This week’s assignment provides an interesting experiment designed to create an awareness of subtleties in differing forms of communication. We are exposed to the same message delivered through three different modalities: textual, audio, and audio/visual. The textual modality is presented in the form of an e-mail, and so our focus is on meaning based upon word choice and sentence structure as well as the message conveyed. The audio modality is presented in the form of a voicemail. Now the focus shifts slightly and we generally utilize vocal tone and inflection in the conveyance of the message. The last modality is presented through the use of a video message. Here we have the additional cues of face and hand gestures as well as any ambience presented through the background or business setting.
Before discussing the pros and cons of the different modalities used for communication, it perhaps is important first to mention the purpose for communication. The derivation of the word “communication” reveals much about the hidden factors that are involved in the art of communication. The word literally means the “act of building together.” And so the purpose of communication therefore involves a mutual cooperative and collaborative intent to create. We should always remember that besides the message, communication implies that we must operate from the perspective of shared or common ground and the value of developing a strong working relationship with others.
Obviously, the form of communication that provides more cues to support a cooperative and collaborative atmosphere is probably going to be deemed the most effective. The restraints of maintaining a professional work ethics or professional “tone of voice” in our communication may limit some of us because generating that cooperative and collaborative climate involves using a “personable” tone in the delivery of the message. Aspects of that “personable” tone are presented through vocal inflections and tempo (audio cues) and through body language (visual cues). Our facial and hand gestures, or simply a smile verses “straight-face,” or the modulations of the voice are examples of visual and aural cues that we rely upon to provide the added dimension of “personable” communication.
As we experienced the three modes of communication for this week’s assignment, we received more information from the audio/video form of communication. The speaker’s smile and the tendency to pause slightly as if to find the right word conveys a quality of genuineness; the other modalities, especially the audio recording, are more deliberate, planned and rehearsed and so lose the component of being “personable”. This quality can be employed in the strictly textual or strictly audio media by enlarging the message – a practice not exactly applauded as effective workplace communication.
Certainly, starting with the recipient’s name is a good technique for “personable” communication. The young female communicator also tried to show some connection with the recipient by acknowledging that the day certainly had been a very busy one. It also offered a polite justification for both the failure to have sent the report already and the need, therefore, for this message to be sent. The communicator also showed an attempt at connecting with the recipient by offering two ways in which the information might be provided. Providing options and allowing the recipient to choose helps the recipient feel that he has some control of the situation. It can be viewed as a “face-saving” measure perhaps. This need not be a message from superior to inferior, but one of collective problem-solving.
In developing any type of cooperative/collaborative relationship, it’s important to avoid directly blaming the recipient or even implying that blame is being attached to the request for the needed data. As I listened to the voicemail message, the tone seemed a bit accusatory: “I might miss my own deadline if I don’t get your report.” Besides expressing an individual (I, my, me) message instead of suggesting a collaborative spirit, note how often the word “report” was used in such a short message. Instead of using synonyms in order to vary the word choice, repetition of the word “report” suggested a pressure that the recipient’s omission was unduly placing on the communicator. A burden was created because of the delay in sending the information. That both blames but also puts pressure on the recipient.
The audio message seemed clearly rehearsed which detracts from a “personable” approach. In the audio/video message the communicator paused or lifted the voice suggesting the message was being made unrehearsed, thus suggesting the message is intended to express a sense of genuineness. I noted also that in the audio/video form, the communicator was providing a “cause and effect” explanation. This was given not to compound blame but to offer a reason behind the request. If people understand where another person is coming from, they are more inclined to appreciate the difficult position the person may be in and therefore provide more than a minimum effort at helping to resolve the issue. The situation is converted from potential blame to one of mutual problem-solving.
Of the three modes of communication, the face-to-face allows a communicator to convey more easily and clearly the subtleties behind a message as well as the message itself. The voicemail is superior to the e-mail because it allows a communicator to convey tone. And the face-to-face is superior to the voicemail because it allows the communicator to convey additional cues that add the “personable” element to a message – smile and hand gestures. Face-to-face allows the communicator to provide “quality time” with the recipient. So, if given the chance, it’s more effective communication (building together) to walk down the hallway and speak with a person directly rather than putting it in an e-mail. We all know that you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar; so the extra time you invest in talking directly with a co-worker is time devoted toward developing a positive working relationship. It builds trust and respect, and fosters the all-important culture of collaboration and mutual cooperation.
I find it interesting that you preferred the voicemail over the email, as I found the voicemail the least effective or pleasant. I didn’t like the woman’s tone and found it took out the sincerity of the email’s acknowledgement that Mark is currently very busy. I found her tone sharp and unnerving. I did write that this could be my own personal bias perhaps due to a former co-worker, and that I was interested to read my classmates perception of the voicemail.
ReplyDeleteDr. Stolovitch talked about how effective communication can be influenced by the personality of the recipient (Laureate Education, Inc., n.d.). I think when it came to the voicemail I found it less effective because of past experience and my personal take on her tone and the way she said the words from the email. I actually found the email superior to the voicemail, but we both agreed that the face-to-face was by far the winner. I found the face-to-face genuine, sincere, and effective as Jane stated her need in a respectful, thoughtful, yet clear approach; she understands Mark is busy, but she really needs that data and she’s fine with Mark providing it to her without the completed report.
Reference
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (n.d.). Communicating with Stakeholders [DVD]. In EDUC 6145 Project Management in Education and Training. Baltimore, MD: Stolovitch, H.