Month: July 2008

TABLE X

Facilitators:

Phyllis Zadra, Associate Dean, Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College
Frank Gatti, CFO and Sr. Vice President, Educational Testing Service

Questions:
2) How does listening factor into effective communication? What does it mean to listen effectively? How might effective listening be fostered or taught in both academic and business settings?
3) Are correctness and adherence to formal conventions always required for communication to be successful? Do incorrect grammar, punctuation, non-standard pronunciation (as in accents of various sorts), or deviation from formal conventions necessarily lead to miscommunication

On Credibility:

Credibility builds trust.

It is more worthwhile thinking of credibility not as credential, but in the context of communicating a message. On the one hand, an intro can create an environment where your audience can trust you. Over time you build that credibility to keep their trust.

Mother Theresa would have been able to call forth anyone to be her audience. Who we are as a person is what we bring to the table. Her love for humanity and her willingness to suffer gave her a trust with any audience. She was disarming and did not appear as a threat – which is why she was able to draw people to her. There was a quality of trust established.

What tactics do we need to get through filters?

Vulnerability and authenticity creates trust in the audience. There is a whole other side to this and that is verbal miscommunication vs written miscommunication.

Continue reading “Morning Session – Table X” →

TABLE IX

Facilitators:

James Drogan, Senior Lecturer in Global Business and Transportation, Director of Online Programs, SUNY Maritime College
Joseph Ugoretz, Director of Technology and Learning, Macaulay Honors College, CUNY

Participants:

Natasha Yespimenko
Ryan Swihart
Stephen Smith
Erin Martineau
Cenk Parkin
James Hoff

Questions:

2) How does listening factor into effective communication? What does it mean to listen effectively? How might effective listening be fostered or taught in both academic and business settings?
3) Are correctness and adherence to formal conventions always required for communication to be successful? Do incorrect grammar, punctuation, non-standard pronunciation (as in accents of various sorts), or deviation from formal conventions necessarily lead to miscommunication?

The Discussion:

The discussion of table 9 was captured in the following three photographs.

Figure 1: Chart 1

The roundtable discussion started at 10:15 am and about 11:20, after substantial, free flowing conversation the thinking of the table began to coalesce. This is intended to be depicted by Figure 1 Chart 1.

We reached a conclusion that the two questions were closely related, but that different weights (in the sense of guiding critical thinking) were assigned to the questions (the notation on “perceived value”) depending upon the channel (F(channel)) of interest.

The experience of the investigator in the recognition of communications issues plays a major role in the assignment of the weight. A tyro and a pro will see the channel differently, perhaps very differently.

The experience has two sources. First is a base level of knowledge and skill that comes from training. The second is that experience that evolves out of (mostly) mistake. The mistakes should also provide a basis for adjusting the training.

Mistakes arise from the incorrect or inappropriate application of existing levels of knowledge, skills, and experienced. This represents a learning activity which needs to be dealt with in a formal manner. For example, the armed services conduct formal after action reviews comprising three questions:

1. What worked?
2. Where did we get stuck?
3. What would we do differently next time?

The area of Figure 1 Chart 1 enclosed in a dashed line represents what table 9 decided to focus on in the afternoon roundtable meeting. That is, presuming that the experienced investigator (e.g., Writing Fellow) is indeed of value, how is one trained?*

Continue reading “Morning Session – Table IX” →

TABLE VIII

Facilitators:
Paul Cahill, Principal, Cahill Associates
Judith Summerfield, University Dean of Undergraduate Education, CUNY

Questions:
1) Think back to an instance of miscommunication that involved you in some way. How did you recognize the problem? Why did it arise? How might it have been avoided? What common themes arise in your discussion of this question?

4) What challenges do we face in communicating within increasingly diverse classroom and business environments? How do we best navigate cultural or even generational differences in working to nurture effective speaking and writing across academic and business contexts?

Generational and interpersonal issue:

By avoiding talking about certain issues due to gender, culture and generation, we increase instances of  miscommunication; on the other hand, is there a common core that cuts through difference that we can access when communicating?

It is often with negotiations that should be done in person but are done on email; email discourages working together in the workplace.  It comes back to “More Anguished English” vs more “Anguished English.”  Even the climate of inhibition around talking about politics is a form of miscommunication and an interpersonal issue. Yes, for example a spousal debate over election and the husband feels unsupported. Yes it is interesting to see what kinds of words are used in politics; sound bites in politics are nouns: change, rigor.

We have unfiltered conversation in blogs and email—because we use so many fast tools; one has to be careful because one can be testy and sarcastic when in ‘fast’ mode. The receiver does not always understand this.

Do short responses come off as flippant because we don’t have time for niceties? Does that create more miscommunication?

Socio-cultural contexts in which miscommunication flourishes: Central dilemma: We are increasingly pushed into problems of solutions paradigms…

Continue reading “Morning Session – Table VIII” →