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