We communicate in many different ways due to technology. Often, the interpretation of a message changes based on what you are using to deliver it. For example, when we send a message via text, it might be read differently than if it were through voice. Talking on the phone is different than face to-face. And, even in video conferencing, or Skype, you can't always get the full effect of the message like you can when you are in the same room as someone. So, since we can't always go up to someone face to-face every time we want to send a message, we must try to communicate as effectively as we can through text and/or voice.
When we use our voice, we can add tone to the message, which helps. When I critiqued the link showing three different ways to send a message, I noticed the tone was rather harsh or demanding in the email. If that was the message the woman wanted to send, then it was effective. In all three examples, she seemed to be very serious. However, the tone does change from email to voice and from voice to in person. When simply reading a message, you lose the personal touch that is natural when speaking face to face. Also, when you are face to face, there can be dialogue. You can ask a question and get an immediate answer. If I were the woman in this example, I would change the way I approached the issue for each scenario. In an email and a voicemail, you have to say everything at once and then wait for a response. In person, you can greet the person, he greets you back, you can ask a question and get an immediate response. For some people, that is easier, for others it is hard. Some people would rather have the impersonal scenario so they can get their point across without being interrupted or lose their focus in the conversation.
The form of communication was most effective in the voicemail. The email seemed harsh and the face to face "conversation" was one sided. The woman simply stated what she would have in an email. She probably wouldn't get an answer right away. She didn't even ask a question and wait for a response. The voicemail made it clear she needs the information and to please let her know. In other words, call her back or send the report right now. The voicemail also had a good tone.
Dr. Stolovitch explains how communicating with project members is best done with all members present. A face to-face meeting is probably best, but video conferencing or on the telephone can be very effective as well.
http://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/EDUC/6145/03/mm/aoc/index.html
Stolovitch, H. (2012) Communicating with Stakeholders. Laureate Education, Inc.
Lindsay
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post. I particularly like how you mentioned that with the face-to-face approach the woman could have greeted before bringing across her statement or request. That way she would have engaged the attention of the person she was talking to. I certainly would not feel respected in that scenario if she was to approach me and start to make request, without even a greeting or room for me to respond. It would have felt more like a command rather that a request. And usually persons tend to put up some form of resistance if they feel disrespected or commanded. Therefore for effective communication and corporation to take place, not only the media matter but also the approach. The same message can be delivered in different ways and with different words and still mean the same.
I find it truly amazing how human beings differ so much in the ways we prefer to communicate. My reaction to the forms of communication was very different from yours. I preferred the email over the other forms, simply because it is documented and can be used as way of holding team member accountable. Stolovitch (2012), does say that most informal communication is oral. Although the tone in each of the messages seems informal, I think the overall urgency of the message is very clear and so I would consider something like this to be more along the lines of formal communication. Also if Mark does not turn in the paperwork to Jane, at least Jane has proof with the email that she did make an attempt to get it from him.
ReplyDeleteReference
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2012). Communicating with Stakeholders [DVD]. In Project Management . Baltimore, MD: Stolovitch, H
Lindsay,
ReplyDeleteA message can definitely have a different tone when it is received in the form of an email versus a face to face discussion. I think the word "discussion" is key here since it allows immediate feedback as opposed to that of a voicemail or email. While a response may come quickly from the later forms, it may also be days before getting a reply. I think it all depends on the degree of urgency and the type of information that needs to be conveyed to determine which method is actually best suited, but as you mention, face-to-face communication allows for immediate feedback and dialogue.
Lindsay,
ReplyDeleteI too thought the voice mail was most effective in terms of message and tone. I do understand though why one might send an email in this case. Having documentation of a communication is an important part of effective communication (Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, & Sutton, with Kramer, 2008). I thought it was very interesting that you found the email to be harsh. I felt it was pretty straightforward. I noted in my post the email did not have any indicators such as exclamation points or all cap letters that would have pointed out anger or frustration. It is fascinating that we can both read one thing and interpret it in different ways. I think you made an excellent point about the face-to-face conversation. You are right, in most instances, we do have a back and forth when it comes to talking face to face. The face-to-face scenario we watched was not very organic in the sense that many face-to-face conversations really do not look like that. I could not figure out what about that last scenario bothered me, but you hit it right on the head.
References
Portny, S., Mantel, S., Meredith, J., Shafer, S., Sutton, M., & Kramer, B. (2008). Project management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.