In applying for a campus job, I was required to provide at least one campus or local reference, but as a new transfer student I have not yet built a strong enough rapport with any of my professors or TAs to offer their names. I felt like the best true reference I could offer of someone who could attest to my personality and work ethic was one from a girl in a class with whom I am working on a group project. To ask her permission for her reference, I gave her a call and left a voicemail figuring calling was most appropriate. I wanted her to understand the sincerity of my request and given our recent acquaintance I thought she would best understand if I used a “rich channel.” In response, she text me back and sent me a follow up e-mail to ensure I received her text. In her text, she apologized for not calling, explaining that she was in the library but that she was flattered by my consideration and to go ahead and use her name. I chose to respond to her text message in the interest of time (for her and my sake), saying, “Ur so great! Thank u! I’ll see u wed.” I knew that if I called my classmate back it would negatively affect her impression of me because I would be demonstrating a lack of consideration of her not wanting to talk while in the library which supports O’Sullivan’s model.
The second instance of media selection came this weekend in reinitiating contact with a recent ex-boyfriend. My goal in the communication was to apologize for the way things ended, to let him know that I was no longer upset over the whole ordeal, and to ask him to mail me some of my things. Knowing that he would want to talk and that I was not ready, I sent him an email figuring that a text message would be more likely to lead to a phone call because of its limited ability to convey the emotional consideration I knew I needed to express.
Both of these choices of media support O’Sullivan’s model and the Media Richness Theory. In both cases I wanted to manage my impression with each person as well as use channel that offered the appropriate dialectic. In the case of my ex-boyfriend, I wanted to create a “buffer” between the two of us to convey my comfort level, but I also wanted to make sure that I said what I needed to say without any interference or confusion. As for my classmate, I followed her lead on using the lean medium to express my understanding of her needs (time and environment) and convey my goals. I also wanted to ensure that I continued to present myself to her in a positive light.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I would have done the same as you in regards to the ex-boyfriend situation. Sending an email would be much easier, it seems, because sometimes hearing the voice on the other line is difficult (I recently went through a similar experience). Emailing spares both people involved the potential of awkward silences, and it's much easier to say what you need to say in text because you don't have to worry about getting instant feedback. Face to face, you would be able to register a reaction through facial or body expressions, and over the phone, it would be quite easy to hear the change of tones in a voice.
What do you think would have happened if you had used different ways of communicating (in both instances)? Would these situations still support the O'Sullivan Model?
Coming from a male perspective, I am wondering if you would be ok with him choosing an email explanation over a phone call? I know that it is the easier way out, but is it the best? I like the way you handled the texting situation in that you didn't seem aggressive and was able to respond respectfully. Being able to adapt to the situation your respondent is in was key to the relationship that will continue.
In an instance where breaking up has happened and awkward phone calls occur, wouldn’t a richer mean of communication become necessities when trying to show your true feelings? Choosing a rich median would suggest the caring is still there while the lean median hints that you want your things back. Good usage of O’Sullivan’s Model with respect to the texting!
Can a situation really support both Media Richness Theory and O'Sullivan Model at the same time? Don't they differ on their views concerning efficiency?
In the first example, asking for someone's permission for a reference is definitely not an unequivocal task, especially since you didn't know the person very well. Like you said, you wanted to convey sincerity and to pick a "rich channel." Yet voicemail hardly seems a very rich medium, since it's asynchronous and you don't get any feedback at all. She could have chosen to ignore you altogether. On your side, you wouldn't get any reactions so you can't really try to convince her. So does this really fit into the Media Richness Theory?
The second example is very ambiguous also. Interpersonal relationships can always be hard to manage, especially over the e-mail. So this doesn't fit with Media Richness Theory. The locus is you, but the valence isn't exactly negative, since you are trying to convey that you have gotten over the break-up. So using a lean medius didn't fit with O'Sullivan's Model either.
I think it's important to take into consideration how we want our partner to respond to our message. How much we want to hear from them, how eager we want to appear, etc. Neither of these theories really take those into account.
In your example regarding your ex-boyfriend, I find it interesting that you were consciously aware of your actions. I feel as though the theories learned in class (ie. Media Richness and O'Sullivans Model) predict forms of communication that occur without really planning it. For example, in some instances you may choose a text message without thinking about it, while other situations you will choose a richer media. However in the case of dealing with your ex, you planned out the fact that a text message will limit your communication while a phone call of face to face communication will offer too much communication. It is interesting that you 'chose' a medium in between completely impersonal and highly personal.
Post a Comment