The
assignment was to observe three modalities of communication; all with the same
content but delivered by email, voicemail and by personal message via face-to-face.
Once the message was received,
reflection was given on the effectiveness of each form. This scenario despite the type of the
modality, would be considered informal communication; though the request was
past the established schedule, the content/reports were late which creates “communication
that occurs as people think of information they want to share” (Portny, et al,
2008. Pg. 368).
Link to the Communication Scenario Examples
Email
Reading
the email I felt the message was fairly urgent, though not demanding. The source of the email acknowledged that the
receiver may be busy but would appreciate the requested content. Because of the
nature of email/text, urgency is difficult to differentiate as there is no tone
to the words. As the sender of the email, you do not have immediate notification of how the message was received. Giving a timeline or due date would be a more effective way of describing needs. When something is needed urgently by a manager, cc’ing them on the email may help speed the process; along with requiring a 'read-receipt' of the email.
Voicemail
Listening
to the voicemail I got the distinct impression the caller was trying to be
polite without appearing challenging or authoritative, yet was clear on what
was needed. This felt a better directed
than the email because of the tone and vocal inflection. As the caller leaving
the message, you do not have immediate notification of how or when the message
was received.
Face-to-face
By far
the most appropriate way to communicate in this example. Along with the verbiage being spoken there
were non-verbal cues of urgency and tone/vocal inflection, though it was a bit
informal. I feel she got her point
across and was able to put pressure on the coworker and wait for a response.
The clarity that encompassed all aspects of the face-to-face communication were
effective and valuable at getting what she needed.
Portny, S.
E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Sutton, M. M., & Kramer,
B. E. (2008). Project management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling
projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Mariah,
ReplyDeleteI assumed Jane was the project manager, but your comment regarding copying the email to a higher level of authority is spot on. When something is urgent, I use Microsoft Outlook's read receipt function to track when the recipient reads the email. I will then usually follow up by phone, and, if possible, a face-to-face meeting. I think the use of a comprehensive communication plan (Greer, 2010) that delineates lines of communications as deadlines approach is critical. Thank you for your post.
Tim
Reference
Greer, M. (2010). The project management minimalist: Just enough PM to rock your projects! (Laureate custom ed.). Baltimore: Laureate Education, Inc.
Hi Mariah,
ReplyDeleteI love observing the phenomenon of communications. It's interesting that people glean different meanings or reactions from communications. I thought that even though the modalities changed, the tone remained the same. I agree with you, it lacked authority. I think that perhaps Jane lacked the proper verbiage in the communications that indicated this was very important and was needed.
I have had occasion to have to do the same thing, especially with sme's. What I found to be very helpful is to give a person a deadline to complete the task, and also include in the communication that since this is very important, if the task, which was the report to be completed so her report would not be late, then a next level manager, project manager etc. will have to be contacted and advised of the missed deliverable.
Hi Mariah, your preference for the delivery of the message face-to-face and my preference for the voice mail message proves that the project manager has to know how and under what circumstances communication should flow. The cohesion between the two modalities is adherence to the project schedule which comprises three parts (Russell, 2000):
ReplyDelete1. The activities that need to be completed.
2. The sequence of the activities.
3. The time required for each activity and the people who will do the work.
Therefore project team members must not only focus on their individual task but be mindful of project time management within the project. Thank you for am enlightening blog post
Win
Reference
Russell, L. (2000). Project management for trainers. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.
Copyright by the American Society for Training and Development. Used by permission via the Copyright Clearance Center.
Chapter 3, "Planning the Project" (pp. 40-49)
Hi Mariah,
ReplyDeleteNice post! I agree that the face to face communication was the best. As you say you don't know if they have received the email for sure, or the voicemail for that matter. She did remain professional and let Mark know she needed the missing report that he was able to provide. Which made me think maybe he had it originally, which would make you think that he would want to make it a priority to provide to Jane in order for her to meet the deadline for her report!
Pam
Mariah
ReplyDeleteI feel that the way the message is delivered should be different in all three modalities. The wording, etc needs to be tailored to the delivery method, they are not all the same. With that said, I think in all three methods too many words were used and none were very effective.
Hello Mariah,
ReplyDeleteI feel you did a very good job of breaking down the different ways the communication was delivered. You definitely have a definitely have a different perspective on each of them then I do. I saw the email as a bit more urgent then you did, while the voice mail was a bit less urgent and appeared to be more professional and a lot less hectic. But for me, the face to face was still very ineffective. Jane appeared to be too apologetic, always looking down, and did not articulate her words clearly.
Amazing how different people can the same items and grasp different meanings from them.
Great blog as usual!
Stephanie