The Art of Communicating Effectively

In this week's communication exercise, “The Art of Effective Communication”, the same message was delivered in three modalities: via email, voicemail, and face-to-face communication. The intention of the exercise is to interpret each message and the potential nuances. What are the subtle differences in how the message, delivered in three different formats, might be interpreted by the recipient?

The email version evoked images of a slightly desperate and stressed sender. While the tone seemed understanding that Mark (the recipient) was legitimately busy, I projected an image of sender that was a little stressed out. The same message delivered via voicemail came across as no nonsense, direct, with a slightly edgy or perturbed tone. It was the least “friendly” sounding of the three. The face-to-face delivery portrayed a woman who conveyed a message that was much less stressed; perhaps even low key. She was direct and clear about what she needed, but her message seemed the friendliest and the least stressed about the situation. A big plus: you could see her smile. I didn't "hear" a smile in the voicemail. Nor did I "read" a smile in the email version.

This exercise provided an interesting and effective way to prompt consideration of how the same message may be interpreted through different delivery modalities. In fact, it made me think of a recent work experience. In my professional world, 95% of my work is conducted virtually – via email, voicemail, instant messaging, or virtual web-meetings. (5% being occasional long distance travel for face-to-face meetings, etc.) Last week, I was invited to a three day, offsite meeting that was held at the home of one of our organizations Directors. The intention was to provide a creative space that would inspire open, creative and innovative thinking. At one point, during day two of the face-to-face session, one of the participants said to me in a surprised voice, “I never realized how comical you can be.” I said, “Really? I guess I can come across as pretty serious on some of our calls.” She replied – with surprising emphasis, “Yeah, you can be pretty intense on some of those [project] calls!” I was really taken aback by this because I consider myself very approachable, funny, positive, but always strive to be professional in my interactions. It seemed I may have been misunderstood or that my complete personality hadn't been coming through during our project interactions. At the end of our third day, we all debriefed and shared our ideas regarding the value of meeting face-to-face versus the usual virtual communications. Several of us commented enthusiastically on how valuable and effective it had been to be able to work together face-to-face … including the woman who had commented on her different perception of me since meeting for the first time. The exchange made me realize that it is very difficult to get a well rounded sense of someone (or their message) strictly via email, voicemail, or conference call. There truly is something refreshing about good old face-to-face meetings once in a while! The key learning is: Be mindful of how your messages/interactions may be interpreted by others who don’t know the whole you!

Reference

Media: The Art of Effective Communication was retrieved on 01.20.2011 from http://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/EDUC/6145/03/mm/aoc/index.html  

Learning from a Project “Post-mortem”

One of the most challenging projects that I’ve been involved in was a technical sales certification program that I was called upon to manage in partnership with another Project Manager. This PM had successfully implemented a similar certification program for another client group (prior to a merger) on another technology and the client wanted to replicate it for a specific technology certification in the merged company. Since the goal was to replicate his approach, he acted as the lead PM and was chartered with managing the project charter, project scope, communications plan and all of the key PM components of the project. The program was comprised of web-based training, synchronous virtual training elements and some leader led face-to-face workshops. I was asked to manage the development of the web-based training.

The situation was complicated by the fact that our company had just gone through a significant merger. The lead PM was from the new company and I was in the learning organization they were being integrated into. As a result of the merger, our organization was going through a painful cultural struggle wrought with power struggles, fear, resentment and distrust. This impacted the project and complicated the relationships amongst project team members. As the project progressed, the lead PM and I found ourselves disagreeing on many of the tasks that needed to take place in terms of instructional design approaches, the standards and processes of the organization, and the tracking of certification testing results – most of which were new to the lead PM. Eventually, rather than deal with the realities of the new organization, he began negotiating with the client and making decisions on his own. Many of these decisions were not communicated across the functional teams and this resulted in confusion, missed dates, diminished quality and integrity of the instructional design, problems with the assessments and tracking of the certification, and missed dates. Additionally, many of the agreements he made with the client he could not come through on and he had to reach out to me later to create fixes and come up with last minute solutions. There was no structured change management plan, the client was very aggressive and she wouldn’t take “no” for an answer, and the lead PM was intimidated by her. The scope creep went completely out of control (Portny, et. al., 2008).

Overall, if I was faced with this same situation again, I would have made clear agreements with the lead PM. This would include clearly defined roles and responsibilities, project charter, statement of work, project scope, work breakdown structure, communication plan, and change management process. I would follow the phases of ISD Project Management more closely. This would include the standard ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation) approach to managing instructional design deliverables – as well as Allen & Harden’s approach that includes Project Initiation, Project Definition, Project Planning, Project Tracking and Project Closeout. (Allen & Harden, 2008). While there are many valid approaches to Instructional Systems Design (ISD) and project management, deciding on and consistently applying a methodology, throughout the lifecycle of the project, ensures that all aspects of your project will be cared for. This provides clear expectations for all stakeholders and truly helps to keep the project on track through completion and project close.

References

Allen, S., & Hardin, P. C. (2008). Developing instructional technology products using effective project management practices. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 19(2), 72–97. Copyright by Springer-Verlag, New York.

Greer, M. (2010). The project management minimalist: Just enough PM to rock your projects. Laureate International Universities.

Portney, 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. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hoboken, NJ.