication technology,

there's new advances every day.

People are changing how they use things.

So keeping up with the research, the
science, and understanding what are the

best strategies for what, how is that
changing, can be one of the best things

that you can do because communication
technology is such a dynamic landscape.

Matt Abrahams: I really
like those three things.

Uh, I'm gonna take them in reverse
order, staying up to date, and really

challenging yourself to explore and learn
the new technology makes a big difference.

There are things that, as you said,
are getting better all the time.

I think about when we all first
went to virtual and where we are

today, not just in our comfort level
with it, but just what we can do.

I like to talk about
turning habits into choices.

Many of us communicate in that default
mode and taking the time to make a

conscious choice rather than just do
what you've always done might make the

communication better and your life easier.

And then finally, taking a pause.

We are often rushing in all of our
communication and taking that beat, taking

that moment can really make a difference.

And if we do it in the presence of
others to show that we're listening or

to show that we're being thoughtful,
it can have an added benefit.

Andrew, this has been
a great conversation.

You shared so many useful tips and helped
me, and I hope everybody listening, think

a little bit differently about how we
show up when we communicate virtually and

what tools and channels we choose to use.

Thank you so much.

Andrew Brodsky: Thanks for having me on.

I appreciate it.

Matt Abrahams: Thank you for
joining us for this episode of

Think Fast Talk Smart, the podcast.

To learn more about virtual
communication best practices, please

listen to episode 53 with Jonathan
Levav and episode 31 with me.

This episode was produced by Ryan
Campos and me, Matt Abrahams.

Our music is from Floyd Wonder.

With thanks to the Podium Podcast Company.

Please find us on YouTube and
wherever you get your podcasts.

Be sure to subscribe and rate us.

Also, follow us on LinkedIn and Instagram,
and check out FasterSmarter.io for

deep dive videos, English language
learning content, and our newsletter.

Please consider our premium offering
for extended Deep Thinks episodes,

Ask Matt Anythings and much more
at FasterSmarter.io/premium.