Write A 350- To 700-Word Evaluation And Analysis Of Your Pap ✓ Solved

Write a 350- to 700-word evaluation and analysis of your per

Write a 350- to 700-word evaluation and analysis of your personal communication strengths and weaknesses, how you communicate within organizations, describe the components of communication as outlined in this week's reading and assess your skills in those areas, discuss three components, skills, or areas on which you would like to improve, and outline an improvement plan. Format your assignment according to appropriate course-level APA guidelines.

Paper For Above Instructions

Evaluation and Analysis of Personal Communication

Author: Student Name

Introduction

Effective communication consists of interrelated components—sender, encoding, message, channel, receiver, decoding, feedback, noise, and context—that together create meaning (DeVito, 2019; Adler & Elmhorst, 2012). This paper evaluates my personal communication strengths and weaknesses, examines how I communicate within organizational settings, assesses my skills relative to these communication components, and identifies three areas for improvement with a concrete plan to develop those skills.

Strengths and Weaknesses

One of my primary strengths is clarity in message encoding. I organize ideas logically and use concise language, which reduces ambiguity for recipients (Hargie, 2011). In meetings, I prioritize main points and supporting evidence, helping colleagues quickly grasp key issues (Adler & Elmhorst, 2012). I also demonstrate strong active listening skills: I paraphrase others’ comments, ask clarifying questions, and provide timely feedback, which enhances mutual understanding and reduces miscommunication (DeVito, 2019).

Conversely, a notable weakness is my occasional overreliance on email and asynchronous channels when synchronous dialogue would better resolve issues. This creates delays and sometimes results in increased "noise" from misinterpreted tone or incomplete context (Keyton, 2011). I also struggle with upward communication: when communicating with senior leaders I sometimes omit contextual background or fail to align my message explicitly with organizational priorities, which can weaken the perceived relevance of my proposals (Men & Stacks, 2013).

Communication Within Organizations

Within organizations I operate across formal and informal networks. I engage in downward communication to convey project tasks, horizontal communication for collaboration with peers, and upward communication to report progress (Robbins & Judge, 2019). I tend to prefer structured channels (project management tools, scheduled meetings) to ensure traceability, which helps with accountability but can inhibit spontaneous problem-solving that occurs through informal lateral exchanges (McLean, 2017).

My use of channels aligns with channel richness theory: I select richer channels (video calls, face-to-face) when the topic is ambiguous or sensitive and lean on leaner channels (email, shared docs) for status updates (Daft & Lengel, 1986 as cited in Adler & Elmhorst, 2012). However, I could improve channel selection timing and better leverage feedback loops to confirm decoding and understanding (Berger & Calabrese, 1975).

Assessment of Skills Relative to Communication Components

Sender/Encoding: Strong—clear structuring of messages and appropriate language choices (Hargie, 2011).

Message/Channel Selection: Moderate—usually appropriate but sometimes default to asynchronous channels when richer interaction is needed (Keyton, 2011).

Receiver/Decoding and Feedback: Strong listening and constructive feedback, though I need to solicit feedback more proactively in hierarchical settings (DeVito, 2019; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996).

Noise and Context Management: Moderate—aware of contextual factors but occasionally underestimate cultural or role-based influences that introduce noise (Tannen, 1990).

Three Areas for Improvement

  1. Channel and Timing Judgment: Improve decisions about when to use synchronous vs. asynchronous channels to reduce misunderstandings.
  2. Upward Communication and Strategic Framing: Enhance ability to frame messages for senior stakeholders by linking recommendations to organizational goals and metrics.
  3. Proactive Feedback Solicitation: Regularly request confirmatory feedback and check for alignment, particularly after important decisions or assignments.

Improvement Plan

Goal 1 — Channel and Timing Judgment (Target: 12 weeks): I will adopt a decision checklist that prompts consideration of ambiguity, emotional content, and stakeholder preference before selecting a channel (Daft & Lengel, 1986). I will track 20 communication instances in a log to evaluate outcomes and adjust choices. Success metric: reduction in follow-up clarifying messages by 50% over three months.

Goal 2 — Upward Communication and Strategic Framing (Target: 16 weeks): I will practice synthesizing messages into a one-page executive summary that explicitly links recommendations to KPIs and organizational strategy (Men & Stacks, 2013). I will seek mentoring from a senior leader and request feedback on two real proposals. Success metric: positive feedback from one senior leader and at least one proposal adopted or advanced.

Goal 3 — Proactive Feedback Solicitation (Target: 8 weeks): I will incorporate explicit feedback prompts into deliverables (e.g., “Is this aligned with your priority? Please indicate revisions.”) and schedule short check-ins after critical communications. Success metric: increase in documented confirmatory responses and fewer misunderstandings reported in team retrospectives (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996).

These actions are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) and draw on communication theory and empirical feedback research to ensure meaningful improvement (Hargie, 2011; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996).

Conclusion

Assessing personal communication through the lens of sender, message, channel, receiver, feedback, noise, and context reveals clear strengths in clarity and listening, and targeted opportunities in channel selection, upward framing, and feedback solicitation. Implementing the outlined improvement plan should increase communication effectiveness within organizations and reduce miscommunication-related friction.

References

  • Adler, R. B., & Elmhorst, J. M. (2012). Communicating at work: Principles and practices for business and the professions (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  • Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(2), 99–112.
  • DeVito, J. A. (2019). The interpersonal communication book (15th ed.). Pearson.
  • Hargie, O. (2011). Skilled interpersonal communication: Research, theory and practice (5th ed.). Routledge.
  • Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.
  • Keyton, J. (2011). Communication and organizational culture: A key to understanding work experiences. Sage.
  • McLean, S. (2017). Organizational communication: Principles and practice (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  • Men, L. R., & Stacks, D. W. (2013). The impact of leadership style and employee empowerment on internal communication. Public Relations Journal, 7(2), 1–22.
  • Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational behavior (18th ed.). Pearson.
  • Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. William Morrow.

Related Assignments