The three different modalities used to communicate with a project team member in our resources deliver the same basic message but as the level of interpersonal communication, so does the effectiveness of the message. The e-mail came across to me as somewhat sincere, although it leaves a lot to the readers imagination. No facial expressions or tone of voice somewhat diminish the importance of the communication. As discussed in our video resource, Communicating With Stakeholders, this method of communication is typically best used as a follow up from a formal meeting to confirm what was discussed and to clear up any misinterpreted expectations or responsibilities.
The voicemail helped to better communicate the urgency of the matter because the voice tone and word emphasis was part of the message. It also helps to convey that the sender understands that the receiver is also very busy, where as the e-mail was unable to show this understanding. It could have been typed with a feeling of sarcasm, which could have very well been why that selection of communication was chosen to hide any frustration felt by the sender. The face to face modality shows all in my opinion and in this case would be the only way to communicate effectively and engage the receiver. The ability to see facial expressions and hear voice tone is much more sincere. With this method of communication it is very difficult to hide any internal feelings the sender has such as frustration or sarcasm. As the interpersonal communication increased the message was much more clear in my opinion.
“The key to successful project management is effective communication - sharing the right messages with the right people in a timely manner.” (Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shaffer, & Sutton, 2008, p. 357). In some situations the “right person” may be difficult to work with or completely uninvested in a project. It is important to engage these individuals. Stating the purpose of the communication, including any possible solutions (if needed) and possibly requiring a sign off gets team members on the same page and brings accountability to individuals. Ambiguity in communication only causes problems and should be avoided at all costs. There is too high of a risk that an individual who is responsible for a particular task will assume that someone else will take care of it because they believe that they should not be responsible for that task. Furthermore, the addition of voice tone and facial expressions can completely change how a message is interpreted. It is critical to select a proper method of communication for the right situation.
The resources this week introduced strategies to implement when dealing with a diverse group of project team members. Stakeholders in a project may be a bit arrogant if they are required to work with individuals they do not respect. A good approach is to place them in working situations with individuals they do respect and communicate with those individuals to obtain feedback about project progress, outcomes, and expectations. Also setting standards for communication in a project adds clarity and understanding of team members. Setting expectations for variables such as frequency, format, language, time frames, responsibility, and methods of communications clearly define how communication is to be handled in individual situations.
References
Laurate Education, Initials. (Producer). (2011). Communicating with Stakeholders. [Web]. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn? CourseID=4894953&Survey=1&47=6469849&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1
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.
Hey Justin,
ReplyDeleteExcellent take on the effect of each of these modalities. Just like you, I also found these subtle hints embedded in the context of each message. In the face-to-face scenario, I also detected a more sincere feeling to the message unlike the email or voice message. Sometimes those informal face-to-face requests will have a greater impact in member relations than any other form of communication, I think.
Hi Justin
ReplyDeleteI whole-heartedly agree with your comments. I too believe that "The voicemail helped to better communicate the urgency of the matter because the voice tone and word emphasis was part of the message. It also helps to convey that the sender understands that the receiver is also very busy, where as the e-mail was unable to show this understanding."
I spent half of each year in NY and I have found that in switching locations from Brooklyn to Albany, when I speak to someone from Albany (a different culture) I tend to pay too much attention to their body language as I try to understand fully what they are saying to me. And I found that I did this in the video clip and as a result, Jane’s smile, tilting of her head and movement of her hands were somewhat distracting.
I listened to the video clip without watching the video and then I watched the video and turned the volume off – the body language and the audio gave me conflicting messages. I believe that the face-to-face, there was too much “noise” (as a result of the conflicting body language) and therefore this may have prevented the message from being getting through.
On reflection, I think that Jane’s way of communicating face-to-face with Mark relates to Dr. Stolovitch’s premise that project managers needs to be diplomatic because their attitudes may convey more than words. Also, I am also trying to come to grasp with Dr. Stolovitch’s comments that 93% of communication conveyed comes from body language – not words.
I too preferred the voicemail message and I felt that it is the most effective of the three. However, as a project team member, I would prefer to have written communication and use face-to-face communication for confirmation and updates. As Dr. Stolovitch stated, the personality of the recipient ahs a lot to do with how the message is conveyed.
References
Stolovitch, H., Communicating with Stakeholders. Laurate Education (2011).
Hi, Justin!
ReplyDeleteLike you, I favored the phone message over the other two options. It seemed to me the most straight-forward approach. Hearing the voice inflection helped, as it eliminated the tone I heard "in my head" as I read the email. Having said this, I am inclined to follow up the voice mail with an email too, just to create a document of the conversation. One thing we learned with Dan and Catherine (Ertmer and Quinn, 2007), is that we can talk until we're blue in the face, but without documentation, we can make no progress.
Ertmer, P., & Quinn, J. (2007). Case Study 29: Managing processes and people in an instructional design project. In The ID casebook: Case studies in instructional design (3rd ed., pp. 222-229). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Hi Justin,
ReplyDeleteI think that one issue that isn't quite described on the topic of communication is also the perception of person trying to communicate.
For example, I once worked with an employer who wanted to dismiss an employee via text message - not only would it have been ineffective, but it would also give the employer the perception that he is too cowardly to address the matter in a more direct manner. I think project managers must be very attentive in how their communicate with the people they must work with - if the PM is too "enthusiastic" with communication, then they come across as too involved or alarmist; on the other end of the spectrum is that the PM is either uninvolved from the project, or being cowardly.