Communicating for Results: A Guide for Business and the Professions (Cheryl Hamilton)
This section includes ready-to-use forms that relate to assignments described in Part III.
Remember that electronic versions of these forms can be downloaded
Communicating for Results: A Guide for Business and the Professions (Cheryl Hamilton)
This section includes ready-to-use forms that relate to assignments described in Part III. These
forms can be downloaded from the IRM companion website.
Communicating for Results: A Guide for Business and the Professions (Cheryl Hamilton)
Name Low Average High
Level Level Level
Communication
1. Speaking in a group
2. Listening attentively
3. Being vocally expressive
4. Thinking before I talk
Group Observation
1. Noting tension in a group
2. Noting who talks to whom
3. Noting who is being left out
4. Noting nonverbal cues
5. Noting reactions to my comments
Task Skills
1. Asking for ideas, opinions
2. Giving ideas, opinions
3. Evaluating ideas critically
4. Summarizing discussion
5. Being able to lead discussions
6. Resolving conflict in a group
Responsiveness
1. Willing to tell others what I feel
2. Disagreeing openly
3. Expressing feelings warmly
4. s feelings
5. Being able to accept closeness
6. Being able to tolerate silence
Relation to Group
1. Being accepting of opposing views
2. Acting dominant toward others
3. Being supportive of others
4. Being able to stand up for myself
5. Making snap judgments
6. Feeling part of the group
7. Accepting help willingly
Self-Awareness
1. Understanding why I do what I do
2. Encouraging comments on my
behavior
3. Observing common traits in
Myself and others
4. Criticizing myself
5. Willing to find out new things about myself
6. Feeling self-confident
Communicating for Results: A Guide for Business and the Professions (Cheryl Hamilton)
I. My main communication strengths:
A. With my family
1.
2.
B. At work
1.
2.
C. With people in groups or with the public
1.
2.
II My main communication weaknesses:
A. With my family
1.
2.
B. At work
1.
2.
C. With people in groups or with the public
1.
2.
III. Based on my survey scores from Appendix A, I would like to become less (blind, open, closed,
hidden). I feel this way because:
1.
2.
3.
Signature Date
Communicating for Results: A Guide for Business and the Professions (Cheryl Hamilton)
Name Low Average High
Level Level Level
Communication
1. Speaking in a group
2. Listening attentively
3. Being vocally expressive
4. Thinking before I talk
Group Observation
1. Noting tension in a group
2. Noting who talks to whom
3. Noting who is being left out
4. Noting nonverbal cues
5. Noting reactions to my comments
Task Skills
1. Asking for ideas, opinions
2. Giving ideas, opinions
3. Evaluating ideas critically
4. Summarizing discussion
5. Being able to lead discussions
6. Resolving conflict in a group
Responsiveness
1. Willing to tell others what I feel
2. Disagreeing openly
2. Acting dominant toward others
3. Being supportive of others
4. Being able to stand up for myself
5. Making snap judgments
6. Feeling part of the group
7. Accepting help willingly
Self-Awareness
1. Understanding why I do what I do
2. Encouraging comments on my
behavior
3. Observing commonalities between
myself and others
4. Criticizing myself
5. Willing to find out new things about myself
6. Feeling self-confident
Communicating for Results: A Guide for Business and the Professions (Cheryl Hamilton)
1.
2.
B. At work
1.
2.
C. With people in groups or with the public
1.
2.
II My main communication weaknesses:
A. With my family
1.
2.
B. At work
1.
2.
C. With people in groups or with the public
1.
2.
III. Based on my survey scores, last time I said that my communication style was
(blind, open, closed, hidden). I now feel that my style is closer to
(blind, open, closed, hidden). I feel this way because:
IV. Last time I said that I would work on three things to improve my communication style. Here is my
specific analysis:
Communicating for Results: A Guide for Business and the Professions (Cheryl Hamilton)
Theory
Focus
Key Leaders
View of
Communication
Traditional or
Contingency
Transformational
Communicating for Results: A Guide for Business and the Professions (Cheryl Hamilton)
Name of Speaker _______________________________ Date ____________
Were COMPARISONS: 1 2 3 4 5
Easily understood?___/ somewhat confusing?___
Known to all?___ known only to a few?___
Imaginative?___ / uninteresting?___
Was REPETITION: 1 2 3 4 5
Brief (few words)?___ too wordy?___
Were SEQUENCE OF INSTRUCTIONS AND SIGN POSTING: 1 2 3 4 5
Logically organized?___ confusingly organized?___
Appropriately grouped?___ / inappropriately grouped?___
Begun at the easiest spot?___ / begun at a confusing point?___
Observant of audience reactions?___ / unaware of audience reactions?___
Comments: Grade:
30
29 A
28
27
26
25 B
24
23
22
21
20 C
19
18
17
16 D
15
Communicating for Results: A Guide for Business and the Professions (Cheryl Hamilton)
Instructions: Evaluate each discussant in the group on the following scale:
5 (superior), 4 (excellent), 3 (average), 2 (below average), 1 (inadequate)
1. Did this person make useful substantive
2. Did this person contribute to efficient group
3. How constructive and cooperative was this
4. Did this person speak well (clear, concise,
5. How valuable was this person to the group
(overall rating)?
*From: John K. Brilhart, Effective Group Discussion, 3rd Ed. (Dubuque Iowa: Brown, 1978), p. 250. Adapted by permission.
1. Initial Impressions: poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent
How favorable were your initial impressions of the interviewer (first minute)?
2. Introduction and Conclusion: poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent
Did opening comments establish rapport?
3. Questions Asked: poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent
Were the questions asked appropriate?
4. Communication Ability: poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent
Was the interviewer’s verbal communication effective (voice and articulation, fluency, volume, vocabulary)? Was the
5. Composure and Control: poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent
6. Overall Reactions: poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent
Taken as a whole, how would you evaluate this interview?
Total Score ___________
1. Initial Impressions: poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent
How favorable do you think your initial impression was (first minute)?
2. Introduction and Conclusion: poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent
Did opening comments establish rapport?
3. Questions Asked: poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent
Were the questions asked appropriate?
4. Communication Ability: poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent
Was your verbal communication effective (voice and articulation, fluency, volume, vocabulary)?
5. Composure and Control: poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent
6. Overall Reactions: poor 1 2 3 4 5 excellent
Taken as a whole, how should your interview be evaluated?
5 = Superior 4 = Excellent 3 = Good 2 = Fair 1 = Poor
1. Quality of letter of application and personal data sheet. _____
2. sion during the first
part of the actual interview. _____
3. _____
4.
5.
of self. _____
6. Overall reactions to the interviewee. _____
Total points _____
Remarks:
Communicating for Results: A Guide for Business and the Professions (Cheryl Hamilton)
I. Define the Problem
A. Discuss symptoms (especially if problem is unknown).
B. Discuss size (or seriousness) and impact (effect) of problem.
C. Determine the exact wording of the problem in question form.
D. Define terms in the question.
II. Research and Analyze the Problem
A. List topics that need to be researched or discussed, including causes and past efforts
to solve the problem.
III. Establish a Checklist of Criteria
A. List all possible criteria (give everyone a chance to respond).
B. Discuss each criterion.
C. Reduce the lists to a workable length by combining criteria where possible.
D. Rank remaining criteria from most to least important.
IV. List Possible Alternatives
V. Evaluate Each Alternative
A. Read through the list of alternatives, eliminating those the group feels obviously do
not meet the criteria agreed on in the third step.
B. Reduce the list further by combining any similar alternatives.
C
The ratings on the subcategories stand for Excellent, Good, Needs Improvement, and Unsatisfactory. These
subcategories are not of equal importance, so the ratings are not intended to add up to a score. The grade is based on
my judgment of the overall effectiveness of the presentation in the larger categories specified on the assignment
sheet.
ELEMENT RATING COMMENTS
to be researched or discussed
Establish Checklist of Criteria EX G NI U
List and explain possible criteria;
rank the criteria
List Alternatives EX G NI U
Select & Implement Alternatives EX G NI U
Visual Aids EX G NI U
Simple, clear, appropriate size; not distracting
PRESENTATION
Vocal Delivery EX G NI U
Use of Visual Aids EX G NI U
Maintenance of eye contact, effective and
clear presentation
PRESENTATION GRADE
CONTENT/ORGANIZATION/OUTLINE/ORAL PRESENTATION
TIME:
The purpose of this activity is three-fold: (1) to allow each of you to participate in a group assignment that
enables you to experience the functioning of the task and maintenance roles and collaborative learning, (2) to
allow you (as a group) to present supplemental information to the class, and (3) to be a vehicle through which to
present your informative speech assignment.
I. PART I of the assignment will be your group project grade. It will consist of a total possible 30
points – a possible 15 points from me and a possible 15 points from your fellow group members.
A. My part of the group evaluation (15 pts.) will be based on the following criteria:
1. (10 pts.) HANDOUTS, AGENDA, AND ORGANIZATION OF PRESENTATION – Each
symposium will have a group handout, which presents material supplemental and complementary to
your symposium‘s speeches; it can be definitions of key terms, lists or examples too lengthy to actually go
2. (5 pts.) When you present your speech, each group participant must include a personal 1–2 page
analysis of what went on in developing this group project. Included in this typed paper should be:
a. The dates the group met and who attended the meetings
b. Who played particular roles (task and maintenance) during each meeting,
(who will then hand to me) the following:
1. Your symposium evaluation form
2. Your typed outline or storyboard
3. Your typed personal analysis of the group project
4. Your completed peer evaluation grade sheet (grading each group member on contribution
to the project)