I
received a message from my supervisor last week; below you will find the
message.
Steve,
I was
wondering if you were able to complete the new SOP for our internal application
review project today instead of the original due date; this Friday. If we can
get it done before the due date it would allow me to review it and compare it
to our Florida location’s SOP draft. I took a look at your schedule and it
looks like you have plenty of meetings and will be at one of our satellite
locations on Thursday. Please let me know what time you will have it to me on
Thursday. Thanks, Jessica.
Text version:
When
I read the email I assumed that Jessica was asking me if I could accommodate
her request. As I continued to read the email, the end of sounded like I had to
have it done early based on the last sentence, “Please let me know what time
you will have it to me on Thursday.” Her tone in the email sounds sympathetic
in relation to my busy schedule. Because she is my supervisor she technically
didn’t have to acknowledge my busy schedule or ask if I could accommodate her
request. This text had mixed messages in it. However, with Jessica being my
supervisor, it would be in my best interest to accommodate her request
regardless of her “asking”.
This
email needed to be organized better and be more concise. It had mixed messaging
that confused the recipient (me). Dr. Stolovitch stated that, “Written
communications should begin with a clear purpose.” I think Jessica could have
simply asked, “Steve, can you get the new SOP report to me by Thursday instead
of Friday?” That would have been just as effective.
Audio Version:
The
same message was delivered to me via a voice message that Jessica left on my
office and cell phone. The audio version of the message provided me with more
color. I could sense urgency, panic, and concern in her voice. There was more of
a sympathetic tone acknowledging my busy schedule. This in turn made the
message sound more genuine.
In person:
Jessica
is a very jovial person but is also very direct. We had an all staff meeting
and after the meeting she asked the same question she had emailed to me and
left as a voice message (I returned both the email and phone call prior to the
meeting). When she made the request of me I could tell that she was more so
“telling” me to have it done by Thursday but the rest of her mannerisms were
suggesting that I had the option to have it done by Thursday instead of Friday.
Dr. Stolovitch stated, “Tonality and body language are important elements in
communicating in person.” The more familiar you are with a person in different
settings and situations, the better you can interpret their message(s).
Analysis:
In my
opinion, the best version of the message was the voice message she delivered to
me because it include her voice/tone and was clear and concise. The second best
version was in person but was diluted by her mannerisms. Normally body language
and in person communication is the best and most preferred version of
communication. In this particular instance, it was not. The email offers an
added element. There can be a consistent paper trail and the messages can be
reviewed multiple times and contain the same message. Dr. Stolovitch suggests that oral communication should always be
documented.
Resources:
Multimedia
Program: “The Art of Effective Communication”
Video
Program: "Communicating with Stakeholders"
Hey Steven,
ReplyDeleteDo you think that your supervisor may have actually been giving you a choice because she acknowledged your hectic schedule? Perhaps her emphasis was more of a plea than an ultimatum. I think that the whole situation would have benefited from a more concise line of communication. When you have a chance, check out this article on office communication. http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/19/communicate-better-work-workplace-leadership-careers-job.html