The email was written rather casually but it conveyed its intended message well and with diplomacy. The message is “clear, concise, and focused” which Stolovich (Laureate Education, Inc., n.d.) says is important to get things done. Jane began the email with an understanding tone and wrapped up the email very considerately even though she was the person that potentially had a reason to be frustrated as her deadline could be affected. I get a sense that the two parties have a good, casual, effective business relationship. The email also contained a necessary sense of urgency. The email is effective in that it documents her attempt at communicating with Mark and places accountability on him. I would have liked for Jane to have included more specific information on the deadline date as well as adding that she would like for Mark to contact her to confirm that the message has been received. Another weakness of email communication is that it does not allow the sender to be certain that there message is being received.
The voicemail essentially echoes the strengths and weakness that the email provides. They are both documented forms of communication that deliver a diplomatic message without being certain that the recipient receives the message. The voicemail, however, adds a more personal touch and more clearly conveys her urgency.
The face-to-face interaction is effective for a number of reasons. The message deliver knows that the message is being received. Feedback can be gained immediately and, in this case, that is important. One of the most important aspects of the face-to-face communication is that it incorporates a social, personal, and interactive means of connecting. Kupritz and Cowell (2011) suggest that interactive conversation is superior to other computer-mediated methods of communicating, like email, due to their potential to de-humanize workplace interaction.
I believe it is crucial to deliver a piece of information in the most effective means available. In some cases an email may be the most effective, while a face-to-face conversation may be more appropriate at other times. Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton, and Kramer (2008) state that “both written and verbal¬ communications-as well as formal and informal communications- are useful, meaningful ways to share and collect important project information” (Portny et al, 2008, p.357). I believe that face-to-face communication, however, best displays the true meaning and intent of the message given its personal, interactive nature. I believe that communicating with a project team includes a number of variants within each scenario. Written communication is documented and can provide easily accessed detailed information and face-to-face integrates a personal touch. The best approach requires an understanding of the given situation and acting accordingly and with diplomacy.
Kupritz, V. W., & Cowell, E. (2011). Productive Management Communication. Journal Of Business Communication, 48(1), 54-82. doi:10.1177/0021943610385656
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (n.d.). Communicating with Stakeholders. [Video webcast]. Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_551248_1%26url%3D
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.