Face to Face Conversation: How Does the Modality of Exchange Change the Message?

This post has been written as an answer to an assignment question in my ID Masters Degree.

I was given 3 modalities of delivery of the same message from Jane to Mark - email, voicemail and face-to-face message. I was then asked to compare the modalities and share a synthesis of my thoughts regarding what this activity implies about communicating with members of a project team.

The email is written by Jane to Mark. Jane is obviously stressed about a deadline and is relying on some information from Mark to complete her report. She is worried that she will miss her deadline because he hasn’t given her the info she needs. The email is polite, but clear.

The voicemail is somewhat more compelling - the urgency in Jane’s voice is palpable and she seems almost desperate. I would be more likely to respond to this message.

The face-to-face message sends a totally different message - this time Jane is clearly not as concerned as it appeared in the voicemail about the missing information. She seems happy and smiles throughout the message. She isn’t really stressed and seems to understand the reason she doesn’t have the information is because of a meeting that Mark is attending. She is making excuses for Mark and there isn’t any sense of urgency.

Factors that influenced my perception of the message: in the email, Jane was direct and clear about what she needed. There really wasn’t any emotion involved. In the voicemail, her voice sounded stressed and worried. There was a sense of urgency that she needed the information before she missed her deadline. Because there weren’t any visual cues to go on the agitation in her voice conveyed a message of urgency that clearly wasn’t there in the face-to-face message as Jane is smiling all the time and seems very understanding - information completely missing from the audio and written messages.

I would have been more likely to respond to the voicemail as the urgency communicated demanded cooperation. I would have been less likely to respond to the face-to-face message as I felt that Jane wasn’t that worried about the problem and it could probably wait until after my meeting. When communicating with members of a team, I have found email to be the most reliable medium. You have a record of the discussion and it is easy to send out a clear message. You have time to plan the message and can reread before sending. A voicemail is obviously open to interpretation - there are emotions communicated that are left to the listener’s discretion to interpret. Sometimes these may be misinterpreted, whereas an email (if correctly worded) will be more clear and less likely to misinform.

According to a study called The Effect of Communication Modality on Cooperation in Online Environments “we have demonstrated a technique for the quantitative assessment and comparison of the effect of different forms of communication on the development of trust and cooperation. Consistent with the sociological literature, voice communication was found to have an extremely powerful effect in fostering trust and cooperation.” (Jensen, C. et al) 

I agree with this statement, given our example in this assignment. The voicemail is the most compelling and would have elicited an immediate response from me.

References

1. Jensen, C., Farnham, S., Drucker, S. & Kollock, P., The Effect of Communication Modality on Cooperation in Online Environments, http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/sdrucker/papers/chidilemmas.pdf

2. Web Link to media clip: The Art of Effective Communication, http://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/EDUC/6145/03/mm/aoc/index.html 

Reflections on a past project - the importance of training

A few years ago I led a SmartBoard implementation at a K-12 school. The administrators and I decided that we would remove the whiteboards and replace them with the SmartBoards. We installed all of the boards over the summer and the new boards were ready for teachers when they arrived back from their holidays. I organized training for the teachers and everyone attended at least one training session. 

Use of the SmartBoards was very slow at first - teachers were wary of the new technology. They felt that it was very difficult to rely on a SmartBoard as it was possible that it could have technical issues and leave them with no board at all. They wanted a backup plan, and we had removed their whiteboards so they didn’t have one. In retrospect, this was a bold move. The thinking was that if they didn’t have the whiteboards then they would have to use the SmartBoards, and I do agree that the faculty certainly integrated them into their lessons more quickly than they would have if they had had another option. 

This project was successful overall, with all teachers using the boards for every lesson by the end of a two year period. The picture was a bit different after six months though… the teachers did not agree with our move to remove the whiteboards and felt that we had created work for them. After three years, the use of SmartBoards was built into their appraisal criterion. I felt this was an indication of the success of the project.

I believe that this project was a success because the implementation was well thought out. The training of staff was an important first step. A major contributor to the success of the project was the training, which was consistent over the course of the first two years. Another important factor for success was the incorporation of the use of SmartBoards in lesson observation criterion. Without that, the project would have lacked weight - this made sure that teachers took the process seriously. The project would have been easier if the administration had ensured that all new hires (teachers) had experience using the boards. 

This project reminds me of the importance of consistent and persistent training when you are trying to implement new technology. It will not work if the teachers lack confidence in the new technology. It is natural for teachers to feel nervous about any big change - they have to deal with twenty to thirty students every lesson, every day and get the work completed, topics covered and lessons understood. If they have to juggle new technology too, sometimes it can all seem like too much to deal with. For any new project to work, the teachers must feel supported, listened to, valued and enabled. It is not helpful to throw technology in the room and leave. To ensure a successful implementation you need to make sure the technology is going to be used effectively and add something to the teaching process. 

Change is only worthwhile if the students gain from it.