'The Main Criteria in the Choice of Medium of Articulation\r'

' intercourse is defined as the â€Å"transfer of means” (Eunson, 2006:2). The message to be mystifyed, the extremity of the message, the effect on the recipient etc determine the â€Å" orientation course” of the channel of converse. This endeavor shall argue that this is the most meaning(a) criteria, in channel determination. Right Preference †draw to Effectiveness New inventions have facilitated ease of colloquy. ironically though, Priestley’s Paradox explains that, the more we advance our representation of communication, the less we kick the bucket (Priestley 1957, as cited in Eunson, 2006:4).Hence, for sound communication the important things to be considered whitethorn be the message and effect (Lasswell’s model, 1948, as cited in Eunson, 2006:7). The latter i. e. the ‘effect’ of the message on the receiver, depends on which mode of communication is â€Å"preferred” over which and allow foring make the differenc e between communicating in effect and ordinarily. Especially, if the communication is meant for a limited audience, like the staff of genius set forthicular department of an office, or to a few trades- staff with inconsistent performance etc.For ex amperele, in a Human Resource Department in an office, with a HR Manager, and five assistants, communication is accomplishable with his staff by dint of direct face-to-face communication, or through memos, or e-mail notifications etc. The burnished double-decker allow choose the medium, depending on the impressiveness of the message and the impact it should effect. He may convey routine ‘Monthly Target’ notices by pasting them on the Department Bulletin board, and further leading a copy of the message to each staff through the e-mail as a follow up.But, he may ‘prefer’ to send the case-by-case’s ‘Performance Assessment Report’ through individual e-mail and then a one-to-one re begu ile. This ‘ tasting’ is exercised to enhance effective communication. The richness of media (Daft and Lengel, 1986) effected by direct face-to-face communication is ‘preferred’ to the e-mail channel, which is less effective than the chosen one. Conclusion make the right â€Å"preference” in the choice of media to communicate is vital to being effective. Since effectiveness is the key particle in any communication, it is clear that the right choices and preferences will lead to success.Bibliography Daft, R. L. and R. H. Lengel, (1986) â€Å"Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and structural Design,” Management Sci. , 32, 5, 554â€571. Can also be view at website <http://www. istheory. yorku. ca/mediarichnesstheory. htm> Eunson, Baden, (2006). â€Å"Communication Today,” in communicating in the 21st Century, 1, pp. 2-18. Tutorial Response 2 Introduction The deluge of technology has been incapable of preventi ng â€Å"Miscommunication”. This essay will briefly explain the term and consider two problems of ‘context’ resulting in miscommunication, and suggest a strategy to overcome the ‘noise’ factor. context, Noise and Miscommunication The ‘ circumstance’ of the communication is concerned with the following issues 1) Power and place Relationships 2) Cultural factors 3) Interpersonal Relationships 4) Time (Eunson, 006:16). Communication derives its meaning from the context, under which it takes place. The basic tenet of communication is, to send as well as receive and is tell to occur, only when understanding is achieved. This fails, when there is non-cooperation between one or more of the parties and results in miscommunication.This can be deduced as the ‘noise’ in the Sender-Message-Receiver (SMR) and the Shannon-Weaver model of communication (1999, as cited in Eunson 2006:8) because it ignores the importance of context, i. e. situational, social, cultural, etc. ‘Context’ can be interpreted differently, by the receiver, accord to 1) the cultural differences, 2) status differences between the former and the receiver and the sender. For example, using gestures and direct eye-contact is a vital part of Western conversation; however, in the Native American cultures, looking directly into the eyes of elders is disrespectful, and gestures are scarce used.Miscommunication may occur when a young American salesman tries to convince an elderly Native American of his product, due(p) to differing cultural contexts. An example of problems arising from the power status differences: A $100 rise in salary for performance, may impact positively on a low employee in the factory; while the Manager of the doing is apt to be disgruntled by the same amount. The Quinn, Hildebrandt, Rogers, & Thompson, (1991) (cited in Eunson 2006:16) model helps effectively grass out the noise factor, by strategically a nd judiciously preferring the channel of communication.For example, to solve problem #1 of distrust arising from contextual cultural differences, modification of the sales strategy, by adopting a combination of informational communication and relational-communication may help. This will 1) provide the facts to the receiver, 2) win his trust; a sale may effect. And in proble #2, it is possible to build on the existing on trust level of the manager by a) improving relational communication, b) stimulating challenge by using transformational communication, to explain that money is not the only end-goal in life. ConlcusionThe study of various types of communication can help in strategic solutions to problems. Bibliography Eunson, Baden, (2006). â€Å"Communication Today,” Communicating in the 21st Century. , 1, pp. 2-18. Grice, H. P. , (1975), â€Å"Logic and confabulation”, in P. Cole and J. Morgan, eds. , Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, Academic Press, pp. 41-58 Quinn, R . E. , Hildebrandt, H. W. , Rogers, P. S. , & Thompson, M. P. (1991). â€Å"A competing values framework for analyzing presentational communication in management contexts”. The Journal of Business Communication, 28, 213-232.\r\n'