Communicating Effectively

The Art of Effective Communication states that the way you deliver your message can have implications for how your message is received.  A message was delivered in three different modalities.  Below is an analysis of how each modality is perceived. 

EMAIL

Pros: 

1.     Jane began by acknowledging the fact that Mark is busy.  She created a sense of urgency by holding him responsible for his piece and indicated how it impacted the rest of the project.  Portney (2008) states that this is very important and to never minimize any pressure on the person.

2.    It is short and concise and she is very clear about what she needs.  I might have added “Please get this to me by 5:00 today,” to be even more specific.   

3.    The overall tone is friendly and respectful.  

4.    Since this is an email, it is documented. 

Cons: 

1.     Wording: She acknowledges the fact that he is busy and then she negates it with “but.” Battley (2012) recommends using words that work, such as substituting “AND” for “BUT.”  According this this article, one word can make all the difference.  With “AND” you are able to state your opinion while maintaining a good rapport and cooperative stance (Battley, 2012). 

2.    Jane also used “I” too frequently.  She indicated, “I can’t do my report without your data.”  I would omit that and just state the facts:  the project can’t go on without his piece.  There might be interpersonal conflict between Jane and Mark and he doesn’t care that a missed deadline will affect her.

My Response:  She knows I’m really busy, and I will do my very best to get to it after I complete my to-do-list.  I will send her data via email later this evening.        

VOICEMAIL

Voicemail allowed her to emphasize certain words which created more of a sense of urgency.  Again, I would reword some of the phrases as I mentioned in the email analysis.    

My Response:  I better make this project priority!  I will call her and notify her that I am sending her the information and send it to her promptly.  I might be a little annoyed since it interrupts my agenda, but more annoyed at myself since I hadn’t gotten to it sooner. 

FACE-TWO-FACE

Jane’s face-two-face approach was very casual and the friendliest of the three.  Her message lost some of the urgency that was expressed in the other modes; however, her facial expressions show that she is very concerned about her report.  She also speaks very slowly which I think also deters from the sense of urgency.      

My response:  I would probably let her know when I would be able to get the data to her.  It would not have altered my scheduled activities.  I wouldn’t be annoyed by her request in the least bit and would feel happy to meet her request.  But again, it would be on my own timing versus hers.     

BEST MODE

Prior to viewing the segments, I would have said that face-to-face should always be the preferred mode.  However, the intent of the message was to get the data for the report ASAP.  The most urgent, respectful message of the three was the voicemail.  From that, I would have altered my schedule to complete the request.   

IMPLICATIONS

I believe you can alter any mode of communication depending on how you word it, say it, or use your body language.  For example, the urgency was downplayed by Jane in her face-to-face approach by her body language.  Had she sat down in Mark’s cubicle, for example, and spoken a little more quickly the urgency of the matter would have been received.  So again, I think it all depends on how the mode is used in order for it to be deemed effective versus ineffective.   

References: 

Portney, S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., & Sutton, M. M. (2008). Project management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc

Battley, S. (2012).  How to Avoid the "YES, BUT" Trap.  Retrieved from:  http://www.battleyinc.com/resources/articles/47-executive-effectiveness/104-the-yes-but-trap   

Learning from a Project "Post-mortem"

Background/Scope: Last year I worked as a curriculum specialist and was in charge of overseeing the development and implemention of benchmark testing at my school for grades K-8. The principal and I felt that these assessments were necessary in order to keep the teachers accountable for the curriculum, and give us important data on skills not yet mastered. The overall goal was to improve our end-of-the-year test scores. Expected outcomes consisted of 4 benchmark assessments/per grade level with trackers that would identify objectives needing further instruction. Teachers would administer assessment tools quarterly and report the class average score to the principal.

Strategy: The creators of the benchmarks would be the teachers with the intention that the experience would further familiarize them with the standards and objectives. My role was to coordinate the assign due dates for questions. I would then assemble questions into one assessment tool. I was also responsible for making sure teachers used the data from the benchmark to drive their instruction when I met with them during our weekly meetings.

Overall, I felt like the experience was successful. If I were to go back and do it again however, I would certainly do a number of things differently. During the start phase, we held a training on how to create the questions and align them to the objectives. Our first mistake was not involving all the stakeholders. The principal, in this case, was the project champion who had the authority and ability to make the project happen (Portny, 2008). He, unfortunately, was not at the training. I observed many teachers not paying attention or working on other things. His presence as a stakeholder would have most likely influenced teacher’s behavior during the training.

Our second mistake was not clearly explaining the purpose of the project to the team. Teachers already have many responsibilities and to add more workload requires an effective pitch. Greer (2010) states that it is important to assemble a team of players that care about the project. The project definitely had a huge impact on the teachers but it wasn’t clearly communicated. Effective communication is critical!

Another mistake occurred during the planning phase. A work breakdown structure with a schedule would have been very helpful to present during the kickoff meeting. I was very unorganized at times and felt like I was burdening the teachers by constantly reminding them of deadlines. This caused some resentment among certain teachers. Planning is everything and would have relieved me of some problems that occurred throughout the process. Involving teachers in the planning process of the work breakdown structure and schedule would have promoted buy-in. I most likely would have experienced less resistance.

I underestimated the size of the project. Forty-four assessment tools is a lot! It detracted from my other responsibilities. Through proper planning and role assignments during the design phase, I could have delegated better so it didn't detract from my other duties.

Lastly, there was no close phase. Teachers weren’t given the opportunity to reflect on whether or not the tool was useful for them or give feedback. This could have promoted buy-in from resistant teachers had a post-project evaluation been implemented.

Having a better-but still very limited!-understanding of project management has helped me see the value of that experience and what I could have done differently.

References:

Greer, M. (2010). The project management minimalist: Just enough PM to rock your projects! (Laureate custom ed.). Baltimore: Laureate Education, Inc

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.

Stolovich, H. (2011). Project management and instructional design. Retrived from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=6290461&Survey=1&47=8272809&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1.