- How did your interpretation of the message change from one modality to the next?
- What factors influenced how you perceived the message?
- Which form of communication best conveyed the true meaning and intent of the message?
- What are the implications of what you learned from this exercise for communicating effectively with members of a project team?
Communication can occur by various means, each with varying degrees of richness (Daft & Lengel, 1984). At present, there are four basic communication modes utilized in the workplace: face-to-face meetings, audio or telephone exchanges, video-mediated conferences, and computer-mediated text transfers. Using media richness theory, McGrath and Hollingshead (1993) developed a grid of task and media fit to explain the moderating effect of task type on media richness and performance. Briefly, their model suggests that there is an optimal fit for the information richness required of a task and the media chosen to mediate that task. For example, text based computer messaging is a "good fit" for generating ideas, but not for negotiating conflicts; likewise, video systems offer the optimal level of richness for judgment tasks but are insufficient for negotiating tasks and too rich for generating ideas.
After reading the email, listening to the voice message and face-to-face interaction; although, each message had the same meaning, the delivery of the message will determine how the message is received, and there were no factors that affected my decision or reaction to the message.
I would rate face-to-face communication as more of a preferred choice of communication and not necessarily the better choice. Again, all three forms of communication have the same message but the delivery and interpretation may be different.
After reading and experiencing the communicative correspondences, my perception in regards to how messages are delivered, I don’t think that there is a better way, but depending on the circumstances of the situation, one of these forms of communication can be a by-product of the sender, but the interpretation is left up to the receiver.
Posts
3 comments:
Nathanial,
I appreciated your references regarding communications models. Thank you.
You stressed that the "messenger" has to fit the content to the appropriate means of communications. I hadn't thought about that. I suppose the analogy would be like lecturing to a class on the dispersal of radioactive fallout in the Jet Stream without giving the students the benefit of a reference document and a graphic map.
I have sat through so many classes where I had to drink too much Diet Coke just to focus.
I need to keep this in mind, both as a future designer and as a teacher.
Thank you for the reminder.
Lisa
Nathaniel,
It might be true that depending on the circumstances of the situation, one of the modalilitie of communication presented could be a by-product of the sender, and the interpretation could be left up to the receiver. Howerver, in this particular case, I found voice modality of communication to have an extremely powerful and personal effect in promoting a friendly atmosphere and growth, and encouraging trust and cooperation in business. Email modality, on the other hand, was less effective than face-to-face modality, which was more direct and personal, and could permiate visible intimacy for a greater impact on business cooperation. Voice communication best conveyed the true meaning and intent of the message.
Hi, Nathaniel! Your research references are very interesting. I particularly like the point that certain media are not well suited to resolving conflict. That may be one of the reasons why I didn't like the email delivery in this week's exercise. There have been so many interpretations of the tone of that email. It is easy to see where its recipient could misinterpret the tone.
Liz
Post a Comment