no touching

Patrick writes about touch. There is a hierarchy of senses in organisations. Sight is number one. Then hearing. Then smell and taste. And finally touch. The further we get from written language (semantic, numeric or diagrammatic) the less trustworthy the senses become.

Touch is the only sense that does not occur at a distance. Touch implies intent - when it's accidental we jump. An intent of contact and intimacy. It is less open to obfuscation than the other senses - "I didn't mean to see/hear that" won't cut it with touch. Which is one reason I think we tend to avoid it within organisations - we often need a get-out clause in our communications.

As Coleman Yee indicates in the post comments, touch can be all about power and abuse - "you have no choice but to accept my physical contact". We want our touches to be accepted by others, so touch can be about risk - the risk of being brushed aside, of our actions being interpreted as inappropriate or just plain wrong.

There's a gender issue here too. Touch between heterosexual men is tightly circumscribed. I'm not a big fan of group hugs.

Patrick, I think touch may be too close for us to handle. Certainly too unpredictable for our rigid change management methodologies and measurement systems.