 |
| Photo courtesy of Daily Pic |
A multimedia presentation displayed one message via three methods of communication; e-mail, voice mail and face to face.
The gist of the message was that Jane needs Mark to let her know when he will send her a report which apparently is overdue. She needs to know when it is coming. Her message then goes on to say that data contained in Mark’s report is needed to complete her, Jane’s, report. The message concludes by stating that Mark may opt to send the data separately.
If I were to receive this message as an e-mail, I would not take it seriously. I would conclude that it could not be that serious because there is no guarantee of when an e-mail will be read. For all Jane knows Mark may not get this e-mail anytime soon. He may even still be in the all-day meeting. I get the impression that Jane’s anxiety and possibly anger is escalating because first the message is asking when she will get it, then it goes to the fact she needs it then, it goes to appealing to Mark to send even just the data that should have been in the report.
I perceive the e-mail message as being tinged with a slight bit of hostility and not well thought out.
The same message was sent as a voice mail. Again, if I received this voice mail I would doubt whether or not Jane really needed the report as urgently as she claimed simply because, as with the e-mail, there is no way of knowing when I. Mark, would receive the message. In the voice mail Jane’s vocal expression does not sound particularly friendly and from my perspective sounds long-suffering, as if she can barely put up with the tardy Mark.
The third message seen was delivered in person. This is the message that I would most likely respond to with some degree of alacrity. If Jane deems it important enough to come over and speak with me personally, if I were Mark, I would consider that the report is really important to her. Jane’s facial and vocal expressions are calm and neutral. She does not look as if she is accusing Mark of wrongdoing and speaks to him in a friendly and respectful manner. Her attempt at expressing understanding about the possible cause of the delay, an all-day meeting, somehow appears more sincere.
My take on all this is that when it really matters if at all possible, it is best to communicate face to face with team members. From a purely chronological point of view there is no way to ensure when a person receives an e-mail or a voice mail message. Even with the ubiquitous presence of smartphones which enable individuals to be perpetually tethered to cyber communication messages, there are those who still do not check voice mail or e-mail every few minutes. If Mark really is in an all-day meeting there is not much he can do about it at that point anyway.
The gist of the message was that Jane needs Mark to let her know when he will send her a report which apparently is overdue. She needs to know when it is coming. Her message then goes on to say that data contained in Mark’s report is needed to complete her, Jane’s, report. The message concludes by stating that Mark may opt to send the data separately.
If I were to receive this message as an e-mail, I would not take it seriously. I would conclude that it could not be that serious because there is no guarantee of when an e-mail will be read. For all Jane knows Mark may not get this e-mail anytime soon. He may even still be in the all-day meeting. I get the impression that Jane’s anxiety and possibly anger is escalating because first the message is asking when she will get it, then it goes to the fact she needs it then, it goes to appealing to Mark to send even just the data that should have been in the report.
I perceive the e-mail message as being tinged with a slight bit of hostility and not well thought out.
The same message was sent as a voice mail. Again, if I received this voice mail I would doubt whether or not Jane really needed the report as urgently as she claimed simply because, as with the e-mail, there is no way of knowing when I. Mark, would receive the message. In the voice mail Jane’s vocal expression does not sound particularly friendly and from my perspective sounds long-suffering, as if she can barely put up with the tardy Mark.
The third message seen was delivered in person. This is the message that I would most likely respond to with some degree of alacrity. If Jane deems it important enough to come over and speak with me personally, if I were Mark, I would consider that the report is really important to her. Jane’s facial and vocal expressions are calm and neutral. She does not look as if she is accusing Mark of wrongdoing and speaks to him in a friendly and respectful manner. Her attempt at expressing understanding about the possible cause of the delay, an all-day meeting, somehow appears more sincere.
My take on all this is that when it really matters if at all possible, it is best to communicate face to face with team members. From a purely chronological point of view there is no way to ensure when a person receives an e-mail or a voice mail message. Even with the ubiquitous presence of smartphones which enable individuals to be perpetually tethered to cyber communication messages, there are those who still do not check voice mail or e-mail every few minutes. If Mark really is in an all-day meeting there is not much he can do about it at that point anyway.
Sandra,
ReplyDeleteAll too often emails are sent virtually not screened for quality before they sent out to the recipient. What is sent and later read by sender will leave their head shaking and asking themselves why did I choose those words, why did I get to the point sooner and/or why did I carbon copy (cc) other people? Personally, I am not a fan of the content being more than one page long. If this occurs, the meat is not brought to the table quick enough and my pinky finger is already on the delete key. Once it is sent, there is no way to retrieve it. Of course we can send out a retraction on it, but in reality it [message] will survive for eternity unlike a face-to-face conversation that permits us to not only listen to the spoken words, but also see first-hand the non-verbal behaviors that may urge us to reformat or restructure the vocabulary. I often wonder if the advances in technology make those who rely on it lazy and stupid, for lack of better words. You and I are absolutely in the same ballpark to say that face-to-face communication is preferred to get the job done in an orderly and professional fashion to include a mutual understanding, especially when in the same building. Communication is most definitely a technical science in itself and the difference must be known between listening and hearing.
Dave
Hi David,
DeleteI have seen those non screened e-mails and I guess I may have even sent out a few. As you said, the retraction or the correction does not really work. the damage has been done and the e-mail lives on in eternal infamy.
Sandra,
ReplyDeleteI have learned in my current job the importance of articulating what you need, when you need it, and how it should be delivered. Using Read receipt, follow-up with a phone call if it is a "hot" item, and better yet appearing at their desk. My only criticism of the face-to-face was the tone of her voice, to me it did not project importance.
Speaking of importance, the important aspect here is addressing the need much earlier then the day the individual is in an all day meeting.
Marnie
Hi Marnie,
DeleteI understand what you mean about stating clearly what you need. In Ryan's response to the communication review he notes the influence of culture on how messages are perceived. While agreeing with you I am also going to mention that culture has a lot to do with it. While you found that the tone of the face to face message did not match the importance, for me a possibly harsher tone could be offensive. I would try to comply with her wishes but I would not be pleased.
As you said, if it were really that important an earlier intervention would have been better.
Hi Sandra,
ReplyDeleteI thought this was an interesting exercise to go through because it made me think not only about the different methods of communication, but also of the cultural differences that affect our interpretation.
For example, your interpretation of the email and voicemail messages was centred around the "seriousness" of the message. On the other hand, my interpretation of the message was that it was harsh and a tad rude (due to differences between American and Canadian communication styles). I thought that the request was serious, but because of the direct nature of the request, it rubbed me the wrong way. In Canada, urgent requests are often phrased in language that makes it seem as though it is not urgent. It is up to the receiver of the request to "read between the lines" and interpret the message as urgent (I know, we are a strange bunch of people up here).
At the end of the exercise, I realized that it is not only important to choose our words wisely, but it is also important to choose the appropriate communication method for the intended audience, especially when communicating across different cultures.
Ryan
Ryan... Ditto, ditto, ditto!
DeleteThe nuances of human interaction are endlessly fascinating.
I too am from a Commonwealth country. I am not sure if it is our heritage as natives from a former British colony or just national personalities, but courtesy and non-aggression are standard business practice in my culture.
Hi Sandra,
ReplyDeleteVery engaging post. I like how each step was broken down to emphasis the differences in the communication steps. The picture that you posted was perfect for this post. I am going to share this with my project manager, because communication is something that we struggle with at my job.
Hi Sandra,
ReplyDeleteGreat blog post...you write so well! I too, wondered about this all day meeting that he may have been attending. With both the email and voicemail, what sense did it make to sound urgent when he likely would not have received the message in a timely manner anyway? Get your butt over to his office and find him if you need it that badly, right? :)
Lorena~
I agree with your analysis that face-to-face meetings are often the most effective form of communication. Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton, and Kramer (2008) assert that project teams should “have the opportunity to meet periodically to reaffirm the project’s focus” and that these meetings “reinforce the team’s identity and working relationships” (p. 365). Scheduling regular team meetings also allows the time to review progress reports and to showcase the team’s results to various stakeholders. This is especially important when dealing with a large project audience.
ReplyDeleteReferences
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.