Measurement of Time Spent Communicating Essay

The amount of clip we legislate communicating is outstanding. There have been triune studies to find the actual amount of our waking lives washed-out communicating, and the percentage of beat we egest in each division of communication. The article, Measurement of Time spend Communicating, is the result of a communication study of employees of a research and instruction laboratory. The study was based on two techniques direct observation, and questionnaires. How oftentimes time do people spend communicating at employ? How much(prenominal) time do people spend using machines at unravel? This useful information can help to improve the amount of work d star in a certain amount of time. If people spend more(prenominal) time communicating to get a job done, then(prenominal) our communication skills possibly need improvement. The talking people do is cerebrate with their work output. The same goes for machinery if we spend more time in psyche-machine interaction, improving machinery would be the main advance to improving jobs.People were observed at one instance in time in maps of one person to five people, some at supervisory levels, laboratories, hallways, and conference rooms. The observation information was divided into to groups time spent communicating, and time spent working with equipment. These categories were subdivided in different types of communication activities, including face-to-face communication, telephone communication, reading, and writing, and different types of equipment uses, including lab equipment, daub machinery, and an other category. Pre-tests showed the three trained clerks could classify the behavior of the employees reliably. Sampling moments were stochastic and unbiased, only avoiding break times and everyones lunch, and are correspondent to the faultless working day.The questionnaires were placed at the desks of all the people in the take areas, offices, and laboratories. The questionnaires were pre-tested to mak e sure the wording was understood, and the ordering of questions didnt change the results. The employees were to settlement seven questions all percentages that should add up to 100% of the working week. The questionnaires that were returned and did non add up to between 90% and 110% were disregarded. 4,000 questionnaires were distributed, and 2626, or 66%, were returned and usable.Overall, the common results of the observations and questionnaires were recognizable. The observation method is more accurate, and unbiased, so the main differences in the two sets of data are explained by people underestimating the time they spend communicating face-to-face, and overestimating the time they spend reading and writing. The questionnaire and observed data representing how much time is spent speaking on the telephone, working with lab equipment and office machinery, and other were relatively the same. Another observation is that the amount of time spent communicating depends on how many pe ople are in the office.The few people, the more communication went on. This could be due to the fact that many one or two person offices were supervisory level, and therefore had to communicate to employees more often. All offices engaged in face-to-face communication more than in laboratories. Although, time spent working with equipment is only 13%, even though the research study population is a research and development laboratory. This leads us to the conclusion that communication with people, not equipment, is the center of activity for most professionals, administrators, clerks, secretaries and technicians.