I found the email to be straightforward with a clear and
concise message. The needs are clearly
identified with instructions on how to respond.
The message while formal and straight to the point is still in a
personable manner without any negative undertones.
The voicemail conveys the same message and is in a manner
similar to the email, it is straight to the point and in a friendly tone. The voice inflections are appropriate and
stress key points in the same manner.
Face-to-face
The face-to-face video also results in a similar
interpretation. The message is delivered
with a smile and non-threatening body language, and the facial expressions also
help in stressing any important information. But I thought it was a bit too relaxed for
someone needing a report right away.
In this scenario and in the way it was presented I
preferred the email method of communication, and then the voicemail and the
face-to-face video last. Dr. Stolovitch
in his video presents ways to communicate effectively and states that effective
communication involves attitude, tone, body language, and is most effective
when face-to-face with all parties involved “ (Stolovitch,
2012) . I think in many situations face-to-face can
be a very effective way to communicate.
Not only are you hearing the message but can also see a person’s
attitude and tone, and so have the opportunity to dynamically change the way
the conversation is going if necessary. In
email this is harder to do, once the email has been written it cannot be
changed. So, it is important to be sure
the email conveys a clear purpose in a diplomatic way that cannot be misunderstood
or taken the wrong way, the email in this scenario accomplished that. The
reason I preferred the email in this scenario is just because of the very
relaxed nature of the video, for me it took away from the message. As far as voicemails, in my experience they
are not always acknowledged and can go unheard.
There is also the possibility of the message being inaudible and
unclear, although that was not the case in the scenario.
Dr. Stolovitch suggests a strategy for communicating with
project teams and to set the standards early on. The recommendation is to discuss the
frequency, format, and response times of meetings with the client. Dr. Stolovitch reminds project managers that
their responsibility is to remain diplomatic, keep the peace, and keep any communication
clear and focused (Stolovitch, 2012) .
References:
Stolovitch, D. (2012). Communicating with
Stakeholders. Laureate Education, Inc. Retrieved from
https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_551248_1%26url%3D
Sheila,
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you that face to face communication is the best method of communication. Peoplecommunicating.com explains, "Face to face communication still remains the best and most complete way of getting our message across".
I understand that you felt that the face-to-face communication presented was a bit relaxed for ordering an urgent report. However, I would look at it from a different angle. Since we do not know the background of the situation surrounding this report, this keeps the door open to speculations. If Mark is truly an overloaded, very busy person, and writing the report is not his direct duty or is not a priority, then asking for it in a stronger tone would not help. Personally, I prefer the cordial tone that was conveyed in the face-to-face communication. If I was in a meeting all day and I had tons of work to finish, then someone approaches for a report in a bossy manner I don't know how my reaction would be. Moreover, I had many situations where I really needed an urgent thing and one of my teachers simply says that she did not check her email so she was not informed! I guess that face-to-face communication spares a lot of trouble.
Reference
PeopleCommunicating.com. (n.d.). Face-to-face communication. Retrieved from http://www.people-communicating.com/face-to-face-communication.html