The Art of Communication: Same Message, Three Ways

In the Walden University multimedia program “The Art of Effective Communication”, the message scenario for Mark’s missing report was delivered in three distinct ways.  Here we discuss how you communicate with different project stakeholders is equally important but can have distinct differences in the way messages are interpreted.  Below we discuss the difference in one message delivered in three ways.

Face to Face

The first of the communication methods we will discuss is that of the face to face discussion.  Jane seems almost apologetic in the beginning of her request of the missing report promised.  The hesitancy and smiling face shows almost a demeanor of inferiority to Mark.  Jane needs to “lean in” and ask Mark in a businesslike but more authoritative stance and tone.  It was too casual a conversation beginning if the missing report really is “important and urgent”.  The playful smile, along with head tilt and casualness of the arms folded on top of the cubicle sends the signal that she is being playful and relying on team camaraderie to get what she wants.  Then her tone changes to one of almost being too stern, which may cause Mark to be offended, especially if he is just returning from an all-day intensive meeting.  While she may be trying to be authoritative, in this face to face scenario, Jane just comes across as friendly to attack mode.

Voicemail

The second method of communication, voicemail is more informal and meaning is often interpreted from the tone of voice which may lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations.  In this scenario, the tone does convey the importance and urgency of the need for the report.  She keeps the message very neutral while convey the importance.  She is very businesslike in her tone and keeps it steadily so until the very end when she conveys sincerity in her tone in the verbal signoff of “I really appreciate your help.”

Email

The third by email appeared very businesslike and though opened with a possible excuse for the delay, “emphasized the urgency and importance of the assignment (Portney et al., 2008., p. 258).”  The email is written in a way which shows an act of authority as Mark has committed to doing the report needed by Jane.   Rather than demanding the report, Jane offers Mark the opportunity to tell her when he will be able to deliver it as promised and relays her own urgency for her request as well as the importance of his report to her own.  Jane was also confirming in writing the important information that was shared in a previous discussion.  This tends to alert the recipient that there is now a formal paper trail to the fact that there was a discussion on the importance of the report and subsequent need for urgency.  Written communication enables one to present factual data more efficiently, chose their words carefully in order to minimize misunderstandings, provide historical records of the information shared, and share the same message with a wide audience (Portney, et al., 2008, p. 358).”

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.

The Art of Effective Communication
http://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/EDUC/6145/03/mm/aoc/index.html

Learning from a Project "Post-mortem"

In a previous project management endeavor writing a large multi-million dollar federal grant which involved all the departments of the organization, it was important to follow the project management process.  I began with reading the terms of the grant to establish the intent and scope of the project.  I then had to design and present a proposal to convince the leadership team this was a worthwhile endeavor as it would require resources from all departments both in the grant proposal and the resultant grant fulfillment if the grant was awarded.  The proposal as also a way to sell the project internally to all departments and to attain a project sponsor who could work around roadblocks or uncooperative department employees. 

The grant writing group consisted of three to five participants (three constant and two as needed) with me as the lead.  The writing of the proposal was a great way to identify the project needs and proposed solutions as well as organizing a plan and estimating and allocating resources.  I was solely responsible for crafting the budget as I was familiar with the amount of detail required for federal grants.  The grant writing group began by defining the project by first identifying the project need, then confirming the project addresses the identified need and finally determining the importance o the project to the organization.  We then considered the strategy for the grant  proposal and established objectives.  We looked at limitations and based on politics (not stepping on other state agency toes), organizational employee constraints (recent reductions in force had caused employee shortages), and short turnaround time for the project grant proposal deadline (4 weeks), and incorporated many of the limitations identified into the project plan.   During the project,  we also had to deal with project unknowns as they occurred due to the short turnaround time for the grant proposal.

The grant proposal itself actually served as the project statement of work and the project undertaken was to develop the statement of work (grant proposal).   Had we actually received the grant this would have become a new project with a project manager assigned to manage the grant.  Despite the outcomes of the grant project (we did not get the grant award), it was an excellent exercise in each department understanding departmental needs vs. wants as well as each department defining how they are essential to the organizational mission and any large statewide projects undertaken.    This project also allowed for each department to understand the interrelationships among and between the departments which allowed them to break down some of the communication barriers which had been erected in the previous decade. Prior to this project undertaking, each department had become silos unwilling to share information of contributed to other departmental projects as they vied for organizational control and recognition during a time of extreme budget cuts.  This is not to say that the project totally eliminated the issues, but it did go a long way in building communication and relationships.  Group writing of the grant contents with an outside legal expert doing the editing was also a great idea as it took away any internal strife of wording getting stricken or changed. 

The single most frustrating part of the project was the lack of buy-in, cooperation, or collaboration from the engineering department representative.  In hindsight, we should have asked for another representative from the department as soon as we realized he was being uncooperative.  Also in retrospect, I would have spent more time up front personally convincing the departmental directors of the value to the organization and how they were an essential part of the grant as well as how it would benefit them.  This would have saved valuable time in getting departments to cooperate as there was one member of our department who had been instrumental in creating the rifts between departments in the last decade and assuring other departments that he was not involved nor in charge of the project would have smoothed over many roadblocks up front.