My interpretations did change from one modality to another. I interpreted the e-mail message as a pressing matter but at the same time her use of words were passive. Just by reading the words it seemed as if the request for the report was urgent but it was not as important as what Mark was currently working on. The phone message sounded more urgent because of the tone in her voice, she sounded desperate for the report as if she had been waiting a long time to receive this report. The face-to-face meeting appeared to be a little condescending because of the tone in her voice; she really came across as if she is tired of waiting for the report despite how busy Mark has been.
The factors that influenced how I perceived the message is tone followed by a passive voice. She appeared to be sympathetic to Mark’s workload but she was clearly agitated that her report was taking a long time to complete.
I think that the face-to-face meeting and the voicemail both conveyed the true intent of her message because the words were spoken and Mark could her the urgency in her voice. Written communication could not capture the sense of urgency, in fact in written the same words comes across as passive.
Depending in the intent of the message, choosing the correct form of communication is essential. This is something that I have never given much thought to. Clearly depending on the message choosing the right communication will pay dividends. If I see a doctor and he/she has to deliver bad news to me, I would really prefer a face-to-face or phone conversation instead of a written correspondence. When matters are pressing verbal communication allows the receiver to respond or ask questions for further clarification, correspondence cannot offer instance feedback.
This activity opened my eyes about communication. As stated earlier, I have never given much thought about communication, I simply relied on common sense. Depending on the nature of the message choosing the correct form of communication is key.