Passion Struck with John R. Miles - Andrew Brodsky on How to Be Seen Without Being Always Available | EP 617

Episode Date: May 29, 2025

In this episode of Passion Struck, Dr. Andrew Brodsky—organizational psychologist, UT Austin professor, and author of PING: Mastering the Art of Virtual Communication—explores how presence, intention, and clarity have become the most undervalued skills in our increasingly virtual world.Drawing from his groundbreaking research and insights from PING, Brodsky reveals why performative busyness is sabotaging genuine connection, how hybrid work is rewiring the way we engage, and what leaders can do to rebuild trust, motivation, and real collaboration. If you’re navigating digital communication, managing remote teams, or simply craving more meaningful connections in your workday, this episode will shift how you lead—and how you show up.Click HERE for the full show notesExplore More: The Ignited Life NewsletterIf today’s episode sparked something in you, you’ll love The Ignited Life—our free Substack newsletter created to fuel your growth between episodes.👉 Subscribe now at TheIgnitedLife.net.Catch more of Dr. Andrew Brodsky: https://abrodsky.com/Together, John and Andrew explore:The difference between physical, emotional, and psychological presence—and why they matter.Why hybrid work may amplify disengagement if not intentionally designed.How “performative busyness” is eroding real productivity and wellbeing.The silent epidemic of disengagement—and how to detect and reverse it.Research-backed tools for leaders to foster presence and connection.If you liked the show, please leave us a review—it only takes a moment and helps us reach more people! Don’t forget to include your Twitter or Instagram handle so we can thank you personally.How to Connect with John:Connect with John on Twitter at @John_RMilesFollow him on Instagram at @John_R_MilesSubscribe to our main YouTube Channel and to our YouTube Clips ChannelFor more insights and resources, visit John’s websiteSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Coming up next on passion struck, you should pause and question your communication assumptions and decisions. We lose so much time just going with the flow. We always do meeting for this. So we'll keep doing a meeting. The conversation is already an email, so we're not going to switch to phone. The problem with that approach is that you often end up in the suboptimal choice of communication medium. And when you actually stop and take a strategic approach to communication, not only can you improve your productivity, you can improve your relationships,

and you can improve your overall wellbeing because you can make yourself happier, you can disconnect more, and you can find ways to thrive in a world of communication overload. Welcome to Passion Struck. Hi, I'm your host, Jon R. Miles, and on the show, we decipher the secrets, tips, and

guidance of the world's most inspiring people and turn their wisdom into practical advice for you and those around you. Our mission is to help you unlock the power of intentionality so that you can become the best version of yourself. If you're new to the show, I offer advice and answer listener questions on Fridays. We have long form interviews the rest of the week with guests ranging from astronauts to authors,

CEOs, creators, innovators, scientists, military leaders, visionaries, and athletes. Now, let's go out there and become passion struck. Welcome back to episode 617 of Passion Struck. If you're new to the show, I am your host, John Miles, and I'm so glad you're here. Passion Struck isn't just a podcast, it's a movement, a community of high performers, change makers,

and intentional seekers who are committed to designing lives of deeper purpose, resilience, and connection. And if you've been with us for a while, thank you for continuing this journey with me. Your presence here matters more than you know. Now before we dive in, some quick updates. The Ignited Life, my new substack, is officially live. Every week I go beyond the podcast sharing tools, ideas, challenges and stories that

you won't find anywhere else. It's also a place where you can check out the PassionStruck merchandise collection. Here designed to reflect the mindset of living intentionally and unapologetically. You can check it all out at either the ignitedlife.net or as always go to passionstruck.com. Our YouTube is booming. Full episodes, exclusive clips, and behind the scenes content are being posted every week. Just search Passion Struck with Jon R. Miles or hit the link in the show notes. And one quick look ahead. Next month we launch a brand new theme, The Art of Connection, where we explore how to build deep, authentic relationships in our leadership, our lives, and within ourselves.

And we're kicking it off with none other than Dr. John Cabot-Zinn in a soul-stirring conversation on presence, attention, and the heart of human connection. It's one of the most moving episodes I've ever recorded. You won't want to miss it. Now, this month, in honor of mental health awareness, we've been shifting the conversation, not just talking about mental illness,

but exploring what it really takes to design a mentally sustainable life. We've covered everything from emotional intelligence with Joseph Nguyen, to spiritual grit with Biet Simken, to workplace mattering with Dr. Zach Mercurio, and the art of adulting with Gretchen Ribbon. And just this past Tuesday, I welcomed Dr. Judith Joseph

for a groundbreaking conversation on high functioning depression and reclaiming joy. Which brings us to today's episode, which is a lead in to the art of communication and our always on virtual first world. Communication, let's be honest, has changed, but have we changed with it? Endless Zoom calls, misunderstood emails, slack fatigue.

It's easy to feel overwhelmed, unclear or disconnected. My guest today, Dr. Andrew Brodsky, is here to challenge that. He's the author of the new book, Ping, Mastering the Art of Virtual Communication, and he spent years researching how we interact in digital spaces, what works, what breaks down, and how we can do better. This episode is packed with practical advice on how to communicate more clearly in virtual formats, how to avoid misrepresentation and burnout, how to build real trust even

over a screen, and lastly, how to build real trust, even over a screen. And lastly, how to lead more effective teams in today's hybrid world. But at its core, this conversation is about intentionality, choosing how we show up, listen, and connect in a noisy world. Whether you're leading a team, managing clients, or just trying to keep your inbox from exploding,

this episode will give you actionable ways to improve how you communicate and more importantly how you connect. So let's dive into episode 617 of Passion Struck with Dr. Andrew Brodsky. Thank you for choosing Passion Struck and choosing me to be your host and guide on your journey to creating an intentional life. Now let that journey begin. life. Now, let that journey begin. I am so honored and excited today to bring you Dr. Andrew Brodsky to the podcast. Welcome, Andrew. Thanks for having me on. One of my favorite questions to start these conversations is about defining moments. And you certainly had one when you were 16 years old.

Could you tell us that story? Because it's how you open up your brand new book, Ping, and explain how it shaped you from such a young age. When I was 16 years old, my life took an unexpected twist. So pretty much out of the blue, I started feeling sick. And then I got sicker and sicker. And within a couple of weeks, I found myself in the emergency room. And at that point, the doctors ran some blood tests. And based on how high my white blood cell count was, it was abundantly clear that I had leukemia. And that preceded a whole lot of treatments of chemotherapy, radiation, a bone marrow transplant. So from an early age, I got to have the experience of often having to interact with people from a distance

because my immune system was really weakened. When I was in for a bone marrow transplant, I was in one of those isolation rooms for over a month where people could only come in if they were wearing full gowns and masks and gloves. And luckily I survived. The treatment was very successful for me, but I was left with a side effect, a lifelong immune deficiency that has resulted in me also having to be a little bit more careful in many cases and in many instances, having to interact with others from a distance, whether because I'm sick or I'm concerned about others getting sick.

And this really led to my interest in studying how do we interact with each other through communication technology? What's the best way to do it? How can we improve that? So then when I began my PhD at Harvard Business School, I focused on that as my topic of study. And to me, it was just really interesting because it's such a dynamic topic because things are constantly changing, new technologies coming out. And then when COVID hit, I happened to be very well positioned in terms of research topic because

I was studying how can we improve our interactions in a situation now where everyone suddenly was in a situation that I had myself been fairly familiar with. So I want to go a little bit deeper into that. One of the things I have really been focused on is the science of belonging. Like Jeff Cohen studies, I refer to it often as the science of mattering, but a lot of it has to do with the same thing. And when I think about the way that we're communicating today, it is definitely shaped how we show up for others. Has this been something you've ever thought about how our virtual communication has impacted our feeling that

we matter or our ability to make other people feel that they matter? When it comes to virtual communication, one of the big topics I focus on is how engaged we feel in our interactions. How engaged do we think other people are with us in those situations? And how do we feel like we can have

that authentic human touch? And what a lot of this research finds is that in many cases, it's better to use richer modes of interaction. So interaction that's more similar to face-to-face. So for instance, instead of sending email, you have a video meeting or a video call, because you can actually see that authenticity shine through. But there's actually a twist on some of this research. So in some studies that I did with managers, negotiators, parents and teachers from international schools in Vietnam, I found an interesting thing here.

So I showed that if you are truly being authentic, it's best to use the richest mode available because that authenticity shines through. that if you are truly being authentic, it's best to use the richest mode available because that authenticity shines through. But there's a whole lot of situations where you wanna seem authentic, but you aren't necessarily. So for instance, something really good happened in your friend's life.

Maybe they just got engaged or maybe they just got a promotion, but you're just not happy in that moment because something happened to you. Maybe you had been in a car accident. Maybe you lost your job. Maybe you've been in a fight with your significant other. And in that moment, it's good for your relationship

and it's good for the other person to show that you're happy for them, but maybe you aren't yourself. So those cases are what's referred to as service acting. This trying to display authenticity, potentially for the benefit of the other person, even though you aren't. And this also relates to service with a smile.

So for those of you in customer-facing jobs, or just really any time at work, you're constantly having to be happy, even though you might not be. And what I found in these research studies is that if you truly want to have a more authentic interaction, it's best to use audio interactions, like telephone. Although email is best for hiding the fact that you're not

truly authentic and it avoids any nonverbal behaviors sneaking through, as in video calls, email itself is seen as really inauthentic. Why audio is so good is it hides all our facial expressions, many of our nonverbal behaviors that might leak through in person or video interactions, but it's seen as much, much more authentic than email. So there's this sweet spot here in this type of interaction

where you want it to be authentic, but maybe it's just not all there for you. And you can, this way you can hide anything that might leak through while still showing the other person, you put that effort into the interaction and you actually care. Thank you for sharing that Andrew. And I'm talking to you today from Austin, Texas. And I used to be a senior executive at Dell and out of my employees, only a small percentage were actually based in Round Rock, the vast majority were in five other continents. And something I found when I was

in that job is I ended up having to travel about half of the time overseas because I found that no matter how many virtual conversations I had or audio conversations, I was missing that connection with the other person that you can only get over a meal, over a conversation, over a argument, over a discussion. What does your research find about that? Things come to us much more naturally in person. Humans have had, by most estimates, over 100,000 years of experience interacting in person.

When it comes to virtual interactions in the scale of human history, we're talking about a very small sliver. So a lot of it is not just about what's better, what's worse. It's just what we're not used to and what we're not good at. There are lots of great examples of people who've had very deep relationships solely through online interactions. Back in the early days of online gaming,

many people made friends, or boyfriends or girlfriends across the country. They suddenly get meet in person and then they get married soon thereafter. It's not that it can't happen virtually. It's just that often it's not as natural or it's not as easy. So part of what I recommend is trying to take a more strategic and thoughtful approach

to these interactions to add back in what's missing. So as an example of a research study on this, this is a study on negotiators. And they showed that when people negotiate over email or instant message, so text-based communication, they tend to have a lot less trust and they tend to have worse outcomes, often because they end up in these no-deal or impasse situations where they can't get to an agreement. And one of the things these researchers found is that there's a lot less small talk over text-based communication, as opposed to in-person interactions or video interactions.

And the thing is about small talk, many people hate it. And for good reason, it's a productivity sink. It feels like we're wasting our time and we need to get to the point. But small talk does serve a purpose where it helps us build trust because we trust what we feel like we know. And getting that window into people's lives is what allows us to trust them. So what these researchers found is that before the text based negotiation, when they had participants do a quick phone call to schmooze,

which is the word they use, so basically just socialize for a few minutes over the phone before the tech space negotiation, that those negotiators ended up performing much better, building more trust than those negotiators who hadn't taken the initiative to engage in that kind of small talk. So when it comes to building stronger relationships virtually, it's a lot about thinking about, well, what's missing here? What do I need to add back in?

How can I make the most of this mode, as opposed to just accepting that it's not good, so I'm just going to give up here, and it's not going to work? Thank you so much for sharing that, and I think that will be helpful for listeners for sure. Now, what we are talking about today is your new book titled Ping.

And this book is all about how do you do effective virtual communications. And it's a topic I've never had on this podcast, which is why I am so excited to do it. And in the book, you introduce a framework using that acronym, PING. Can you share what the components of the acronym are and how this framework can help ensure virtual communication is not just efficient but also impactful? Happy to. So when I read a business book or an improvement book, I like to have a framework myself as a reader because it helps me to remember tons of recommendations and it gives me a structure

for thinking about them. So for the many strategies in the book, I fit it into this ping framework, which has four parts. P for perspective taking, I for initiative, N for nonverbal, and G for goals. So for P, perspective taking, the core idea behind this is that when we're interacting virtually, we tend to be more self-focused.

Whether you're just looking at the text of an email or even just a small square of a video screen of someone else, it's not the same as having them standing right in front of you where you're much more focused on what they're thinking about, on their reactions. And this self-focusedness can really cause a whole bunch of problems because we think, well,

the message I wrote is really clear to me, so they'll get it. But the problem is we don't think about as much that there's another person here, that they have a different perspective, that they're coming from a different set of information and assumptions. And that leads to a lot of the misinterpretations that happen via virtual interaction. Next is I, initiative. And that's thinking about taking the initiative to add back in what might be missing

over virtual interactions. So as an example, we discussed this idea that adding in small talk into virtual interactions can be really useful. Sometimes taking the initiative means, okay, we're having this conversation over email and then saying, hey, let's switch to phone for a second just to resolve this issue.

Or maybe you're having a meeting and say, hey, let's switch to email because I think that ended up being more productive or instant message. And so taking the initiative to go beyond what you're just normally doing or what you're used to doing to adding in missing parts, whether that's part of the conversation or switching modes, is one of the key things to making sure you get the most out of virtual interaction.

Then N, nonverbal. That's the idea that we send a whole lot of different cues over virtual communication that we don't realize because it's different than in person. So for instance, over text-based communication, like instant message, Slack, email, there are things like emojis. There's also things like typos and how they send emotion, or how the time of day you send a message transmits information.

And even on video, there's looking at your lighting, how you look, your background. All these different things send different pieces of emotion that can potentially help you or undermine what you're trying to relay. And lastly is G for goals. I wish I could just say that there was one best mode of communication.

I wish I could say video is always best because it's closest to in-person. But that's not the case. Depending on your goal, a different mode may be better than another. But for instance, let's talk about cameras on versus cameras off video calls. There's this big debate going on in many organizations and amongst friends even, should we have our cameras on or should

we have our cameras off? And the answer from research is, it depends on your goal. So for instance, if you're meeting someone new and you want to build a really positive impression, or you want to show you're engaged, video is really good because it lets them feel more familiar with you and they can see you're paying attention, or at least they can think they're seeing you paying attention by staring at them. Alternatively, there's research on Zoom fatigue or video conferencing fatigue that shows that being on video and video calls, it's exhausting. We're staring at ourself, we're analyzing our nonverbal behaviors, it just depleting. So turning your camera off can actually save energy, decrease

stress and burnout. So the takeaway with this goals example is if you're having a new interaction, someone who doesn't have a strong impression of you, probably better to have those videos on. But if you're an existing team or relationship or friendship, and you know each other really well, and your goal is to not be lose energy by seeing yourself on camera, then maybe having cameras off would be better in that situation. So that brings together the whole framework there of perspective taking, initiative, not lose energy by seeing yourself on camera, then maybe having cameras off would be better in that situation. So that brings together the whole framework there of perspective taking, initiative, nonverbal, and goals.

Thank you, Andrew. And I just wanted to tell the audience that if you're interested in two of these areas, perspective taking, I'll hit that one first. I would recommend that you tune back into my episode with Wendy Smith and Marianne Lewis, where we talked about both and thinking I'll hit that one first. I would recommend that you tune back into my episode with Wendy Smith and Marianne Lewis, where we talked about both and thinking

and how it can help you shift your perspective. And if you're interested in learning more about goals, I would recommend my episode with Caroline Adams Miller, which I did recently, where we talk about her new framework for how to do goal setting. So Andrew, I don't know if you know this, but I'm talking to you from Clearwater, but for most of my time in Florida,

I've lived in St. Pete. And it turns out Wikipedia was actually founded in St. Pete off of Central Avenue. Most people don't know that. And the reason I bring Wikipedia up is in chapter two, you really try to tackle this myth of virtual inefficiency and one of the platforms you mentioned is Wikipedia. And I was hoping you could go into why virtual communication

can amplify productivity, not hinder it, using examples like Wikipedia. So this gets to the point of that different communications are better than others in certain situations. There's a lot of times where in-person interaction is really not the best choice. And if you've got hours and hours of wasted meetings

at work each week, that's something you probably agree with. But the example Wikipedia gave was the idea that one of the biggest resources that most of us use, whether you're a student in school or even in the workforce, all happen virtually. And it wouldn't have been possible for the most part if people were all co-located, because you can't get that many experts in so many different areas from all over the world to be in an office. The reason they were able to have such a great resource is that location was not a restriction. But let me give another example. Let's think about brainstorming. Many people think it's the best way to do brainstorming, do it in person.

We got the whiteboard, we can all bounce ideas of each other. But research would indicate that's actually the wrong approach. For the early stages of brainstorming when you're generating ideas, it's better to do it separately and virtually generally. So there's a few reasons for this. The first, let's just say you want each person

to come up with 20 ideas and you've got 10 people in a group. We're talking now about 200 ideas here in this situation. Are people gonna be able to say 200 ideas in a meeting? Probably not, that would be a very long meeting. But if each person is just writing their 20 ideas or typing it out over text, you can all communicate simultaneously

over text-based communication. So there's not that limitation of only one person can talk at a time over text-based communication. Secondarily, when we're all sitting together in person, we're nervous about other people's opinions. We're a little nervous to do something that's too diverging from others' ideas because we might be judged negatively.

But when you're sitting from behind a computer screen and you don't have that person sitting five feet away from you, you feel a lot more comfortable doing something much more different. And lastly, when we're all brainstorming together out loud, when someone says an idea, our mind gets stuck on that idea. And our ideas are related to that idea, as opposed to being really divergent and creative.

So as a result, in those early stages of brainstorming, you get that benefit by being able to communicate via text, by doing it separately. That said, in the latter stages of brainstorming, you get that benefit by being able to communicate via text, by doing it separately. That said, in the latter stages of brainstorming, when you're trying to agree on an idea as a group and you're trying to tweak that idea, that's better to do synchronously, whether that's via video, audio, in person. So it really depends what stage of the process you're at. But that's just a good example of where text-based communication really has a lot of advantages. I have some real mixed emotions on brainstorming. I remember I had Jeremy Utley on the show who teaches with, with peria class at the B school on ideal flow.

And they advocate for the brainstorming method. And then I've had a whole bunch of behavioral scientists. I've recently interviewed Alison Wood Brooks and I've had Todd Rogers on the show and Matt Abraham, and they talk about their cautions about brainstorming because it can sometimes lead to the loudest voices in the room, not the best ideas coming out. And so what my personal experience has been, and I'm not sure if you would agree with me or not,

is I like to do a brainstorming session to get new novel ideas on the table. But if you really want to be honed in on making the final decisions, I don't think having a large group of people to make the decisions on what you're gonna prioritize is the best way to do it. So it sounds like we're in agreement, early stages, it's better to keep a dude separate via text.

So we're not talking over each other and you're not just having one person dominating the entire conversation. And that matches my understanding the research. Now the question is about deciding as a group. That's a little bit messier of an answer on that one because there's multiple components of this. There's the getting the right idea, the best idea, and there's also getting everyone on board.

So the way you get everyone on board is to give everyone a voice. Getting the best idea, it's possible you may be biased by one person or another who's pushing their own idea there. So ideally you're setting norms in a meeting to make it such that everyone's voice is heard, everyone's vote is being considered equally in those situations. And you have a structure such that you don't have one person just talking, which is good advice. I recommended the book otherwise about structuring meetings is to do it

strategically so that you don't have a video call that drags on for two hours for what should have been a 15 minute decision in the process. So it's about not just choosing the right mode, but making sure once you're in that mode, taking a strategic approach to make sure that you achieve your goals actually that you're aiming for in those situations. So I wanted to jump over to something that I have been told I am very good at, but when I look back on my career, I'm not sure that this is something that I should be really proud of, and that is multitasking.

And it's so interesting. I had Gloria Mark on the show who wrote a book called attention span and she was telling me that over the past decade, our attention has gone from being able to keep it for 20 minutes, then it got into 10 minutes, then it got into four to five minutes and today it's all the way down to 45 to 50 seconds. And we're reaching this point where multitasking is becoming a way of life almost because we're juggling so many digital platforms to do our work. Yet it has such a negative impact on productivity and focus, which is why I love Cal Newpert's book, Deep Work, which I recently did a solo episode on. So how can people who are listening to this avoid what you

call frenzied focus to increase their work output without feeling overwhelmed? You made a lot of great points about attention. One of the ones I'd like to add about virtual communication is it's not just also about focus and losing focus. There's some research to suggest that for each email you send, it can take you about a minute to get back in the zone of work. And now I know it doesn't sound like much to say, well, it just takes you a minute to get back from email to work.

But if you're like many people and you've got hundreds of emails and instant messages or Slack messages, each week, that means you have potentially hours you're spending just going from, okay, I sent an email, now let me refocus on my task. Those 60 seconds each time add up pretty quickly. So the recommendation that I have from my book is that you should engage in communication chunking. So there's two extremes that people often talk about when it comes to communication.

It's the, I do email an instant message once at the beginning of the day, and then I don't look at it anymore. And then the other approach is people who basically check their smartphones all day long to see what's coming in. And both those extremes have problems. Those who are constantly checking

tend to have worse focus, which can be really important for a lot of work. And they're spending more time just going back and forth between things and recovering. But those who just do communication once a day are also missing out on other opportunities, and these are a few of them. So one is sometimes you get a message in the middle of your day that is actually useful for your tasks that can make you more productive.

And so what chunking is that you basically choose three-ish times the day to engage in your communication. Once at the beginning of the day, once maybe after lunch, and once towards the end of the day. And beyond being able to get information that's useful potentially to your task, there's a couple other benefits. And that includes communication can be a really nice break from much more thought-intensive

work. So mindless tasks and mindless activities can be useful as a recovery of sorts. So if you're really thinking really hard about this project for a client and you're spending two, three hours really focused on it, being able to take a break for 30 minutes to knock out some emails can be a really good way to give your mind a rest. And beyond that,

communicating somewhat more regularly, especially when you're in remote or virtual contexts, is really good for showing engagement. If you are a manager and you had two employees, and one of the employees sends you every Friday, their only communication is they send you a five paragraph long email talking about what they did for the week. And the other employee is one who at the end of each day, send you a few sentence updates, say, Hey, boss, I did this for the day. And just a few sentences, but they send a message each day. Which employee do you think would be more productive? The one that is communicating only on Friday with five paragraph email or the one that communicates each day? And here's the thing about this

is that they're actually both sending the identical amount of communication because they're both sending effectively five paragraphs of the work. By the second person spreading it out, it seems like they're more engaged because they're communicating each day. It seems like they're working each day.

So by increasing your communication frequency, it makes you seem more present and more engaged that you're actually there. So this chunking of communication into about three blocks a day serves that sweet spot where it doesn't cause as much interruption, multitasking, loss of focus, but it allows you to gather any information you need. It can serve as breaks and it helps to show that, Hey, I'm present. I'm here for any communication that might be somewhat more urgent. I think that's some great advice. That's what I try to do. I try to do it early in the morning, but not first thing, especially if I'm

heavily absorbed in writing tasks, but definitely around lunch and then later on in the afternoon, just to make sure that I check in, but that when I'm not wanting to be bothered by it, I just put my phone in a completely different room. So I don't get interrupted by it at all. And I think that's one of the best things you can do. There's some research from one of my colleagues here at UT that shows even when your smartphone is out, but you're not looking at it, it draws some of your attention away and can hurt your performance on whatever you're doing.

So just even having it near you makes us think about it a little bit and that draws away some of our attention. So I know one of the things that a lot of listeners are probably concerned about is now that we're doing so much more virtual communication, how do you stand out, especially if you're in a setting where you're virtual and many of your peers are in an office setting. What's your advice on that? When it comes to standing out, there's a few things. So one is making sure your nonverbal behavior is on point.

So an example of this is when it comes to video calls, eye contact matters, which sounds obvious because it matters in person. But the difference is that when you're in person and you're looking someone else in the eyes, which is natural, you're engaging eye contact. When you're interacting via video call, for most people, their webcam is not the same place

on their screen they're looking. Usually your webcam's the top of your laptop, or maybe you've got dual monitors and it's to the side. So what ends up happening in effect is even if you're looking at the other person while you're talking to them on a video call, to them it looks like you're staring off screen. And to them it may seem like you're checking your email, you're not paying attention, maybe you're just looking up a recipe for dinner. They don't know because they can't see what you're not paying attention, maybe you're just looking up a recipe for dinner, they don't know because they can't see what you're doing. So those nonverbal behaviors

when the other person can't see you are even more important. If you're looking down to take some notes, it's good to tell the other person that on video because in person they could see you're taking notes and that's good, but on video they can't. They might just think you're checking your smartphone. So being overly explicit in situations that are ambiguous is really key. And then there's this idea of communication frequency is

really useful. So if you're debating between one two hour video call, or a series of shorter 15 minute ones, having those shorter ones are better. And this relates to this idea of showing that you're engaged. So one who sends a short email or instant message or Slack message each day, as opposed to someone who sends a long one on Fridays to their boss is going to seem like someone who's working each day, even though the amount of communication is the same and when it relates to friendships, sending just a text every so often can

be a lot more valuable than having one long video call every few months, because you're maintaining that relationship. You're showing you're frequently thinking about them. You're showing you frequently care. So in many cases, it's more about the frequency as opposed to the length or the absolute richness when it comes to really creating and maintaining strong relationships. In chapter six, Andrew, you really go into this concept that we need to build bridges,

not firewalls. And this chapter is really about envisioning how your communications might be interpreted by the other person. And I know this is something that whether we're using text messages and email, even if we're doing a call where you're not really seen, so someone can't see your emotions, it's easy to get this wrong. And in a climate where so many employees are disengaged, how can leaders integrate this concept into their communication to build stronger trust

with their teams? So from the perspective of leaders, it's important to model these things top down, to model the behaviors you want to see and show that you trust other people, that you care about them. And for this advice, I like to think about

the question that I'm always asked, and that is, should you use emojis, should you use exclamation marks? What's the right kind of communication style to use in workplace interactions? And the answer that I generally recommend, based on this research, is that emojis can be good or bad, exclamation marks can be good or bad, but there's two things you should do. One, text-based communication seems more negative than it is in many cases. There's this negativity amplification that happens over email, especially when we're talking about from people high in power to low in power. I remember there was a research study I did where I was interviewing both managers and their subordinates about communication.

And there was this one pair where I actually, they both brought up this same email that had happened recently, but from two very different perspectives. The manager said, I want it to soften the blow of this communication. So I said, great job on this, but I think we can continue to improve it. And then they had a little moticon and they thought they did a great job on it.

The subordinate on the other hand, gave me this email and said, this was really condescending. They said we, when they meant you, and the emoticon felt sarcastic in this situation. So what I generally recommend is be clear, be explicit, make sure to use your words, say, I'm really excited about this, or I'd like to talk to you about this, we can have a conversation on how I can help you make this even better, as opposed to just making assumptions because sarcasm or these emotions are sometimes lost in those situations. The second thing is for leaders, it's better to if you're going to err on the side of over or under communication, it's better to err on the side of over communication.

So while it's ideal, if you could get the exact right amount of communication, it's hard to tell that in any situation. And what a number of studies have shown is that leaders who under communicate are rated as significantly worse than leaders who over communicate. And you can think about this from the perspective of someone who's waiting on an email. But just say you send your boss a message saying, updating them on something and you don't have any questions in the message. So it doesn't need a response. The problem if a manager doesn't respond to that is that you're left wondering, did they

read this? Are they ignoring me? Are they unhappy? Whereas just sending a quick, thanks, this looks great. I appreciate it. Removes all of that ambiguity. You want to do two things. Be really explicit in your communication. And then if you're going to err on one side of under over communicate, it's better to lean on the side of over communicating because it shows your present. It shows you're listening. It shows you're engaged

as opposed to just assuming that, well, the other person knows they got the email, so they must know I read it. You'd want to remove that ambiguity really in those contexts to avoid those kinds of misinterpretations. Thank you so much for sharing that. And in chapter seven, this was one of my favorite chapters. I love the name and the concept of wrecking ball, but what you're really going into is the fact that resolving conflicts in virtual environments can be trickier than in person. And in this chapter, you start with the Hawaii missile alert disaster where a brief message caused mass panic.

And you write, people may hear your words, but they feel your attitude. How do you suggest we prevent the unintended emotional consequences, especially when communicating under pressure? One of the examples I love

to use when I'm training executives or students is to have one person tap out a song on a desk. And then you ask them, okay, tapping that song, what do you think the odds are that someone else will be able to correctly guess that song? And there's actually a research study on this. When you tap out a song, most of us think, oh yeah,

there's a really good chance someone else will guess this. But in reality, only a miniscule percentage of people correctly guess those songs. The reason is that when we're tapping out a song, we hear the music in our head as we're tapping it, but the other person doesn't hear that music. And that's the same thing when it comes to email. When we're writing an email, we hear the motion in our head, so it's clear. Whereas the person on the other side is coming from a different set of information and assumptions, and they hear a different emotion when they're reading it. So what these researchers found was a good solution is when you write a text-based communication, take that message and read

it in the exact opposite tone as you intend. So if it's a sarcastic message and read it in the exact opposite tone as you intend. So if it's a sarcastic message, read it as serious. If it's a serious message, read it as sarcastic. And when people do that, they suddenly are much less overconfident about how clear their message is. When they do that, they're like, oh wait, that sounds reasonable too when I read it in a different tone. So taking that little step can really help you to engage in the kind of perspective taking that can prevent those misinterpretations in the first place by realizing our message may not be as clear to others as it is to us. Thank you for sharing that and I think that is something that is so important for people to understand. And

another really important thing for people and the listeners to take home is what happens when we assume things, especially when we're using communication means like this. And in this next chapter, you start out using the story of Uber, and I was hoping you might go further into that story and use that to explain the importance of this. So the example with Uber in the book, I talk about how Uber was running to a whole bunch of problems because their culture was known as at the time misogynistic, there were claims from female employees about harassment and being mistreated.

And at the same time, Uber Twitter account, or shortly thereafter, Uber Twitter account from India actually tweeted to celebrate wives' day, why don't you give your wife a break and order in food? Here's a discount. It wasn't those exact words, but it was something along the lines of that, basically suggesting that you should give women a break from cooking, and here's a discount. And the problem with something like that is, locally, in that particular region of India, it didn't actually cause any waves because it wasn't as against cultural norms in that

particular region. But you can imagine the context of the controversy that was happening in the US that really made some big sound waves that really went viral and caused some major problems and some bad publicity. So one of the things we often forget when we're interacting virtually is that many people who are potentially not the intended recipients of your message may get that message. So you want to be really thoughtful about potential audiences beyond those that are just the ones you're immediately talking to, because emails can be forwarded and then video calls.

We've seen so many of those viral ones go around with executives doing a really bad job potentially laying off employees or other bad behavior over video. So remembering that these things are more permanent and can be shared is really important. But let's bring this down to the individual level. Let's just say you're interacting with someone else. What are the best things you can do in that situation? And there are a number of them.

But the one biggest one that I generally recommend is just asking the other person how they would prefer to interact. There's many preferences that people have when it comes to interactions. For instance, people who have difficulty hearing may really prefer video interactions because it can help them read lips. People from other cultures may prefer to have text-based interactions because it allows them to more perfect their language because English may not be their first language. So this allows them to better get their words across.

And there's a whole lot of different reasons people may want cameras on or off or prefer text or whatever else. And usually what we do is we just send an email, a video, or a telephone invite and say, okay, video call 3 p.m. tomorrow. But we don't take that step to say, hey, what would you prefer?

What's best for you? And by doing that, you do two things. One, you include a whole lot more people. Maybe it's a working parent who doesn't want to have their video on because their kid is home from daycare sick. Or maybe, as I noted, someone with a certain disability or someone from a different culture.

So you're able to better include them in your interactions so they don't feel as if they're a secondary party in the interaction. And beyond inclusion, this is just a good strategy generally to ask people what they prefer and how they feel about things, because they're gonna like to interact with you a lot more. Because we all have these preferences.

Maybe I really hate having my camera on, or maybe I really love it. And if someone else asks me and says, I'd love to meet with you, what mode would be best for you? I'm gonna be much more likely to wanna interact with that person going forward because they're abiding my preferences. So this is just a good strategy overall

when you ask people what they like, they're gonna be much more likely to wanna interact with you. And I wanted to tackle something that I think is becoming extremely important in today's workforce, and that is communication culture. And it's something that I don't think most companies even think about. I know they're trying now to create more a culture of belonging, but if you want to have belonging, you've got to have connection. And so obviously, company culture plays a role in shaping how employees approach

their communications. But what is your recommendation for how companies could incentivize better communication habits through their culture? When it comes to culture, I've seen a lot of weird things companies have been doing. So a big thing with return to the office, for instance, is we're going to bring everyone back to the office to improve culture. But if you were to ask me, or as a consultant or professor researcher, what's the best way we can improve culture? My answer for let's put everyone in a room and lock them together is probably pretty far down the list.

There's actually like an old 90s movie where they locked a bunch of parents together who are divorcing to try and get them back together. And in reality, if you want to improve culture, think about, well, what's direct here? Well, we want to improve trust. What are ways we can do that? Well, one, show you care about your employees. Show you care about their voice, about their preferences. That's a much more direct approach to that than just putting everyone in the same room. And if you put a bunch of people who don't like each other

in the same room, it's not going to magically improve the culture. One of the other recommendations I give in the book is to have a conversation amongst your team about communication practices to make the implicit more explicit. There are some really interesting studies on the email urgency bias. And that is the idea that when someone sends you an email, you tend to think that it needs a quicker response than they actually do. So John, if

you sent me an email, I'd say, okay, this is someone who has a really important podcast. They want a response from me ASAP. But in reality, on your end, you're probably like, I'm busy. I don't care if he gets back to me in the next three days. But the problem with that is because recipients think a response is needed much more quickly. That creates a whole lot of stress on their part. They feel this need to constantly check their messages. And that can really worsen culture because even when they're at home, they're checking their phones and everything else. So the way to get around this is to have conversations, explicit ones. Okay, how quickly should we respond to emails? How quickly do we expect to respond? How quickly should we respond to instant messages or Slack

messages? Well, what if there's an emergency? What's should we respond to instant messages or Slack messages? Well, what if there's an emergency? What's the best way to get in touch with each other? Should it be text message? Should it be putting an urgent tag or something else? And by doing that, you allow people better ability to, A, focus during the day because they're not constantly checking their messages, and B, to disconnect more at night

so they can come back to work recovered and happier in the process. So really making sure to not rely on assumptions and actually come together as a team and figure out, well, what works for us? What's best for us is one of the best things you can do to improve your communication culture. I think it's going to be something that people really have to tune into if you want to have a highly engaged workforce in the future. So thank you for covering that. So Andrew, our whole discussion today has been about what you can do to make virtual communication work for you. And we can't end this conversation without talking about the rise of artificial intelligence and other digital things that are happening that are impacting our communication.

And someone may be listening to this and wondering if AI is gonna replace a lot of the communication that we're doing, then wouldn't this entire book be rendered irrelevant in this conversation as well? What's your response to that? In my view, there will always be value in the human component of communication. So we think about AI.

There's often ways that someone might be able to tell you're using AI, whether that's because you're using it to write an email for you or you're reading off a script during a video call or whatever else. So these examples may be the AI uses a word you don't normally use like proficient. Or maybe the AI just missed something as an example.

Let's say you talk to your coworker the previous day and they mentioned that they had a stomach bug that week and it had been really bad and they finally got over it. bug that week and it had been really bad and they finally got over it. And then the next day you use AI, you have it, write an email to them, you copy and paste it and it starts with, I hope you had a good week! Exclamation mark. And clearly you didn't write that message. And the problem is maybe 98% of the time the other person won't get it. They won't know that you used AI.

But if they realize once that you've used AI to communicate with them, they may question every single interaction you've had with them previously. They may question, was that just AI every single time I've interacted with them? And then they're going to ask, well, why am I even interacting with this person at all if I'm just communicating with AI? So you want to be careful that in important communication, your words are your own. That's not to say there's not a use for AI. AI is great for editing, for brainstorming, for proofing your message.

And it can be really good for low stakes, repeated interactions where just copy and pasting can be really good for low stakes, repeated interactions where just copying and pasting can be good. But when it comes to those important interactions, there's a reason someone wants to talk to you and they want to be talking to you. And if they feel like they're not talking to you, but rather talking to an AI, they're going to start questioning whether they need to even have you in their life or in their workplace at all in the first place. And something you write that I think captures this really well is you say, no

matter how good AI becomes, it can't independently engage in the elements of ping, meaning AI is unable to act on information only you have access to in your mind, fully interpret people's nonverbal behaviors by utilizing your personal knowledge of how they normally act outside of virtual communication or innately identify your personal goals. That is where you come in. And the nature of virtual communication is that with all these advances, it will continue to shift in so many ways.

Andrew, I always like to ask this question at the end. If there was one takeaway you want someone to get who picks up your book, what would be the most important one? I see the most important takeaway as you should pause and question your communication assumptions and decisions. We lose so much time just to making, just going with the flow. We always do a meeting for this, so we'll keep doing a meeting. The conversation's already in email, so we're not going to switch to phone. The problem with that approach is that you often end up in the suboptimal choice of communication medium. And when you actually stop and take a strategic approach or communication,

not only can you improve your productivity, you can improve your relationships and you can improve your overall wellbeing because you can make yourself happier, you can disconnect more, and you can find ways to thrive in a world of communication overload. Andrew so well said, and what is the best way for people to learn more about you and the work that you're doing? My book Ping is coming out. You can find it wherever books are sold. So Ping, the Secrets of Successful Virtual Communication.

And if you want to follow me, I'm most active on LinkedIn and Twitter or X, as it's now called. You can find me there under Andrew Brodsky. And I'm sure I'll pop right up under that search. Andrew, thank you so much for joining us today on Passion Struck. It was truly an honor to have you. It was great being on, it was really fun, thank you. And that's a wrap. What an eye-opening and practical conversation

with Andrew Brodsky. His research on virtual communication isn't just timely, it's transformational. In a world where remote work, digital meetings, and endless Slack messages dominate our lives, Andrew's insights pull back the curtain on what's really working and what's not. His book, Ping, challenges us to stop defaulting to convenience and start choosing clarity, intention, and connection, and how we communicate every single day. As you reflect on today's episode,

ask yourself, am I communicating clearly or just sending information into the void? Where in my life or work could a more intentional virtual presence change the outcome? And am I making space for connection or just checking boxes in my interactions? If this episode helped you rethink how you lead, collaborate, or even write an email, please take 10 seconds to leave a five-star rating and review on your favorite podcast platform. It helps us continue bringing you transformative conversations like this one. And if someone in your life is navigating the world of remote work or hybrid leadership, send this episode their way. It could shift how they show up and succeed.

For all the resources we discussed, including Andrew's compelling new book, PIN, head to the show notes at passionstruck.com. And if this message of intentional living and transformational communication resonates with you, I'd love to bring it to your organization or event. I'm currently booking keynotes and workshops for 2025 and 2026. Visit johnrmiles.com slash speaking to learn how we can collaborate. And don't forget to subscribe to our sub stack, The Ignited Life, at theignitedlife.net. and Art of Connection. And there's no better guest to launch this series than the legendary Dr. John Kabat-Zinn, pioneer of mindfulness in the West, founder of mindfulness-based stress reduction, and

bestselling author of Wherever You Go, There You Are and Full Catastrophe Living. We already have this superpower called awareness. And yet when we go to school, all we're taught is how to think. And thinking is a great superpower and it's given rise to science and everything else. But actually, even a lot of the science comes out of the moments before the thinking sets in, where you have a nonverbal realization and a ha moment where you see things that no one else has seen up to that point, then you win the Nobel Prize or everybody thinks, wow, what a great insight. And sometimes mindfulness is even called insight meditation, but it's not something you do. It's something you learn to inhabit

that's already yours. And that's awareness. Until then, communicate clearly, connect intentionally, and as always, live life passion-struck.