Communicating Effectively

Our task this week was to observe and analyze a message between project members delivered using three different message modalities: email, voicemail and face-to-face (Laureate Education, Inc., n.d.).  Before starting the task, I made assumptions as to which modality I would prefer or would be most effective in sending the message.  My gut reaction told me that email would be the least effective, voicemail more effective and face-to-face the most effective.  It was interesting to how my interpretation of the message changed from one modality to the next and how those interpretations related to my initial assumptions. 

The email message initially seemed to the point and delivered a clear message.  The difficulty with email however is the lack of tone and expression, which can be “inappropriate for messages that might be interpreted as critical or emotional” (Anderson, 2009).  When I re-read the email, I could see how it could be interpreted in two very different tones, a lot of which depends on the mood of the reader.  On the other hand, I can see where this email might be more effective than a voicemail.  For one, many people who have a busy schedule may be more apt to check an email than to pause, dial-up and listen to a voicemail message.  Additionally, I think that emails are effective because they provide a source of documentation for the message, which is an important aspect of project communication (Laureate Education, Inc., n.d.). 

When I listened to the voicemail of the same message I felt the message carried a stronger urgency than I initially interpreted from the email.  The tone of the message seemed to have an air of stress. Dr. Stolovitch points out that informal communication is often delivered  orally, but important communication, such as the need for a missing report and critical data, is best delivered live and with all people present (Laureate Education, Inc., n.d.).  In terms of effectiveness at sending a message, I think the voicemail was succinct and followed some key rules for leaving a message.  For example, Anderson (2009), suggests that voicemails are limited to 100 words or less, include a compelling reason for a return call or action and include some emotion to make a personal connection.

When I watched the face-to-face interaction, my interpretation changed a bit.  The face-to-face delivery was a much more positive interaction and demonstrates Dr. Stolovitch’s suggestion to “think of communications as not just words, spirit and attitude is more important than the words you use” (Laureate Education, Inc., n.d.).  Instead of an accusatory or stressed message that may have been interpreted by the receiver from the email or voicemail, the face-to-face message was more calming an enabled the sender to be “more persuasive and expressive” (College of Marin, n.d.).  Unfortunately, face-to-face communication for quick and critical messages, such as the one being delivered in this example, may not be feasible for members of a project team due to busy schedules or proximity issues.

My take-away from this activity is that there is not one perfect method of communication and “different methods of communication are more effective at certain tasks than others” (Martin, 2007).  Emails may be appropriate for coordinating and scheduling meetings, voicemails may be good for reminders or check-ins, and face-to-face meetings are best for formal project communications and anything that requires discussion or consensus (Martin, 2007).  I also think that different communication modalities work for some people better than others and that I may, as Vince Burdovich highlighted, need to tailor my communication methods and approach to fit the specific needs of the individual team stakeholders (Laureate Education, Inc., n.d.).  Finally, I think that starting out with strong communication is key.  Having personal face-to-face discussions early on with team members will establish a strong foundation and enable other forms of communication to flow throughout the project without as many misunderstandings (Martin, 2007). 

References:

Anderson, W.H. (2009, June).  Effective client communication: Choosing the right medium for your message.  GPSOLO.  Retrieved from https://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_magazine_index/2009_jun_clientcommunication.html

Laureate Education (Producer). (n.d.). Communicating with stakeholders [Video file]. Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu

Laureate Education (Producer). (n.d.). Practitioner voices: Strategies for working with stakeholders [Video file]. Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu

Laureate Education (Producer). (n.d.). The art of effective communication [Multimedia file]. Retrieved from: http://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/EDUC/6145/03/mm/aoc/index.html

Martin, C. (2007, March 6).  The importance of face-to-face communications at work [Blog post].  Retrieved from http://www.cio.com/article/2441851/it-organization/the-importance-of-face-to-face-communication-at-work.html

Wilson, B. (n.d.). Business communication online: Critical thinking questions.  Retrieved from http://www.marin.edu/buscom/index_files/page1387.htm

Learning From A Project Post-Mortem

The project that I participated in that is the basis for my post-mortem analysis entailed a group project for an asynchronous online class that I took.  The team members and roles were assigned randomly by our course instructor and included a project manager to help run the project and participate in the other duties of the team.  None of us had worked together before and we all lived across different time zones, represented different backgrounds and very different personality types.  To summarize the story, our team failed to establish any effective communication throughout the project.  We jumped past the “forming” stage of small group team development, into the “storming” phase, and never left (Tuckman, 1965).  At the end of the course, we had a project to deliver, but I would not at all call the project a success.

I think there were two major factors that contributed to the project failure.  The first problem, which I think allowed for the development of the other problems, was that we had no established leader.  Greer (2010) addresses this in the post-mortem project analysis by asking, “Did we have the right people assigned to all the project roles?” (p. 42).  Since the instructor randomly assigned the roles, I would say the answer was definitely not.   The initial assigned PM backed out of the leadership role the second week and the individual who replaced him was self appointed and not respected by several members of the team.  The lack of a clearly defined leader created communication issues and personality conflicts amongst the team.  Instead of acting as a team, a few members branched off and did their own work, which didn’t meld with the rest of the team project when needed.  Buhl (n.d.), stresses that a good leader needs to “focus on issues, not personalities.”  Additionally, we didn’t get the help we needed from the course instructor to assist in managing or mediating our team issues.  This could have been because we didn’t seek the help appropriately.  Buhl (n.d.) also points out that if all the leaders efforts to formulate a successful team fail, that it is imperative to know to how involve a superior. 

The second major issue was the lack of effective communication amongst our team.  I think if we had established a means to regularly and clearly communicate throughout the project, a lot of misunderstandings and negative feelings would have been avoided.  I have learned of the importance of the project manager establishing a formal communication plan during the planning phase of a project (Project Management Institute, 2013).  I think if our project manager had worked at the start to “define the preferred communication style, frequency and format” for the members, we would have been much more successful (PMI, 2013, p. 9). 

It is interesting to do a post-mortem analysis on a project and analyze what could have turned the project around.  I was so frustrated during the project and so thankful when it was over that I never took time to reflect on how we could have potentially made it successful.  I will continue to wonder if we could have made it work, had we had some of the different circumstances I described above.  If nothing else, it allows me to approach my future projects with a better understanding of how to have a positive impact on my team. 

References:

Buhl, L. (n.d.).  How to survive a bad team leader.  Retrieved from http://managerlink.monster.com/training-leadership/articles/870-how-to-survive-a-bad-team-leader

Greer, M. (2010). The project management minimalist: Just enough PM to rock your projects! (Laureate custom ed.). Baltimore: Laureate Education, Inc.

The Project Management Institute.  (2013). Communication: The message is clear [White paper]. Newtown Square, PA: Author.  Retrieved from http://www.pmi.org/~/media/PDF/Knowledge%20Center/Communications_whitepaper_v2.ashx

Tuckman, B.W. (1965).  Developmental sequence in small groups.  Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384-399.

Project Management Group 1 Welcome

Hello all and Happy New Year,
It seems like it was a short, but well needed hiatus from blogging and project work!  I look forward to exploring project management with you over the next eight weeks. I am excited to follow you all and have your feedback on my own reflections here!