Back to list
Q. 1 Communication between Mr. Porter and Mr. Weigand is to some extent effective. The email is brief and concise, driving the intended message clearly by the sender to the recipient. The email message clearly shows there is a chain of command being followed from the way the message is written, giving directions on orders that need to be implemented. Mr. Porter ranks higher as he is the school district superintendent, while Mr. Weigand is a principal of an elementary school. However, the communication is also lacking as it is just one way. The superintendent is not interested in the feedback from the school Principal. He should have left room for making things clear, for instance asking the school principal if he needed any additional information (Rourke, 2009).
Q. 2 Communication is a two way process for it to be effective (Rourke, 2009). If I were Mr. Weigand, I would acknowledge the right of the teacher to react the way she did towards the directive passed to her and fellow colleagues about the new changes intended to improve the quality of education. Though the teacher reacted hastily and unprofessionally, resistance to change is a natural tendency at the work place. Therefore, I would arrange to meet her in my office and explain to her that the change exercise is not targeting the teachers, but is meant to improve the quality of education. In addition, I would not pass the Superintendent’s message as an order but I would try to hold a discussion with the teachers about the changes that need to be implemented so that I gain their support and the exercise becomes successful.
Q. 3 The teacher reacted out of emotion and wrote an unprofessional message that can be interpreted as incitement of fellow colleagues to ignore the new changes that need to be implemented. The email contains abusive words, for instance the word ‘nonsense’ is inappropriate. Furthermore, she broke the hierarchy of communication by sending the same message intended for her peers to the school principal who is her senior.
Reference
Rourke, J. S. (2009). Effective communication. London: Dorling Kindersley.
Q. 2 Communication is a two way process for it to be effective (Rourke, 2009). If I were Mr. Weigand, I would acknowledge the right of the teacher to react the way she did towards the directive passed to her and fellow colleagues about the new changes intended to improve the quality of education. Though the teacher reacted hastily and unprofessionally, resistance to change is a natural tendency at the work place. Therefore, I would arrange to meet her in my office and explain to her that the change exercise is not targeting the teachers, but is meant to improve the quality of education. In addition, I would not pass the Superintendent’s message as an order but I would try to hold a discussion with the teachers about the changes that need to be implemented so that I gain their support and the exercise becomes successful.
Q. 3 The teacher reacted out of emotion and wrote an unprofessional message that can be interpreted as incitement of fellow colleagues to ignore the new changes that need to be implemented. The email contains abusive words, for instance the word ‘nonsense’ is inappropriate. Furthermore, she broke the hierarchy of communication by sending the same message intended for her peers to the school principal who is her senior.
Reference
Rourke, J. S. (2009). Effective communication. London: Dorling Kindersley.