WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.640 Welcome to the debate. Today we're tackling a 00:00:02.640 --> 00:00:05.860 really interesting and, let's be honest, sometimes 00:00:05.860 --> 00:00:08.699 frustrating shift in how people communicate non 00:00:08.699 --> 00:00:11.400 -verbally. It's something workplace strategists, 00:00:11.660 --> 00:00:14.060 etiquette experts are talking about a lot, the 00:00:14.060 --> 00:00:18.160 quote unquote Gen Z stare. It's definitely a 00:00:18.160 --> 00:00:22.039 topic that seems packed with potential for misinterpretation. 00:00:22.600 --> 00:00:24.839 For anyone who hasn't maybe encountered this 00:00:24.839 --> 00:00:27.640 directly, what we're talking about is the behavior 00:00:27.640 --> 00:00:31.940 where younger individuals, usually Gen Z, respond 00:00:31.940 --> 00:00:35.119 to instructions, maybe complex ones, or even 00:00:35.119 --> 00:00:39.439 just conversation with, well, an absence of those 00:00:39.439 --> 00:00:41.960 traditional feedback cues we expect. You know, 00:00:42.100 --> 00:00:45.619 no nodding along, no small smiles, often none 00:00:45.619 --> 00:00:49.380 of the little ah -hahs or okay. Instead, the 00:00:49.380 --> 00:00:52.859 person speaking is met with this steady, quite 00:00:52.859 --> 00:00:56.609 unblinking gaze. Right. And this isn't just some 00:00:56.609 --> 00:01:00.210 minor, quirky habit. Our discussion today is 00:01:00.210 --> 00:01:02.750 really grounded in professional observations, 00:01:03.670 --> 00:01:05.730 including analysis from groups that specialize 00:01:05.730 --> 00:01:08.569 in global communication standards, like, for 00:01:08.569 --> 00:01:11.629 instance, professional global etiquette. So the 00:01:11.629 --> 00:01:13.730 central question for us, and it's a critical 00:01:13.730 --> 00:01:17.030 one for workplaces today, is this. Does this 00:01:17.030 --> 00:01:19.950 Gen Z stare actually represent a serious breakdown 00:01:19.950 --> 00:01:22.930 in, well, established social etiquette in those 00:01:22.930 --> 00:01:26.409 really essential communication skills? Or is 00:01:26.409 --> 00:01:29.489 it perhaps just a misunderstood, maybe evolving 00:01:29.489 --> 00:01:32.569 modern style of very focused listening? And I'll 00:01:32.569 --> 00:01:35.069 be making the case today that this stillness, 00:01:35.349 --> 00:01:38.730 this lack of outward performance, actually represents 00:01:38.730 --> 00:01:42.469 a potentially valuable cultural shift, demonstrating 00:01:42.469 --> 00:01:46.049 perhaps genuine presence and authenticity in 00:01:46.049 --> 00:01:48.489 how we interact, something that maybe should 00:01:48.489 --> 00:01:51.769 be recognized as, well, a new form of respect. 00:01:51.989 --> 00:01:54.989 And I'll be arguing that, frankly, regardless 00:01:54.989 --> 00:01:58.469 of the listener's intention, this specific behavior... 00:01:58.319 --> 00:02:01.420 often constitutes a breakdown of the shared social 00:02:01.420 --> 00:02:04.040 norms that make communication work smoothly, 00:02:04.500 --> 00:02:07.579 that it creates unnecessary friction, miscommunication, 00:02:07.859 --> 00:02:10.439 and crucially, doubt in important professional 00:02:10.439 --> 00:02:13.319 and even social interactions. Okay, so let me 00:02:13.319 --> 00:02:15.939 start by just establishing the functional role 00:02:15.939 --> 00:02:19.479 of those traditional nonverbal cues. Communication 00:02:19.639 --> 00:02:22.120 Especially when you're bridging, say, hierarchical 00:02:22.120 --> 00:02:25.099 gaps or building new relationships, it relies 00:02:25.099 --> 00:02:27.800 pretty heavily on this subtle back and forth. 00:02:28.120 --> 00:02:31.000 You know, the nodding, the appropriate eye contact, 00:02:31.300 --> 00:02:35.039 the small verbal or nonverbal affirmations. These 00:02:35.039 --> 00:02:37.719 are the essential social mechanics. They're like 00:02:37.719 --> 00:02:40.199 the, uh, the grease, I suppose, that keeps the 00:02:40.199 --> 00:02:42.699 conversation flowing naturally. When these cues 00:02:42.699 --> 00:02:45.219 are missing, the speaker is kind of left hanging. 00:02:45.370 --> 00:02:47.610 without that necessary feedback loop. Right. 00:02:47.770 --> 00:02:51.030 I hear your emphasis on flow and function, but 00:02:51.030 --> 00:02:53.229 I suppose I challenge the underlying assumption 00:02:53.229 --> 00:02:55.990 there that the absence of that specific kind 00:02:55.990 --> 00:02:58.550 of performance automatically equals dysfunction. 00:02:58.750 --> 00:03:01.610 Well, the issue for me really boils down to impact, 00:03:02.009 --> 00:03:06.099 not necessarily the internal intent. That unblinking, 00:03:06.300 --> 00:03:08.639 sort of unwavering stare, when it's stripped 00:03:08.639 --> 00:03:12.000 of any visible sign of affirmation, it is overwhelmingly 00:03:12.000 --> 00:03:14.219 interpreted by the person on the receiving end 00:03:14.219 --> 00:03:17.919 as, well, judgmental, or disengaged, maybe even 00:03:17.919 --> 00:03:21.150 aloof. And etiquette, fundamentally, is about 00:03:21.150 --> 00:03:24.050 prioritizing the comfort and the clarity experienced 00:03:24.050 --> 00:03:26.430 by the other person. So if the speaker feels 00:03:26.430 --> 00:03:29.750 uneasy or judged or, and this is critical, unsure 00:03:29.750 --> 00:03:31.909 if the information has actually landed or been 00:03:31.909 --> 00:03:34.270 understood, then that interaction has kind of 00:03:34.270 --> 00:03:36.349 failed in its purpose. It doesn't really matter 00:03:36.349 --> 00:03:39.000 how respectful the listener intended to be. And 00:03:39.000 --> 00:03:41.460 look, we're not just talking theory here. Studies 00:03:41.460 --> 00:03:43.620 that are analyzed in professional etiquette training, 00:03:43.759 --> 00:03:47.020 they consistently show that visible active feedback, 00:03:47.319 --> 00:03:50.120 nodding, is a key one, creates this measurable 00:03:50.120 --> 00:03:53.000 loop, it can boost a speaker's confidence, their 00:03:53.000 --> 00:03:56.199 perceived competence, by as much as 30%. So this 00:03:56.199 --> 00:03:59.219 frozen stare, it actively undermines collaboration 00:03:59.219 --> 00:04:02.879 by taking away that necessary psychological reassurance. 00:04:03.080 --> 00:04:05.919 Okay, that's a compelling point about the speaker's 00:04:05.919 --> 00:04:08.550 confidence. I grant you that. But I do have to 00:04:08.550 --> 00:04:12.849 question whether a 30 % boost in how confident 00:04:12.849 --> 00:04:15.889 the speaker feels is genuinely more valuable 00:04:15.889 --> 00:04:19.009 than, say, a deep silent absorption of the information 00:04:19.009 --> 00:04:22.470 being conveyed. I just don't automatically accept 00:04:22.470 --> 00:04:24.810 the premise that this is a breakdown. What an 00:04:24.810 --> 00:04:27.250 older generation might perceive as blank could 00:04:27.250 --> 00:04:30.810 often be, in reality, active silent focus. I 00:04:30.810 --> 00:04:34.269 mean, this generation, Gen Z, they grew up absolutely 00:04:34.269 --> 00:04:37.529 immersed in digital multitasking, intense sensory 00:04:37.529 --> 00:04:40.689 input all the time. So for many of them, adopting 00:04:40.689 --> 00:04:43.810 stillness, adopting silence, it's actually a 00:04:43.810 --> 00:04:46.529 deliberate maybe even conscious, mechanism to 00:04:46.529 --> 00:04:49.370 achieve genuine presence. It's a way of communicating, 00:04:49.629 --> 00:04:52.170 look, I'm prioritizing listening, I'm prioritizing 00:04:52.170 --> 00:04:54.490 absorption over just performing attentiveness 00:04:54.490 --> 00:04:57.189 for you. But if that message simply isn't getting 00:04:57.189 --> 00:05:00.029 through because it doesn't use established norms, 00:05:00.509 --> 00:05:02.810 then isn't the listener essentially demanding 00:05:02.810 --> 00:05:05.509 that the speaker adjusts their entire framework 00:05:05.509 --> 00:05:08.589 of understanding just to accommodate what might 00:05:08.589 --> 00:05:11.370 be a non -standard personal preference for how 00:05:11.370 --> 00:05:15.290 they like to engage? Ah, but... Maybe that's 00:05:15.290 --> 00:05:19.029 precisely where the value lies. The lack of those 00:05:19.029 --> 00:05:22.170 constant non -verbal fillers, you know, the micro 00:05:22.170 --> 00:05:26.050 nods, the sometimes forced -looking smiles, the 00:05:26.050 --> 00:05:30.129 rhythmic uh -uhs. Perhaps it is a conscious rejection 00:05:30.129 --> 00:05:33.069 of what they see as performance. Gen Z often 00:05:33.069 --> 00:05:35.660 values authenticity very highly, right? They 00:05:35.660 --> 00:05:38.379 might see those cues as inherently performative, 00:05:38.720 --> 00:05:42.220 maybe even a bit dishonest at times. So they're 00:05:42.220 --> 00:05:45.620 pushing for us to equate genuine presence, actual 00:05:45.620 --> 00:05:49.079 cognitive engagement with attention, not just 00:05:49.079 --> 00:05:52.180 the theatrical signs of it. Their still gaze 00:05:52.180 --> 00:05:54.660 might be saying, I don't need to perform listening 00:05:54.660 --> 00:05:59.480 for you. I am listening. And we also really need 00:05:59.480 --> 00:06:01.759 to bring in the psychological layer here. This 00:06:01.759 --> 00:06:04.100 behavior might also be functioning as perhaps 00:06:04.100 --> 00:06:07.019 a coping tool. We know there are documented increases 00:06:07.019 --> 00:06:10.399 in social anxiety, especially after the pandemic. 00:06:10.720 --> 00:06:13.639 So for many young people, being required to hold 00:06:13.639 --> 00:06:17.480 that traditional, sustained, performative eye 00:06:17.480 --> 00:06:20.879 contact while also processing complex information, 00:06:21.420 --> 00:06:24.579 that can be genuinely taxing, psychologically. 00:06:25.259 --> 00:06:28.000 The STAIR, maybe, is a mechanism to regulate 00:06:28.000 --> 00:06:31.600 that input, to maintain focus without the added 00:06:31.600 --> 00:06:34.740 strain of constantly signaling social affirmation. 00:06:34.910 --> 00:06:39.250 That's a sophisticated argument covering both 00:06:39.250 --> 00:06:42.709 authenticity and the potential burden of performance. 00:06:42.870 --> 00:06:45.250 I see that. But it brings us right back to what 00:06:45.250 --> 00:06:48.189 I see as the core tension. This disconnect between 00:06:48.189 --> 00:06:51.069 the intention, maybe it's focus, maybe it's anxiety 00:06:51.069 --> 00:06:53.810 management, and the impact on the other person. 00:06:54.230 --> 00:06:56.870 While yes, we should absolutely value authenticity 00:06:56.870 --> 00:06:59.610 as a trait, effective communication is fundamentally 00:06:59.610 --> 00:07:02.790 a transactional skill. It's built on shared norms, 00:07:03.230 --> 00:07:05.970 shared understandings. If a behavior, no matter 00:07:05.970 --> 00:07:08.589 how well -intentioned, consistently leaves the 00:07:08.589 --> 00:07:11.410 recipient feeling uncomfortable, or doubtful, 00:07:11.689 --> 00:07:13.750 or misunderstood, especially about something 00:07:13.750 --> 00:07:16.069 as basic as whether the listener is even engaged, 00:07:16.370 --> 00:07:19.290 then, I argue, it fails as effective communication. 00:07:19.769 --> 00:07:22.050 We can't just prioritize the listener's authentic 00:07:22.050 --> 00:07:24.569 experience if it comes at the cost of the speaker's 00:07:24.569 --> 00:07:29.129 functional need for clarity and feedback. I disagree 00:07:29.129 --> 00:07:32.250 that efficacy must entirely trump evolution in 00:07:32.250 --> 00:07:35.649 this case. Shared norms, they aren't etched in 00:07:35.649 --> 00:07:38.129 stone, are they? They're meant to shift with 00:07:38.129 --> 00:07:41.509 cultural changes. If we stay rigidly bound to, 00:07:41.569 --> 00:07:44.730 let's say, historical nonverbal language, we 00:07:44.730 --> 00:07:47.910 really risk mislabeling natural cultural evolution 00:07:47.910 --> 00:07:50.990 as some kind of professional deficiency. I mean, 00:07:51.009 --> 00:07:54.230 think about the handshake. Post -pandemic, many 00:07:54.230 --> 00:07:57.110 people now see it as optional, right? Declining 00:07:57.110 --> 00:08:00.189 one isn't usually seen as rude anymore. It was 00:08:00.189 --> 00:08:03.379 a social requirement. now it's much more context 00:08:03.379 --> 00:08:06.680 -dependent. So I'd suggest the stare might simply 00:08:06.680 --> 00:08:10.579 be, well, tomorrow's standard, a kind of non 00:08:10.579 --> 00:08:13.040 -performative presence that's starting to replace 00:08:13.040 --> 00:08:16.220 an older, more theatrical style of affirmation. 00:08:16.339 --> 00:08:19.220 See, I'm not quite convinced by that parallel, 00:08:19.560 --> 00:08:21.959 because the function feels fundamentally different 00:08:21.959 --> 00:08:24.800 to me. The handshake, that's a singular moment, 00:08:25.040 --> 00:08:28.180 a point of greeting or closing. These affirmation 00:08:28.180 --> 00:08:30.360 cues we're talking about, like nodding, they 00:08:30.360 --> 00:08:32.679 are collaborative. They're continuous throughout 00:08:32.679 --> 00:08:35.559 an interaction. They sustain the momentum. They 00:08:35.559 --> 00:08:38.000 ensure mutual understanding is happening in real 00:08:38.000 --> 00:08:40.919 time. When you remove them completely, you create 00:08:40.919 --> 00:08:43.440 this kind of feedback vacuum that can be really, 00:08:43.440 --> 00:08:46.279 really crippling in professional contexts. Let's 00:08:46.279 --> 00:08:48.820 maybe move this from the abstract theory into, 00:08:48.840 --> 00:08:51.919 uh, a practical example. The boardroom setting 00:08:51.919 --> 00:08:55.840 you mentioned. Okay, yes. Lay out the scenario. 00:08:56.440 --> 00:09:01.600 Alright. Imagine a Gen Z employee. sitting in 00:09:01.600 --> 00:09:05.299 a meeting, staring silently, maybe quite intently, 00:09:05.500 --> 00:09:07.820 as their manager delivers some really essential 00:09:07.820 --> 00:09:10.919 detailed feedback. Or maybe the manager is speaking 00:09:10.919 --> 00:09:13.879 during a high -stakes presentation. Now, the 00:09:13.879 --> 00:09:16.120 manager who relies on those, let's call them 00:09:16.120 --> 00:09:19.279 traditional visual cues to gauge comprehension 00:09:19.279 --> 00:09:22.899 to see if the message is landing, feels, well, 00:09:23.240 --> 00:09:27.019 utterly dismissed, ignored even. That silent 00:09:27.019 --> 00:09:30.000 stare creates this profound tension, this doubt 00:09:30.000 --> 00:09:32.039 about the employee's engagement, their commitment, 00:09:32.259 --> 00:09:34.720 maybe even their capacity to act on the feedback. 00:09:35.740 --> 00:09:38.559 Professional etiquette as a system is designed 00:09:38.559 --> 00:09:41.799 precisely to resolve this kind of tension. And 00:09:41.799 --> 00:09:45.100 I maintain it has to resolve it in favor of professional 00:09:45.100 --> 00:09:48.620 effectiveness and clarity, which in most current 00:09:48.620 --> 00:09:51.500 contexts means conforming to the established 00:09:51.500 --> 00:09:54.159 signals that provide that clarity. Okay, I agree 00:09:54.159 --> 00:09:56.840 the tension exists in your scenario. Absolutely. 00:09:57.259 --> 00:09:59.980 But we need to analyze why the manager feels 00:09:59.980 --> 00:10:03.159 dismissed. Is it possible the employee is, as 00:10:03.159 --> 00:10:05.679 they might claim, giving their full intellectual 00:10:05.679 --> 00:10:08.610 attention? Prioritizing thoughtful absorption 00:10:08.610 --> 00:10:11.250 over just a reflexive nod or an interruption? 00:10:11.950 --> 00:10:14.750 By forcing the traditional constant affirmation 00:10:14.750 --> 00:10:17.830 style, aren't we risking penalizing their genuine 00:10:17.830 --> 00:10:20.669 effort? Aren't we reinforcing a definition of 00:10:20.669 --> 00:10:23.629 respect that's more about surface -level performance 00:10:23.629 --> 00:10:26.620 than deep -level listening? The problem, as I 00:10:26.620 --> 00:10:29.620 see it, might often lie more in the older generation's, 00:10:29.620 --> 00:10:31.840 perhaps rigid, often unconscious, definition 00:10:31.840 --> 00:10:35.000 of what attentive listening must look like, rather 00:10:35.000 --> 00:10:37.679 than an actual focus deficit in the younger generation. 00:10:38.220 --> 00:10:40.500 But surely if the goal of professional interaction 00:10:40.500 --> 00:10:44.340 is collaboration, achieving objectives, moving 00:10:44.340 --> 00:10:47.299 things forward, you have to ensure your communication 00:10:47.299 --> 00:10:50.539 style is transparent and unambiguous to the person 00:10:50.539 --> 00:10:52.990 receiving it. especially when that recipient 00:10:52.990 --> 00:10:56.889 is, say, a client or someone in a position of 00:10:56.889 --> 00:10:59.029 authority who makes decisions about resources 00:10:59.029 --> 00:11:02.190 or opportunities based on that interaction. Ambiguity 00:11:02.190 --> 00:11:04.830 in those settings? Isn't that just failure? Well, 00:11:04.950 --> 00:11:08.309 that insistence on rigid, often Western -centric 00:11:08.309 --> 00:11:11.129 norms brings us directly to the third crucial 00:11:11.129 --> 00:11:13.149 point here, which is expanding this dialogue 00:11:13.149 --> 00:11:16.389 globally. The meaning of eye contact itself is 00:11:16.389 --> 00:11:19.690 anything but universal, right? We in the U .S. 00:11:19.690 --> 00:11:22.639 and much of Western culture tend to demand fairly 00:11:22.639 --> 00:11:26.200 intense sustained eye contact as a signal of 00:11:26.200 --> 00:11:29.559 honesty, engagement, respect. Yet we know perfectly 00:11:29.559 --> 00:11:32.879 well that in many cultures across Asia, for instance, 00:11:33.259 --> 00:11:35.720 that same sustained eye contact can be perceived 00:11:35.720 --> 00:11:39.659 as aggressive or challenging or just deeply rude. 00:11:40.100 --> 00:11:43.419 Sometimes stillness, a lack of overt affirmation 00:11:43.419 --> 00:11:46.120 is actually the accepted sign of deference and 00:11:46.120 --> 00:11:49.519 respect in those high context communication environments. 00:11:49.840 --> 00:11:52.629 Yes. I completely acknowledge the extensive global 00:11:52.629 --> 00:11:55.389 variation in nonverbal behavior. That's absolutely 00:11:55.389 --> 00:11:57.669 a foundational principle, something we teach 00:11:57.669 --> 00:12:00.649 and emphasize, particularly in fields like professional 00:12:00.649 --> 00:12:03.470 global etiquette. Experts like Adrian Barker, 00:12:03.509 --> 00:12:05.850 for example, have spent careers documenting these 00:12:05.850 --> 00:12:08.629 exact differences. But That context actually 00:12:08.629 --> 00:12:11.230 raises a really vital question for me. Is Gen 00:12:11.230 --> 00:12:14.350 Z consciously trying to shift Western norms towards 00:12:14.350 --> 00:12:16.690 something more globally influenced, maybe more 00:12:16.690 --> 00:12:19.309 like that Eastern influence stillness? Or is 00:12:19.309 --> 00:12:21.809 this more of an unconscious cultural shift, maybe 00:12:21.809 --> 00:12:24.610 driven by technology or anxiety, that just happens 00:12:24.610 --> 00:12:27.490 to risk creating unnecessary confusion and friction, 00:12:27.889 --> 00:12:29.629 especially in diverse environments that currently 00:12:29.629 --> 00:12:32.649 do rely on established visual feedback for clarity 00:12:32.649 --> 00:12:35.049 and effective collaboration? If this behavior 00:12:35.049 --> 00:12:37.889 is emerging primarily from anxiety or maybe just 00:12:37.889 --> 00:12:40.389 a personal preference for authenticity, rather 00:12:40.389 --> 00:12:42.529 than a conscious, understood effort to adopt 00:12:42.529 --> 00:12:44.529 a different established communication style, 00:12:45.049 --> 00:12:47.549 then it risks failing to provide the unambiguous 00:12:47.549 --> 00:12:50.730 communication that diverse, global environments 00:12:50.730 --> 00:12:55.080 really demand. Hmm. But I might argue it actually 00:12:55.080 --> 00:12:59.159 challenges the existing ambiguity of purely performative 00:12:59.159 --> 00:13:02.240 cues. We've all been there, haven't we? Encountered 00:13:02.240 --> 00:13:05.080 the person who's nodding enthusiastically, smiling 00:13:05.080 --> 00:13:07.720 away, while clearly not listening at all. Maybe 00:13:07.720 --> 00:13:09.799 they're scrolling on their phone under the table, 00:13:10.100 --> 00:13:12.570 or just thinking about what's for lunch. Perhaps 00:13:12.570 --> 00:13:15.769 Gen Z is demanding that we start equating presence, 00:13:16.269 --> 00:13:19.009 meaning actual cognitive engagement with attention, 00:13:19.429 --> 00:13:22.629 not just the easily faked performance of it. 00:13:23.070 --> 00:13:26.389 Maybe they're rejecting the tyranny of the constant 00:13:26.389 --> 00:13:29.330 visual affirmation loop. You know, the rise of 00:13:29.330 --> 00:13:31.769 digital interaction has probably made many of 00:13:31.769 --> 00:13:35.269 us highly attuned to spotting inauthentic signaling. 00:13:35.669 --> 00:13:38.809 And perhaps the stare is partly a reaction against 00:13:38.809 --> 00:13:42.330 that. Okay, even if we accept that some traditional 00:13:42.330 --> 00:13:46.090 cues can be performative or misused, they still 00:13:46.090 --> 00:13:49.070 fulfill a practical, functional purpose in managing 00:13:49.070 --> 00:13:51.370 the flow of conversation, don't they? When you 00:13:51.370 --> 00:13:54.750 remove that affirmation layer entirely, you force 00:13:54.750 --> 00:13:57.570 the speaker to expend extra cognitive energy 00:13:57.570 --> 00:13:59.950 just wondering if the listener is still with 00:13:59.950 --> 00:14:02.870 them, if they're tracking. That arguably diverts 00:14:02.870 --> 00:14:05.909 focus away from the content itself, so it could 00:14:05.909 --> 00:14:08.669 actually reduce the overall collaborative efficiency 00:14:08.649 --> 00:14:11.230 regardless of how deeply absorbed the listener 00:14:11.230 --> 00:14:13.990 might claim to be internally. But perhaps the 00:14:13.990 --> 00:14:16.570 shift we're witnessing is actually a demand for 00:14:16.570 --> 00:14:19.470 a higher quality of interaction overall. One 00:14:19.470 --> 00:14:22.350 where the speaker maybe has to earn the listener's 00:14:22.350 --> 00:14:24.090 engagement through the substance of what they're 00:14:24.090 --> 00:14:26.929 saying, rather than just relying on automatic, 00:14:27.129 --> 00:14:29.330 perhaps sometimes mindless social performance 00:14:29.330 --> 00:14:31.629 cues from the listener. Maybe it forces both 00:14:31.629 --> 00:14:34.669 parties to prioritize depth over just, you know, 00:14:34.870 --> 00:14:37.970 surface level comfort. All right. So to summarize 00:14:37.970 --> 00:14:42.090 my position, while I absolutely recognize the 00:14:42.090 --> 00:14:45.490 rising value placed on authenticity, and I acknowledge 00:14:45.490 --> 00:14:48.629 the potential for traditional cues to be performative 00:14:48.629 --> 00:14:52.070 sometimes, the data we have supporting the necessity 00:14:52.070 --> 00:14:55.350 of nonverbal affirmation for smooth interaction 00:14:55.350 --> 00:14:59.529 is, I think, too compelling to ignore. Active 00:14:59.529 --> 00:15:01.929 feedback, like appropriate nodding and other 00:15:01.929 --> 00:15:04.970 cues, it's a vital mechanism. It's necessary 00:15:04.970 --> 00:15:07.730 for bolstering speaker confidence, for ensuring 00:15:07.730 --> 00:15:10.190 the smooth and unambiguous flow of dialogue, 00:15:10.789 --> 00:15:12.950 and ultimately for upholding that fundamental 00:15:12.950 --> 00:15:15.909 principle of etiquette, ensuring mutual understanding 00:15:15.909 --> 00:15:18.789 and comfort. When the listener's intent, however 00:15:18.789 --> 00:15:21.750 positive, consistently results in negative professional 00:15:21.750 --> 00:15:24.220 impact, I believe the behavior needs adjustment. 00:15:24.399 --> 00:15:26.840 And I'll conclude by reiterating that this stare, 00:15:27.039 --> 00:15:29.279 as it's often called, shouldn't be so swiftly 00:15:29.279 --> 00:15:32.179 pathologized as simply a deficit in social skills 00:15:32.179 --> 00:15:34.899 or an outright communication breakdown. Instead, 00:15:34.940 --> 00:15:37.519 I urge us to consider it as potentially a significant 00:15:37.519 --> 00:15:40.100 cultural evolution, one that's reflective of 00:15:40.100 --> 00:15:42.639 a generation that deeply prioritizes genuine 00:15:42.639 --> 00:15:45.100 presence that's perhaps pushing back against 00:15:45.100 --> 00:15:47.580 generations of what they see as performative 00:15:47.580 --> 00:15:50.120 communication habits, and maybe seeking deeper, 00:15:50.259 --> 00:15:52.750 more authentic connection. The very definition 00:15:52.750 --> 00:15:54.990 of what constitutes respect might be adapting 00:15:54.990 --> 00:15:58.149 to our faster, more visually complex world, demanding 00:15:58.149 --> 00:16:00.750 that we look beyond just those expected, sometimes 00:16:00.750 --> 00:16:03.950 superficial cues. Indeed. What seems certain 00:16:03.950 --> 00:16:07.649 is that the rulebook for etiquette, for communication 00:16:07.649 --> 00:16:11.789 norms, it's not static. It's dynamic. It changes 00:16:11.789 --> 00:16:15.129 constantly, influenced by generations, by technologies, 00:16:15.850 --> 00:16:19.470 by evolving cultural values. Mm -hmm. So the 00:16:19.470 --> 00:16:22.049 central and, I think, really fascinating question 00:16:22.049 --> 00:16:25.149 remains for our listeners to ponder. Is this 00:16:25.149 --> 00:16:28.009 Gen Z stare an unfortunate erosion of established 00:16:28.009 --> 00:16:31.710 functional communication protocols? Or is it 00:16:31.710 --> 00:16:34.750 perhaps a new form of etiquette emerging, one 00:16:34.750 --> 00:16:37.269 rooted in a different understanding of genuine 00:16:37.269 --> 00:16:40.289 non -performative presence? We hope this discussion 00:16:40.289 --> 00:16:43.429 today, which draws on the kind of expertise shared 00:16:43.429 --> 00:16:46.509 by groups dedicated to understanding global communication 00:16:46.509 --> 00:16:49.289 like professional global etiquette and others, 00:16:49.909 --> 00:16:52.009 we hope it challenges all of us to think about 00:16:52.009 --> 00:16:54.769 how we define respect, how we signal presence, 00:16:55.110 --> 00:16:57.909 and how we achieve professional clarity in today's 00:16:57.909 --> 00:17:00.529 really rapidly shifting world. Thank you for 00:17:00.529 --> 00:17:02.129 joining us on The Debate.