Part
of my job involves receiving and sending numerous emails, attending multiple
meetings, and using voice mail effectively. I often find that I misread email tone,
although the message is documented and easily clarified. Voice mail messages are challenging when the
sender is not available by phone to clarify the message in case of
questions. Face-to-face meetings for me
are the most satisfying as they can be documented and dialogue can occur
regarding additional information that may be needed.
In
this exercise, we were asked to review the same message in three different
formats: email, voice mail and a
face-to-face context. The message was a request from (I assume) a
team member who was asking for information they needed to complete a report
they were responsible for. The missing information
was apparently the responsibility of the message recipient and was to be given
in an earlier report.
When
I read the email version, it seemed a bit like the sender was chiding the recipient
for not completing their piece of the project on time – and perhaps this was
correct. The email is a documented,
although informal way of communication with a team member. Any questions regarding the content (for
instance, clarifying the specific need and timeline) could easily be gained in
an email conversation.
In
the voice mail, the vocal tone was pleasant and yet firm in the need for
information. The challenge I find with
voice mail aside from the inability to immediately ask questions, is that it is
not easily documented as part of a project communication stream.
As
you might be able to tell, I found the face-to-face method to be the most
valuable for team communication. The
recipient is able to see and hear the sender’s message, and it can be
accompanied by clear dialogue and written documentation.
Additional
thoughts are that how the communication modality is received is partly
dependent on the receiver’s history and style.
The sender should know the team members’ individual preferences and
styles, and attempt to meet their needs in the method of communication that is
used.
Hi Jenni,
ReplyDeleteYou mention that we should try to accommodate a recipient’s preference for communication. Dr. Budrovich, in the “Practitioner Voices” video, gave an example of doing just that. He had a stakeholder who would not read a long email, preferring a quick personal update instead. I would agree with accommodating people if it’s possible. This is not always the case with the prevalence of global teams. For several years now, I’ve been working on teams that are geographically dispersed, so email is our primary mode of communication. I can’t change that, but this week’s assignment has made me give a little more thought to the “tone, spirit, and attitude” described by Dr. Stolovitch.
--Deanna
Hi Jenni,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the e-mail's tone could be perceived as a bit "chiding." The archival aspects of e-mail are definitely a plus, but I also find it to be the most challenging in determining tone. As our society becomes more and more a global village, I believe that we are all going to have to become more accustomed to not only interpreting written communication but also to writing it so that its tone is interpreted as we intend.
Susan