The Art of Effective Communication

Email

I feel that Jane is implying that I am not doing my work – I’m busy or maybe out of my office at a meeting.  She reminds me of the importance of getting my work done so she can meet her deadline – a guilt tactic.  She ends on a good note, that she appreciates my help, but to me the general tone of the email is offensive.

Voicemail

Jane is very factual in the voicemail.  I do not feel like she is implying anything when she suggests I am busy or in a meeting.  Her request for the work is sincere and is based on getting the work she needs to meet her own deadline.  I feel good about this request.

Face-to-face

Jane felt disconnected from me.  I felt she was talking to me rather than with me.  She sounded condescending about being busy and in the meeting.  She made me feel that her work was more important.  There were no pauses for me to respond.

Synthesis of Communicating with Project Team Members

It seems that Mark’s work is late although this is not specifically stated.  If this is true, then Jane’s communication with Mark in the past was not effective.  Mark should have known exactly what was expected of him and when the work was due.  Jane should have monitored his performance with an established schedule of checkpoints (Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton, & Kramer, 2008, p. 297).  So even before this message, it appears that communication was not effective.

Jane might not have had authority over Mark, which may have been why his work is now late.  There are communication steps that Jane should have taken to hold Mark accountable, however.  Mark’s responsibility should have been in writing, should have been specific, and should have been approved by his supervisor.  Mark should have made a firm commitment to complete the work on time.  Jane should have established a schedule with Mark to review how his work was progressing.  At these meetings, Jane should have let Mark know that his lack of progress would be shared with the rest of the project team.  Jane is now creating a sense of urgency and importance, but it is probably too late (Portny et. al., 2008, 300).

Of the three forms of communication, I believe the voicemail conveyed the true meaning and intent of the message.  However, I do not believe that this should have been the case.  The face-to-face meeting should have been the best form of communication.  Email and voicemail are best to share information and document informal meetings.  It is hard to solve problems through asynchronous forms of communication, such as email and voicemail.  It is also harder to convey emotions through these forms of communication, so misunderstanding often occur.  One-on-one meetings should be an effective form of communication when there are project issues.  This is because both parties can interactively investigate and solve these issues that involved only a small number of team members (Portny et. al., 2008, p. 282).  However, in this face-to-face meeting, I felt that Jane did not give Mark a chance to talk or be interactive.  She talked at Mark without seeking his input or giving him an opportunity to talk.  I would have been offended at this approach.  Jane might have reasons to be frustrated with Mark, but her approach in this meeting probably would have made Mark feel disrespected and less inclined to expedite her request.  Anyone could have heard what Jane was saying to Mark, which would make Mark even more offended.

The implications of what I have learned from this exercise for communicating effectively with members of a project team is that, as Dr. Stolovitch (n.d.) states, project managers must be excellent diplomats.  When the issue can cause hurt feelings, it is best to deal with each other face-to-face in a private setting.  Emails cannot convey emotions and the message can easily be misunderstood.  Voicemails at least provide a tone, which can convey feelings and emotions.  While face-to-face meetings provide the least chance for miscommunication, body language and tone must also be considered.  When discussing any topic that may lead to embarrassment, the meeting should be held in private.  Cubicles cannot provide this privacy.  Communication is also a two-way street.  You cannot expect cooperation if you talk at a person.  Jane should have given Mark a chance to respond when she brought up the topic of being busy.  She also should have given him the opportunity to acknowledge how his late work would affect Jane’s work.  If Mark had been given the chance to admit how his actions were affecting the rest of the team, he probably would have been more willing to complete his work.  However, if Mark did feel attacked by Jane, the work probably will not be completed as quickly.  Therefore, it is important to remember that it is not just words that convey a message; tonality, body language, and timing are also very important in effective communication (Stolovitch, n.d.). 

References:

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.

Stolovitch.  (n.d.).  Communicating with stakeholders.  Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer).  Video.

Learning from a Project “Post-mortem”

Description of Project

About four year ago, the school at which I teach had a series of bomb threats.  Even though none of the threats were valid, the Academic Council, of which I am a member, was asked to create a new policy to deal with bomb threats.  The Academic Council consists of the Studies Director and the Chairs of each department.  We developed the following policy:

a.  All backpacks must be either see-through vinyl or mesh, and no bag may be used in the building (even for gym clothes) that covers the visibility of the contents.  Girls may carry only very small purses (6” x 8” or smaller) for essential items.

b.  When students arrive in the morning, all bags (except 6” x 8” or smaller purses) MUST be left in the lockers with coats.

EXCEPTION:  Only on days you have Physical Education, for only that PART of the day, a small mesh, see-through clothing bag (not your backpack) may be used for only sneakers and gym clothes (Student Handbook, 2009, p. 30-31).

This updated policy was supposed to let us see what students were carrying in their backpacks in the morning, and not let them carry anything concealed around during the day.  By requiring such small purses, it would keep girls from being able to transport any bombs, knives, or other weapons.

The policy was communicated at a faculty meeting (which occurs once every other month).  At first, at the end of the school year in which the bomb threats were being made, the communication was taken very seriously and everyone was on board with the policy.  Administration would stand at the doors and look into everyone’s backpack and make sure purses were the correct size.  Students knew we were taking the policy seriously.  Over the summer, however, the threat was not so eminent.  However, when we returned to school for the In-Service days, a review was made of policy in the handbook and we did try to continue to implement the policy.  Administration, however, no longer stood at the doors to check backpacks or purses as students arrived at school.  One thing that was impossible was to know whether students carrying clothing bags actually had gym during that part of the day as we do not have access to students’ schedules and there is no way to check their schedules when they bring clothing bags into class (our school does not have the facilities for students to have gym lockers).  Over time, girls started to bring in larger purses and only certain teachers would give them the detention that they were supposed to get.  As it became apparent that not everyone was disciplining the students, more teachers stopped giving detentions, and finally the size of purses was not noticed anymore except by the very strict teachers.  Students quickly learned to avoid those teachers.  We received no more communication from the administration on this problem.

What contributed to the project’s success or failure?

There are five phases in a project’s life cycle:  (1) conceive, (2) define, (3) start, (4) perform, and (5) close (Porty, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton, & Kramer, 2008, p. 76).  The idea to develop the policy was born out of the necessity to deal with an immediate danger.  The project then jumped from the conceive phase to the perform phase, a common mistake that Portny et. al. (2008) advise against (p. 105).  While this was a small project, we never considered the needs of all the stakeholders.  By failing to do this, not all teachers were on board with disciplining the students for failing to follow the new policy.  Students did not understand why purses had to be so small, so girls ignored the policy and when they were not disciplined, the size of purses continued to get larger.  The need to know students’ schedules in order to know whether or not to discipline students with backpacks was not determined to be a need, which also help lead to the failure of the policy.

We also skipped the close phase.  According to Beach (2006), “There are four follow-through tasks involved in institutionalizing policy:  communication, document updating, aligning the reward structure, and making sure the organization’s culture incorporates both the specific changes that have been made and the belief that continuing policy is desirable and normal (p. 114).”  While the board and administration did follow-through on updating the documents (the student handbook), they did not follow-through on the other three tasks.  Through their lack of communicating the continued importance of the new policy, the administration showed a lack of support for the policy.  Another task that was not accomplished was aligning the reward structure.  Most teachers who disciplined the students stopped because the teachers who did not were not reprimanded for their failures and very few teachers want to appear overly strict to the students.  For these reasons the fourth task failed and the policy was not incorporated into our culture because we did not see the policy as desirable or normal.  Most teachers viewed the policy as a reaction to the bomb threats and, since we have not had any more bomb threats in the past three years, this was a reaction to an abnormal situation which did not have to be incorporated into our structure.

Which parts of the PM process, if included, would have made the project more successful?

By including the define, start, and close phases of the project life-cycle, the project would have been more successful.  The Academic Council should have asked all stakeholders for their input on the new policy.  By doing this, someone would have pointed out that teachers could not check students’ schedules to make sure they have gym when they bring clothing bags into classes.  Active participation would have given the entire faculty ownership of the policy and they would have been more likely to implement and incorporate the policy into our culture.  By asking students for their input, they would have understood the need for smaller purses and not being able to carry backpacks.  By including parents and other external stakeholders we may have found out what other schools’ approaches are and their successes and failures.  The administration should also have used regular, consistent, persuasive communication with us to encourage us to continue our efforts and to reinforce to the others who were not inclined to enforce the policy that this was what needed to happen.

Lee (2008) states that "unless you back up your statements with genuine action, don't be surprised if your employees can see through the mask of propriety” (p. 25).  Administration slacked up on enforcing this policy.  As the new school year began, they were no longer at the door as students came in to check that the policy was being followed.  They did not communicate a sense of urgency that this policy should continue and did not confront the faculty when we did not enforce the policy.  Students with large purses and backpacks would walk by administrators and would not be punished.  The faculty began to feel that the policy, although documented in the student handbook, did not need to be enforced.  Therefore, to make this policy part of our culture, the administration should have showed the faculty that they wanted this policy by providing a leadership behavior example of disciplining students who were in violation of the policy.  By doing this, they would have reinforced to the faculty that this policy was, in fact, going to be the norm.

I think the biggest things to any successful project are communication and participation.  Randeree (2008) states that two-way communication induces stakeholders to become more committed and motivated to implement change. This is because change produces uncertainties. By providing all stakeholders a chance to provide their opinions and be involved in all aspects of change, the project manager and all stakeholders work as a team to identify difficulties and resolve them. This two-way communication has the benefit of both significantly influencing stakeholders' commitment to the project and decreasing the level of resistance (p. 43).  The Academic Council should have asked for the stakeholders’ input on how to address this situation.  If they would have been included in the plans, we would have been more likely to implement the policy and incorporate it into our culture.  The policy was not monumental, but teachers do not like to confront students over small battles such as purse size when we have so many more battles that, to us, seem more important.  Also, the administration should have continued to communicate the importance of this policy.  This could have been accomplished through our weekly faculty bulletin, at faculty meetings, at retreats and in-services, and through administration enforcing the policy with students.

References:

Beach, L. R.  (2006).  Leadership and the Art of Policy:  A Practical Guide to Organizational Transformation.  Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage Publications.

Lee, T. J.  (2008).  Actions speak loudly.  Communication World, 25(4), 24-28.

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.

Randeree, K. (2008). Managing organizational policy: Challenges to the e-learning paradigm in the United Arab Emirates. The International Journal of Learning, 14(10), 41-45.

Student Handbook:  2009-2010 Bishop McDevitt High School.