Communicating Effectively

According to Dr. Stolovitch (n.d.), 93% of communication comes from elements outside of the actual content.  We also need to consider the organizational culture and individual when looking at what the best mode of communication is to use in different situations.  This week, we have been tasked with looking at the same content presented three different ways: email, voicemail and face-to-face.  Our task is to see what (if anything) changed in our interpretation of the message from one modality to the next. 

My own listening:
I am aware that I come from a formal background, and have my own internal hierarchy of urgency based on my own preferences.  Email, within my own framework is the the most formal, and will be the first priority regardless of the content, voicemail is second and tasks presented from face-to-face communication will be the lowest priority.  Said another way, if you want something done by me quickly - send me an email.  I also appreciate clarity (as do most stakeholders) and minimal extraneous information in a message as it assists me in sorting through what is important.  Dr. Stolovitch (n.d.) advised clearly stating the purpose of a communication up front which supports this type of communication.

Reaction to email:
As I read through the email, my interpretation was that it was:

• Gentle
• Urgent
• Understanding of constraints

I suspect that that this was not the first communication on the issue (as the issue was urgent, and there was significant pre-amble around understanding being busy etc.).  I would have responded to this communication right away by email,

Reaction to voicemail:
As I listened to the voicemail, the tone of the message came across as much more urgent than it did through the email and less gentle.  The urgency of the need came through, and I would have responded first with a return of the phone call, and second with fulfillment of the request via email.

Reaction to face-to-face:
I found the face-to-face communication to be almost confusing after the first two modes.  Jane was smiling and trying to be pleasant and almost seemed relaxed as she hung over the cubicle wall.  If I received the message in this manner, I could potentially ignore it.  The delivery did not seem to match my initial interpretation of the content at all and was very informal (Portny, Mantle, Meredith, Shafer & Sutton, 2008).  Given the significant impacts of the request, I am surprised that such an informal method was used, and would hope that Jane decided to follow up on that face-to-face conversation in a written format as well.

Lessons learned:
After experiencing this communication through three different modalities, I'm very aware of the downfalls and confusion that can be caused through face-to-face communication.  The 93% of the communication that came through outside of the content in this modality for me was confusing and seemed to blur the urgency and importance of the issue at hand.  Written communication, with a clearly stated purpose and limited extraneous information continue to occur to me as the best primary mode for communication.

References:

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.

Stolovitch, H. (n.d.) Communicating with Stakeholders, [Video].