Jane provided Mark with a built in excuse for not
getting her the necessary information to avoid putting him on the defensive. She then went on to explain that despite
whatever reason he could come up with, she still needed the information. It was getting to the point where she was
going to look bad based on his inadequacies. She just wanted the data by any means
necessary.
Voicemail
Jane did not use the nonverbal communication trait
of voice fluctuation to stress the urgency to Mark. It sounded like an FYI message.
Face-to-Face
In this scenario, we are not sure if this is the
first time she has discussed this issue with Mark or not. This would be fine for an initial
conversation but not for a follow up and surely not for multiple attempts to
get the data.
My interpretation
of the message was strongest in the email because I applied the stress in my
mind. That is the problem with interpreting
emails. It is almost impossible to
convey intent and tone and is the easiest modality for the message to get lost.
Based on Jane’s
calm demeanor in the voicemail and the face-to-face meeting, I perceive that she
is just giving him a heads-up about the approaching deadline and that it has
not truly reached the time critical stage.
Face-to-Face best conveyed the true meaning and
intent of the message because it included many nonverbal like body language,
facial expression, tone and language that did not convey urgency.
The implications
of miscommunication is that Mark could have dropped everything he was doing to
get Jane the report immediately only to find out that is wasn’t as urgent as
she made it seem. She would have lost a
lot of creditability with him after that.
The other option is she could have not placed the proper amount of
urgency on the issue in order to be non-confrontational and they both miss the
deadline and start finger pointing at each other. Either way poor communication can have
negative effects.
