Instant message etiquette Aug27 '06

Prelude

A while back, I mentioned cell phone dependence, and at the end, I foreshadowed an entry called Instant Message Etiquette.

This is it.

Being rude

Instant message etiquette is quite simple. There is no etiquette.

The user is in complete control. With instant messages, as with email - you can be as rude, abrupt, and inaccessible as you want. You can ignore anyone who messages you, or take an hour to reply, and sign off whenever you feel the need - among many other great things that put you in complete control.

It’s a great feeling, that control. And you don’t ever have to feel bad. I know I don’t.

Although, when I stop to think of it - it is kind of rude, and I should feel bad.

Take, for instance, these scenarios:

You’re on the phone with someone, and they tell you to "hold on a sec," while they tie their shoe, or quickly mention something to the person next to them. You realize you have something else to do, so you simply hang up the phone, without saying goodbye.

-----

You’re in a restuarant with friends or family, and you get the urge to use the bathroom. On the way back from the bathroom, you simply pass the table, and head straight for the exit, offering no explanation to your party.

-----

You’re having a conversation with someone face-to-face. Instead of engaging in the conversation, you simply utter one-syllable words, taking 5 whole minutes to respond to each comment from the other person.

Does this sound normal?

Absolutely not, but this is how we act with instant messages and email.

The internet, and the communication within, gives us the aura of being endlessly busy - so we can easily get away with being rude.

Who’s really being rude?

On the other hand, internet communication is a great thing. And, most importantly, being "accessible" is not the users responsibility.

After all, consider this scenario:

You’re in the middle of dinner with your family. All of a sudden, the phone rings, and everyone scampers to answer it.

Did you ever stop to think that the phone is just an interruption? Why do people insist that it is OK for anyone to call you whenever they feel the need? We are truly victims of our telephones.

The same goes for the doorbell. Why do people think they can show up, unannounced, to anyone’s house, and expect an immediate answer?

The doorbell and the telephone are just interruptions which we assume are "OK." Well, they’re not "OK." You don’t have to answer the phone that’s blaring endlessly inside your house, and you certainly don’t have to answer the doorbell for just anyone. Consider that these interruptions are just taking you away from whatever task you were doing.

The same goes for instant messages.

Just because you appear "online," that doesn’t mean you are endlessly available for anyone who cares to send you a message. Incoming messages are just interruptions from whatever you were doing.

You don’t have to respond to every message, or even acknowledge every message. The message sender is wrong to think that the person is ignoring them, or they are somehow being rude. No, the sender is the rude one. They are the ones interrupting the other person.

And just because you appear "online," it also doesn’t mean you have to always be near your computer.

"Oh wait, I’m online. I shouldn’t walk away. Someone may message me."

Stop thinking that way. You can do what you want. You are not victim to sitting at the computer.

Office situation

I, for one, am in a company that frequently uses instant message as the primary form of communication between employees.

To me, this is a wonderful thing, because the less my phone is blaring in my ear, the better.

However, my point now goes even further, because instant message "interruptions" at work are now interfering with the company - not just the employees’ personal agenda.

If an employee is constantly interrupted with instant messages, she is obviously not getting any work done, which affects the company.

But, on the other hand, instant message is a quick and subtle way to contact someone - so it does have it’s value.

There is no quick answer here.

Unfortunately, it may come down to "priority of people," as much as others may dislike that.

For example, I may more frequently answer instant messages from my boss, than from Susie who keeps having trouble with her keyboard.

And, in a workplace situation, you probably can’t just sign off instant message whenever you feel like. If you have to be online, you have to quickly guage the importance of the incoming message, and then choose to respond, or ignore.

However, don’t be rude - say something to the effect of, "I don’t have a moment right now. I can get back to you when I have some more time."

Be blunt and straight-forward. Don’t waste people’s time with "half interested" responses, such as, "Hmmmm, yeah maybe I can fix it... Not sure though. Lemme look... Kinda busy right now though."

If you’re busy, say so. Don’t play games. You simple waste your own time, and the company’s time.

In the end...

Instant message may be a great new way to communicate (new, considering the thousands of years we only communicated face-to-face), but don’t be fooled into thinking that a person must respond to you immediately, or at all.

I always tell people, "To handle possible tense feelings - if you’re busy, stay offline."

That is the true answer. If you can, stay offline.

Until society adapts to this new form of communication, people will continue to feel that they are being ignored, and the other person is rude.

They are just victims of technical advancement. They have become so familiar with one way of communication, they are not used to this new way.

They will be, someday. And, now, you can too.

Categories: Communication , Internet

Add Feedback (view all)