Is it me?
I write this whilst on bit of high following the joint presentation with Jane Royden last evening of The Lens Collective guide at a Coventry chapter event. The immediate feedback was very positive and most people seemed to get it, yet still a few appear to wonder what it’s all about.
This got me pondering, is it them or is it me? Naturally, I like to think it’s them. After all, we did take them through a very good presentation, explaining the relevant points and concepts of the Lens Collective as we went along, even getting the odd nods of agreement . Jane and I performed an excellent role play session, which we both agreed illustrated the concepts and usage very well, (indeed its a pity that the performance missed the cut off dates nominations for the BATFAs, otherwise Colin would have been in trouble!)
However during the workshop and subsequent questions and answers it became clear that there were still a few wondering about the theory, practice (or both) of understanding the effects of people on project success. And whilst by the end of the evening every one feigned understanding and acceptance of the ideas contained in, and the application of the lenses I do wonder if they were just being polite!
The APM publishes a few guides, the BoK and a plethora of other literature and there’s also a raft (a very big one) of self help and improvement books out there in the public domain. Some of them I read and revisit as reference material finding them full of excellent ideas which I fully endorse. Others are so off the wall I cast them aside ready for lighting the log fire. However I am sure no-one deliberately writes material to be incomprehensible! Is it me not listening or understanding, or is it that the author/presenter has written or presented it in a style I don’t understand?
So now I’m thinking maybe it is me and I need to re-visit the presentation, modifying it to reflect different learning styles.
Or maybe not ................it’s probably them!
Rob Sadler
Rob has been an APM member for 12 years and holds an APMPQ certification. He joined the People SIG two years ago. Rob’s background is varied but is grounded in mechanical engineering. He currently works for Transport for London where he established from zero the Station Enhancement Programme for all Overground stations, a critical function of which has been protecting the project scope, solutions and costs through his extensive knowledge base of multi-disciplined, technical projects not only within the rail environment but also in bespoke capital projects from feasibility studies to on site operational service.
Comments
That's the point
It's no good tramitting to a Japenese only speaker in Dutch- you need to pick the language of the audience.
The problem, what is that lanuage of the audience?
Do we need a commen language before you are allowed to engage in the conversation, would that be elitism? excluding someone who wants to learn/engage buts not fluent?
I would take this one step further and purport that effective communication requires three elements - transmission, receipt and understanding.
No amount of transmission or indeed reception reduces the need for understanding.
This is where 'effective' fails. A broadcast in Japanese may be transmitted effectively and I may have my radio tuned in to receive the broadcast loud and clear. I may be listening attentively to every word. But as I don't speak Japanese I won't understand a word and therefore the communication is not effective.
So is the proportion of responsibilty important or is all in the language we use?
Interesting dilemma there hey! Is it them or is it me?
We probably all know the one about successful communication being evaluated by the positive or negative response we get. In other words this view argues that the responsibility for communicating successfully lies 100% with the communicator.
However, I would challenge this by addressing the responsibility of the recipient of the communication (the communicatee”?) that the level of active participation by the “communicatee” in the exchange is paramount. (“Active participation” can of course refer to listening intently and nothing else)
With the above in mind, I’ll sign off with this conundrum.If the maximum success of any communication is 100% what proportion should the communicator and communicatee take? 80/20? 50/50?
Over to all of you.......