Interpreting a Message
How did your interpretation of the
message change from one modality to the next? When I read the message, it seems
that Jane was a bit frustrated that Mark had not yet sent her his portion of
the report that she needed to finish her portion. She didn’t come off as rude
or anything in the written message and she seemed understanding that Mark may have
been too busy to send the report sooner. With the voice-mail message Jane seems
to be professional. She has a sense of urgency and despair in her voice about
the report. She also came across as very calm and understanding of Marks busy
schedule. In the face-to-face she still seems professional and non-confrontational
with Mark. It came across the same way as it did in the voice-mail to me.
What factors influenced how you
perceived the message? Being
able to hear a person’s voice is always better than just reading a message
because their tone can allow us to know how they are feeling about what they
are saying. Being able to see someone’s face during the conversation is even
better since we can read body language.
Which form of communication best conveyed the
true meaning and intent of the message? Depending
on your relationship with the person, the sort of message and the urgency of
the message, I think that any form of communication can convey a message. In
this instance, hearing a voice-mail allowed us to see that she wasn’t angry in
her message but sort of worried but at the same time understanding of Marks
busy day.
What are the implications of what
you learned from this exercise for communicating effectively with members of a
project team? In order to have effective communication with team members it is
always important to schedule some face to face meetings or conference calls so that
everyone understands exactly what is being asked and the tone of the
conversation. In my experience texting or sending emails that don’t show
emotion, can become misunderstood depending on the way the receiver perceives
the message. In a project or group
setting, allowing face-to-face interaction will get a lot more done faster
since everyone is present and all questions can be asked at that time vs.
waiting on someone to get an email or voice-mail and finding time to respond.
One thing that can be used for this
message that was discussed by Stolovitch in the Communicating with Stakeholders
video is; Avoid ambiguity (be clear). In the email Jane wasn’t too specific
about which data she needed; it was just assumed that Mark would know exactly
what data she was requesting. If the report they were working contained
numerous amounts of data, Mark may have been confused as to what section she
needed in order to finish up her section of the work. So trying to be clear
even in a short email will take away a
lot of back and forth and waiting on responses between team members.
Reference:
Laureate Education, Inc. (n.d.). Communicating with stakeholders
[video]. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=6290461&Survey=1&47=7840039&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1
Kam,
ReplyDeleteYou made a great point concerning ambiguity.
For non-urgent messages, email is my preferred method of communication. However, Jane's email started with, "I know you’re busy..." This can convey an ambiguous message that some would interpret to mean, "Your priorities are more important than mine," especially in an email where the sender does not have the advantage of using voice tone, body language, or receiving feedback to continue the conversation. So even though email can be efficient, it can actually slow down a process if the sender is not clear or the reader somehow misinterprets the message.
Your final analysis about the clarity of Jane’s email struck me in a way I hadn’t realized previously. You were correct to identify that Jane made an assumption about Mark’s knowledge of the data she needed. She should have clarified that as well as provided Mark with a timeline: something like “Thanks for your time, Mark. If I don’t hear from you by 3:00 today, I will try to give you a call to check in.” That way, Mark not only has clear information about what data he should be looking for, but also by what time he will again be held accountable for it.
ReplyDeleteSomeone else in our class also pointed out that when Jane apologizes for interrupting Mark’s day or taking time from his busy schedule, she may denote the urgency or importance of her own message. I thought that point was insightful as well. While it may be good practice to always acknowledge another’s time, we may be metaphorically shooting ourselves in the foot if we do not convey the urgency we feel for an important deadline or communication. Our textbook recommends that we (1) make the person accountable to the team, (2) create a sense of urgency and importance, and (3) get a commitment (Portny et al., 2008). Jane seems to understand this, but may not completely execute all three with her communication.
I agree with your assertion that f2f communication can speed up the interactions. In my post, I note that the timing needs of the communication should be carefully considered when choosing the modality. Although f2f can provide immediacy of discussion and subsequent solutions, it can also provide a forum for rushed or emotional communication whereas email communication allows each person to process ideas fully and respond when he/she feels most ready to engage in that discussion.