Why should Janet have spoken to Kevin directly about disciplinary action?

The best choice is that electronic media prevents interpretation of subtle nonverbal cues. Communicating disciplinary actions, which can carry significant emotional weight, requires a level of nuance that is often lost in written forms of communication like emails or texts. Nonverbal cues, such as tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language, are critical in conveying empathy, authority, and reassurance during sensitive discussions. By speaking directly to Kevin, Janet would have had the opportunity to address any emotional responses in real time and read his reactions, facilitating a more constructive dialogue.

While direct conversation may also be more efficient, it’s the subtleties of communication that matter most in disciplinary situations. Written communication does limit the interactive nature of discussions, often leading to misunderstandings, which is likely crucial in the context of disciplinary actions. Additionally, even if Kevin had a preference for verbal communication, the core issue remains that the subtleties of human interaction are best conveyed and understood in person rather than through electronic means.