Is face-to-face communication the only authentic communication?

Today I started reading Leading Out Loud by Terry Pearce. I am reading this book for my second time I am excited to see what new insights I may gain the second time. Soon after I started reading I found myself following the author's writing into a conclusion that made me uncomfortable. The author's argument starts with the quote below.

Because the network allows instant communication with multitudes of others, perceived breaches of integrity can be communicated instantly and broadly.

The author then suggests that this axiom has led us to sanitize communication. In particular, we sanitize written communication of all sorts as well as speeches. Leaders are under intense pressure in written exchanges as well as speeches to be professional. However, listeners discount the messages embedded in these communications because they understand that the message has been polished and therefore is seen as less authentic.

I think that the author, whether intentional or not, concluded that rehearsed written and verbal communication should be used less than unrehearsed verbal communication. I am not sure that I can agree with this conclusion.

First, I believe in the power of well-authored and well-organized written communication. If I thought otherwise then I would not have built this Web site. A well-conceived and well-executed written work can communicate important and complex ideas effectively. The writer gets the opportunity to make his/her best case for the change that needs to take place.

Second, I believe in being prepared. I cannot imagine delivering a speech, entering a meeting, or writing without advance planning. I need time to identify the issues, consider alternatives, and prepare an argument and to be ready to respond to the arguments of others. I want to make sure that I am clear with the audience without creating an unnecessary adverse reaction to the message.

I believe that we should utilize the communication method that offers the best chance of clearly and effectively delivering the message. In theory I don't advocate the importance of one over the other. (My practice, on the other hand, may be different.) In my opinion, the most important thing is to communicate the necessary message. Once we make the decision to speak we must find a way to deliver the message in the most effective way possible. Why should we tie one hand behind our back by favoring one communication method?

Perhaps you think the author was trying to make a different point. Or, perhaps you have a different understanding of how best to communicate change to an organization. If so, then write a comment. I'd like to hear from you.

Reference

Pearce, T. (2003). Leading out loud. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.