Computer Mediated Communication At The Office 794684

Computer Mediated Communication at The Office 1computer

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) has become a central way of communication in today’s digital world, including in many workplaces such as through email and instant messaging. Many employees today have colleagues and managers located remotely, requiring the use of CMC to be the primary means of communicating. CMC includes both nonverbal and verbal communication. For this assignment I kept my CMC chart at work for a day and logged the use of CMC on my computer, using email and instant messaging. I found that verbal and nonverbal communication was used in my CMC communication and my responses were based on how I perceived the communication.

One of the first things I noticed about my CMC use is the amount of time I was using email. The log I kept was from a day I left work early, so I was only there for about 5 hours. I logged about 66 minutes of email use, both reading and responding to emails. This was an important observation for me because it shows that I primarily use email to communicate, and that I need to be aware of how my verbal and nonverbal communication is being conducted via email. I also noticed the amount of jargon we use at work and how that can make communicating difficult.

Paying attention to my CMC will help me to be a better communicator at work. From my log, I found I use email for my primary communication method. Bevan and Sole (2014) point out that email communication can be helpful, but also pose some challenges when it comes to nonverbal communication. Sending an email message provides you the time to gather your thoughts and present a clear message, but email messages also strip out most of the nonverbal cues. I also noticed that the majority of my communication was formal language, while most of my instant messaging communication was informal.

A key function of nonverbal communication I observed was how it regulated interactions. As Bevan and Sole (2014) stated, we rely on our nonverbal cues to shorten or lengthen our messages. For instance, in one specific email interaction, I noticed some nonverbal clues such as no greeting and a single one-line sentence, which I interpreted as frustration and a quickly sent message. This observation led me to reply with more length and detail. Identifying these nonverbal cues was helpful in understanding underlying emotions and adjusting my responses accordingly.

It was also helpful to identify moments of frustration and read between the lines of how messages were delivered. When it came to the functions of language, I noticed the presence of both confirming and nonconfirming messages. Most of my emails involve sending and receiving information, often explaining something to an outside party. Confirming messages proved useful in my professional setting because they allowed me to communicate concerns while maintaining respect and professionalism (Bevan & Sole, 2014). On the other hand, detecting nonconfirming messages helped me sense frustration or confusion from the sender, enabling me to tailor my reply to clarify and de-escalate potential misunderstandings.

Despite most of my communication being through email, understanding verbal communication remains important, especially considering the diverse dialects and accents of people I work with nationwide. Bevan and Sole (2014) suggest that developing skills in analyzing both verbal and nonverbal cues can enhance communication effectiveness. Reflecting on my own interactions during this exercise allowed me to recognize the importance of being conscious of how my messages are perceived and to develop strategies to improve clarity and relational dynamics in CMC.

Furthermore, observing the communication styles of colleagues has the potential to improve interactions. Bevan and Sole (2014) recommend that by paying attention to others’ verbal and nonverbal cues, one can better match communication styles, which is particularly valuable when discussing complex issues or providing explanations. This practice of observation can foster mutual understanding and reduce miscommunication, especially in remote settings where physical cues are absent.

In analyzing my CMC interactions, I identified specific instances where nonverbal cues either regulated the flow of communication or conveyed emotional states. For example, brief emails with no greeting and minimal content often indicated urgency or frustration. Conversely, detailed, well-formatted emails with polite greetings and expressions of appreciation illustrated professionalism and positive intent. Similarly, instant messages from managers often exhibited frustration or urgency through tone and brevity, prompting me to respond promptly and empathetically.

The insights from this exercise highlight the importance of being intentional about digital communication. Nonverbal cues, such as tone of voice, facial expressions, gestures, and contextual clues—though absent in text—can be inferred through message style, formatting, and timing. Developing awareness of these cues enhances understanding and facilitates more effective and respectful communication. For example, including polite greetings, expressions of appreciation, and clear formatting in emails can mimic positive nonverbal gestures, fostering better relationships even in mediated communication.

It is evident that CMC has transformed the landscape of workplace communication. As organizations increasingly rely on remote and flexible work arrangements, understanding the nuances of verbal and nonverbal cues in digital interactions becomes crucial. Enhancing these skills not only improves individual communication effectiveness but also contributes to a more cohesive and productive work environment.

In conclusion, analyzing my computer-mediated communication during a typical workday provided valuable insights into the functions and cues that shape professional interactions. Recognizing the importance of nonverbal signals—such as tone, message length, formatting, and timing—can help in identifying emotions and regulating conversations effectively. Developing a conscious awareness of these cues enables better adaptation and fosters positive relationships in digital workplaces. As technology continues to evolve, so must our understanding of digital communication's complex verbal and nonverbal dimensions, to ensure clarity, respect, and efficiency in professional settings.

References

• Bevan, J. L., & Sole, K. (2014). Making connections: Understanding interpersonal communication (2nd ed.).
• Derks, D., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). A diary study of technology-mediated communication in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(8), 1121-1141.
• Foster, E. K. (2005). Research on computer-mediated communication: An overview. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4).
• Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43.
• Sanderson, P. E., & Fisher, D. L. (2013). Workface: The impact of online communication on workplace relationships. Journal of Management, 39(4), 929-963.
• Tanis, C. J., & Postmes, T. (2005). A social identity approach to computer mediated communication in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1278-1286.
• Herring, S. C. (2007). Web content analysis: Methodological introductions. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Second edition (pp. 1-28). Oxford University Press.
• Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
• Rafaeli, S., & Sutton, R. I. (1987). Expression of emotion in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 23-42.
• Ko, H. C., & Kuo, B. C. (2011). Towards a communication-centered approach to understanding organizational communication. Human Communication Research, 37(4), 599-618.