Week 3 assignment was to interpret a project team communication delivered by three different modalities and to reflect upon each. The key to successful project management is effective communication- sharing the right message with the right people in a timely manner (Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton, & Kramer, 2008 p.)
Email
When I read the email, my first thought was that it could be easily misinterpreted by the intended audience (Mark). Second, I didn’t feel like the message was clear and concise and even lacked the purpose of the email. Emails should be concise, clear and relevant. Following those three guidelines your communications is less likely to waste the time on overly verbose messages, or messages that require additional clarification later (unknown n. d.). I also noticed the communication did not begin with a purpose. Stating the purpose of the email is a critical component to effective communication (Stolovitch n. d.). Written communications should include the following:
- Begin with a clear purpose
- State the situation
- Include possible solutions
- Indicate if sign off is required
- Specify the form that the response is required to take
- Keep tone business and respectful (Stolovitch n. d.)
There was no detailed information provided about what type of report which could also lead the intended recipient to ask for further clarification instead of just sending over the report to Jane.
Voicemail
While the tone of the voicemail was warm and welcoming it did not provide the detail the recipient needs without further clarification (Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton, & Kramer, 2008 p. 357). From the tone in the voicemail it seemed that Jane had a pretty good rapport with Mark and she understood his scheduling constraints as if they were a common occurrence. Even though Jane could miss her deadline, in her message she was not clear on when she needed the report.
Face-to-Face
While the face-to-face communication appears to be the most effective means to communication the project needs of Jane, the message was not different. She was not clear or concise with the report she needed. I do applaud the effort of not relying on the written communication or voicemail message that could be misinterpreted. She should have wrapped up the face-to-face meeting with confirmation that’ll she would also send an email to document the conversation between the two of them with the specific report needed the time she needed the report so she does not miss her deadline. I’m not sure the smile at the end of the face-to-face communication was meant as a warm gesture or she was smiling in hopes that Mark would follow through with her request.
References
Portny, S.E., Mantel, S.J., meredith, J.R. Shafer, S.M., Sutton, M.M., & Kramer, B.E. (2008), Project managment:Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hobken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Stolovitch, H. (n. d.). Project Management and Instrcutional Design. Retrieved June 27,2012. https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_1342057_1%26url%3D
Unknown (n. d.). 6 Tips to tame the email monster. Retrieved July 14,2012. http://www.duration-driven.com/2010/08/6-tips-to-tame-the-e-mail-monster/#more-303
I agree with you on the lack of details included in the message; Jane was not clear about which report or by when the data was needed. Inclusion of those details would have been more helpful and clear. You mentioned Jane's smile at the end of the video clip and the possible misinterpretation. What other body language do you think she displayed that could be misinterpreted? Dr. Stolovitch's commentary about body language made me more aware of how people can display one emotion or message and verbally deliver another.
ReplyDeleteCheers!
~Shelley
Thanks for the post Shelley.
DeleteI didn't take Jane's face-to-face meeting serious at all. She seemed more about pleasing Mark with her smile and folded arms than getting the report information. Even her tone was laid back. No since of urgency in her tone, but clearly she's in danger of being late with her submission if she doesn't get the report from Mark. I also looked at it from the perspective that pershaps this wasn't a great acting job by the actors to play in the script. It just wasn't convincing.
Something that has not been identified in the other blogs that I have seen, and relates to the case study for the discussion we read this week, is how do you hold someone accountable when they do not report to you?
ReplyDeletePortny et el (2012) mention key approaches that a team member can use when they do not have direct authority over someone (pg. 300):
1. Find out who has direct authority over the individual, and get them involved in the situation.
2. Put it in writing.
3. Be specific.
4. Follow-up.
5. Make the person accountable to the team.
6. Get a commitment
7.Create a sense of urgency and importance
Portny, S.E., Mantel, S.J., meredith, J.R. Shafer, S.M., Sutton, M.M., & Kramer, B.E. (2008), Project managment:Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hobken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Thanks for the post. Great perspective.
ReplyDeleteI actually touch on holding project team members accountable in my initial post for this week and to me has a lot to do with the Project managers holding people accountable if they accept the responsibility to complete the assignment (Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton, & Kramer, 2008). The PM can't hold people accountable if they don't accept the resonsibility and I'm not convinced that Dan accepted his responsibility nor asked to be a member of the project team. I talked about replacing him as a resource in my post because they never really had his buy in from the beginning of the project.
- Shonda