I felt that the e-mail was precise and succinct. It was also non-threatening and I could add any inflection I wanted to. It addressed the problem that the meeting went on and gave less time to contribute the data, but still led me to understand that my input was necessary. For me it was the most formal means of communication. I also appreciated being able to reread it and refer back to it if necessary. Factors – I am a visual person and like to reread messages. I also appreciate the fact that the message gave me an option to help the sender by giving her just the data she needed with the implication that I could write a more complete report, later.
The disembodied voice on the voice-mail was also formal and non-threatening. There was a bit of sympathy for my plight, and there was generosity in the tone when the caller suggested just sending the data in an e-mail. However, this form of communication was also the one that could be misinterpreted as complaining and whiny if the caller had not had a well-modulated voice. This would be the means of communication most open to being misconstrued. Factors – I like the fact that I heard a message that was respectful and concise. I also like the fact that I can play the message over again if I need to. I am also an auditory learner and sometimes a spoken message will help me visualize the process I need to do something better than a written message.
The face-to-face message, with the individual draped over “my” cubicle wall was certainly informal. It made me uncomfortable, like she was “lying in wait” for me to get out of the meeting, and I felt trapped. I know that she’s an excellent designer, friend and colleague but I was worried that she was going to stand there for the rest of the afternoon watching me collect the data and send it to her. However, this means of communication also gave her a chance to show me respect and add body language and facial expression to her vocal quality, conveying respectful urgency. Factors – I am aware of my own tendency to engage someone in conversation in a face-to-face situation. The very informality of the communication dispelled a sense of urgency.
I appreciated the anonymity of the e-mail. It gave me the feeling that the sender expected me to do what I needed to do without feeling guilty. In the verbal messages there was no way for her to hide the faintly accusatory “I know you were in that meeting, but…” I could focus on doing what she needed. Additionally, as record keeping is very important, we both could refer back to the date and time of her message.
The implication is that, as a sender, I need to be an expert in all three forms, for the sake of diplomacy and the process of the project. By focusing on experiencing and evaluating my own reactions I can then put myself in the position of other members of the team and be more aware of the manner in which they best receive communication. It is my responsibility to get the message across most efficiently.
However, with this caveat I would also say, as a PM, I would prefer to deliver a message in person and address any questions that might arise, at that time, and then get out of the way to let the project member get the work done!
Reference:
Ertmer, P., & Quinn, J. (Eds.) (2007). The ID Casebook: Case 29, Catherine Nelson: Managing Processes and People in an Instructional Design Project. Case Studies in Instructional Design (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ. Pearson Education, Inc.
