Blog Assignment: Communicating Effectively

Figure 1: Different people receiving message from text, audio, and video.

The multimedia program "The Art of Effective Communication." displays one message in three different modalities: email as written text, voicemail as audio and face-to-face as video between two people, where Jane delivers a message to Mark (Multimedia program in Laureate Education, n. d.). Portny, et al., (2008) argue that “through communication people exchange and share information with one another, and influence one another’s attitudes, behaviors, and understanding” (p357). Jane intends to inform Mark that he needs for him to submit the missing report. How appropriate and influential is each of the three types of communication in the multimedia program depends on the interpretation of the message that is given by the different (receiving) individuals.

My interpretation of the messages was mostly based on the communication skills used to deliver the message and was also influenced by such factors as the personalities of the person giving the message and the recipient, timing, attitude, tone and body language (Laureate Education, n. d.). The email communication was a bit professional with the purpose clearly stated at the beginning of the email as the need for a missing report. The email further mentions the expected consequences should the request not be acted on, that is, the requester is likely to miss her own deadline.  There was a lapse however, towards the end where ambiguity crept in with respect to what specifically or how the required information was to be submitted. The tone in the voicemail was rather different and seems to be impatient and a little bit forceful. The face-to-face communication on the other hand was friendlier and showed a lot of respect with the tone, body language and positive attitude.

The major factor that influenced how I perceived the message was mainly the approach I frequently use in my own work environment. The sense of urgency for the missing information tends to influence me to choose the use of a combination of text messages (through email) that are followed by a phone call or a face-to-face request. A written message in an email helps to keep a trail of conversation that serve as evidence of the message delivery, though the disadvantage is that it may be misunderstood, ignored or not read due to busy schedules such as attending meetings. It is for these reasons that I frequently combine emails with phone calls or voicemail and use a face-to-face walk-in to confirm with the recipient that the message was delivered and to redeliver the content of the email, if necessary.  This works better when the distance between the people communicating is relatively small. 

The written text in an email seemed to communicate more firmly and professionally what was required.  The email can be filed, printed, shared with others, read over and over to get a better understanding of the content. In my case, written email allows me to present factual data more efficiently and help me to choose the words carefully in order to minimize misunderstandings (Portny, et al. 2008). I can also read and edit the message a number of times before sending it while it is not easy to edit the words once verbally uttered in the voicemail and in a face-to-face delivery. With the email, the urgency needed for immediate action on the part of the recipient can be set. The settings can also indicate when the email is opened, read and it can also be marked with red ink to draw the attention of the reader in terms of its urgency. The urgency in the voicemail and face-to-face can also be set through the tone of the voice and body language but there is a risk of being interpreted as being unprofessional, unfriendly and rude. Under these conditions,  the best form of communication in a situation similar to the one in the multimedia where one-on-one communication is used to remind one person about the missing information, I would prefer the email followed by a voicemail or face-to-face delivery.

Troy Achong in Laureate Education (2010) posits that communication is an art and is bigger than the project itself. I support this statement as I learned that communicating effectively with members of a project team depends on what is the situation, which approach is selected, who and how the message is delivered to the team. One does not have to adopt a single approach; the approach will vary depending on the purpose of the message. For instance, face-to-face communication is the best to choose for project meetings such as kick-off and steering committee meetings. Dr Stolovich in Laureate Education (2010) states that “important communication is best delivered with all team members present”. The face-to face delivery, for example, is best to convey message to many people that need to be given essential information about the project. For communication with a few individuals who might have missed the deadlines such as that of Mark in the multimedia, email or voicemail can be used effectively. There is no single best method that work all the time for communicating effectively in a project, the project manager needs to be diplomatic reflective when selecting an effective communication approach to suit the situation.

Figure 2: Project meetings with face-to-face communication

References

Laureate Education (Producer) (2010). Communicating with Stakeholders [Video]. Retrieved from http://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/Walden/EDUC/6145/03/downloads/WAL_EDUC6145_03_A_EN-CC.zip

Laureate Education (Producer) (2010). Practitioner Voices:Strategiesfor working with stakeholders [Video]. Retrieved from http://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/Walden/EDUC/6145/03/downloads/WAL_EDUC6145_03_A_EN-CC.zip

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

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.