The Art of Effective Communication

 The Art of Effective Communication             

 This week’s blog assignment was very interesting, and confirmed my beliefs on communicating crucial messages effectively. The assignment entailed viewing the same message through different modalities: email, voicemail, and a face-to-face conversation, (Laurette Education, n.d.). The communication was occurring between two team members, one of whom needed a report from the other team member to meet a deadline within the project. 

Email: My first reaction when reading the email was that I sensed a tone of frustration. While there weren’t any words in all caps, or use of exclamation points (indicative of yelling), there was not a genuine sense of compassion felt in the email. While the giver the of message did mention that they knew how busy the receiver was in their meeting that day, there wasn’t any offer of support or encouragement. If I was the individual receiving this email, and I did not have the report readily available, it would be easy for me to ignore or forget about the email for several more days until I had it complete.  Something even more important about email is that if the receiver of the message has been very busy, they are most likely inundated with emails from many different departments, and are less likely to even get to your email in a timely manner. If you were to use email with stakeholders, a request for response would be necessary within the message, so that you know when the message was received, and if a response is not given, then you can try other forms of communication, (Stolovich, n.d.).

Voicemail: My first reaction to the voicemail was that I sensed a tone of frustration, and not a true sense of compassion for how busy the receiver of the message has been. Again, if I received this voicemail, and did not have the report readily available, it would be easy to put off getting the report to the giver of the message in a timely manner. However, if I were to receive a voicemail, the message would be heard as more crucial than if it were sent via email. To me, if a person leaves a voicemail this usually means that they have already tried communicating with me via email, and now they are trying voicemail, and maybe I should start listening to their needs a little more carefully.

Face-to-face:  When receiving the face-to-face message, the giver was smiling, and seemed open to a conversation, rather than a one-sided demand. While the words were still the same, the individual’s body language helped me to feel more comfortable, and less like I was in trouble for the delayed report. As stated by Dr. Stolovich (n.d.), 93% of communication occurs within the tone, body language, timing, and frequency of the message.  When dealing with this specific message, and its crucial nature, I would recommend a face-to-face message, so that the giver knows that the receiver has heard the message, and that action can be taken quickly.

When working with stakeholders, the project manager needs to identify which forms of communication are preferred within the organization. Also, project managers need to identify the importance of the message, and use the appropriate form of communication. When giving oral communication, you should always send a follow-up email to the stakeholder stating what was discussed, so that you have a trail of documentation, (Achong, n.d.). As stated by Budrovich (n.d.), communicating effectively throughout a project is a true art.

Resources

Achong, T. & Budrovich, V. (n.d.). Practitioner voices: strategies for working with stakeholders. Retrieved on July 7^th, 2012 from: https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_1340289_1%26url%3D

Laurette Education, Inc. (n.d.). The art of effective communication. Retrieved on July 8^th, 2012 from: http://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/EDUC/6145/03/mm/aoc/index.html

Stolovich, (n.d.). Communicating with stakeholders. Retrieved on July 7^th, 2012 from: https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_1340289_1%26url%3D

Project Post-Mortem

               The project that I was involved in was creating a curriculum map for the coming year that showed an overview of the topics that the 2^nd grade teachers would cover in an academic year.  This map had to be correlated to state standards, and to the various curriculums that we were implementing. In total, this ended up being a 60 page document that contained a lot of information.  The project was successful because we had highly qualified subject matter experts on our team who were able to model what the curriculum mapping process looked like. We had a great frame of reference for our starting point.

                 

             The project could have been more successful, if every team member was held accountable to completing portions of the curriculum map, and if each individual performed to the same work standards. This is where a work breakdown structure or a work-order agreement would have helped everyone understand their role on the team. I also believe that a linear responsibility chart would have allowed each team member to see how they fit into the big picture, (Portny, 2008). Individuals on the team were not sold on the importance of a curriculum map, so of course they did not give as much effort as expected on the project.

                 

              Something that would have motivated the supporters to complete their tasks could have been a small stipend that would be given as a reward for fulfilling the work-order agreement.  The importance of choosing strong candidates to fill project positions was also reiterated throughout this project. As mentioned by Portny (2008), candidates should have been chosen after speaking with human resources. In the case of the curriculum mapping project, each teacher was required to participate in the project, and so there was very little buy-in.

               

               Lastly, the amount of time given to the teachers to finalize their curriculum maps was only two weeks. This greatly affected the quality of the curriculum maps, and the time frame should have been expanded.  A post-mortem meeting was not held after the completion of this project.

Resources

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.