Art of Communication

This week we were asked to reflect on “The Art of Effective Communication”.  While watching this video program, we were able to observe three a single individual message delivered by three different types of communication; audio, video, and written text.  Through this program, we were able to see that the way in which we  deliver a message can have implications on the ways in which our message is received.

The first way we looked at the message was through a company email.  In this email, Jane is asking for an ETA on when “the missing report” was going to be finished.  Jane makes sure that Mark understands that her own work can not be completed without his input, so they are both under the gun at this point.  After reading this email as if I was Mark, I felt a little more pressured to get my work done.  The tone of the email is kind of condescending to a point, where it feels like Jane makes an attempt to give an excuse for why my portion isn’t done.  Plus she makes it feel like her part is really the only important part, but she can’t finish hers without the data from mine.  Since I don’t have a really tone or inflection from her, I don’t know what she really thinks but it feels like she is talking down to me.

The second way we looked at the message was through voice mail.  It was the exact same message but delivered through voice mail.  After listening to is as if I was Mark, I had clear understanding that her work was dependent on mine, that without the data from my report, she would not be able to finish hers.  Since this was a voice mail, I could hear the caring tone in her voice, as if she was almost as worried about my project as she is with hers.  I still had a feeling of her talking down to me, like I don’t understand what are roles are and how they are dependent of each other.  I did however feel like she had an understanding tone when she delivered the last part of the message and asked for the data separately, letting me know that my job was still important and she could finish hers if I supplied her with the data.

The final way the delivered the message was in a face to face communication, Jane visits my cubicle asking me for her needed data.  In this message, her tone is still a little condescending, with the feeling that her job is more important than mine, but by making the trip to my desk, it showed me just how important my job is to hers.  She is able to cheerfully ask for my work, let me know that she why she needs it and even gives me another way in order to help her, all with a smile on her face.  By visiting me face to face, I left the conversation with a more positive feel, and much more likely to try and hurry up and finish or at minimum, email her that data that is needed.

When looking back at the three examples of interactions, the results are very close to what I thought. I went from being nervous, upset, and not willing to help after reading the email, to not feeling as threatened but still not willing to help after the voice mail, to understanding Jane’s frustration, and because she came to my cubicle and smiled at me I was willing to help. The lack of tone of voice and even visual communication lead people to supplement those pieces of the communications with ideas in there head which then leads to misunderstanding and even mistrust. For me personally, I need face to face communication.  Without the addition of verbal and visual communication, my mind starts to add parts that are not already there.  I find this to happen a lot when I am texting with friends.  I normally leave long, well thought out messages, doing my best not to leave any stone unturned.  When some replies back with a short non descript message, I start to freak out, what did he mean by that, is he mad at me.  This not only frustrates me, but it shuts me down, I don’t feel comfortable in the conversation and thus no longer participate.  

As a project lead, I think it is very important that you are as visible as possible during the creation process.  Misunderstandings can very easily lead to having to recreate parts of the project, just because the PM wasn’t clear in what they wanted and the project team members didn’t share their confusion or lack of understanding  during a given point in project.