This is a bit tongue in cheek, but I'll argue that reading is the other half of an overlooked set of skills. I'll write up a clear problem description -- including a structured format, not just detail -- to find myself subsequently repeatedly correcting the recipient. Conversing quickly determines that they haven't actually read what I've written; sometimes they're honest about this, sometimes not so much. But it's apparent, either way.
I try to make myself briefer -- my writing condensed -- in the hope that the shortness of the message will avoid invoking avoidance based purely on the volume of content. And I try to communicate less often, collecting observations into a few well-composed summaries rather than a rapid fire flurry of messages -- particularly when I know the recipient will not be addressing the topic immediately in any event.
But then I get accused, typically by some less technical manager, of "not communicating enough".
All by way of saying, I guess, that I find skill in writing very important. But there's a certain point where the problem becomes your audience's (or, depending on mood, leave off the apostrophe s ;-).
P.S. I note now your use also of the term "oral". There, too, there is the problem of the other half. Meetings that largely reiterate previous meetings, because the attendees apparently didn't make an effort to retain the information. This... syndrome can become self-perpetuating. People come to expect that anything important will be repeated at them, potentially ad infinitum. The repetition becomes expected and depended upon, making it in turn necessary.
People sometimes wonder why I take so many notes. But a month or two later, I can tell you what happened in that meeting. And if my work depends upon that information, I've executed accordingly.
I try to make myself briefer -- my writing condensed -- in the hope that the shortness of the message will avoid invoking avoidance based purely on the volume of content. And I try to communicate less often, collecting observations into a few well-composed summaries rather than a rapid fire flurry of messages -- particularly when I know the recipient will not be addressing the topic immediately in any event.
But then I get accused, typically by some less technical manager, of "not communicating enough".
All by way of saying, I guess, that I find skill in writing very important. But there's a certain point where the problem becomes your audience's (or, depending on mood, leave off the apostrophe s ;-).
P.S. I note now your use also of the term "oral". There, too, there is the problem of the other half. Meetings that largely reiterate previous meetings, because the attendees apparently didn't make an effort to retain the information. This... syndrome can become self-perpetuating. People come to expect that anything important will be repeated at them, potentially ad infinitum. The repetition becomes expected and depended upon, making it in turn necessary.
People sometimes wonder why I take so many notes. But a month or two later, I can tell you what happened in that meeting. And if my work depends upon that information, I've executed accordingly.