January 18, 2007
12:12 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
Several years ago, I was meeting with directors at an international investment bank the day after the stock market had taken a very serious plunge. The bank coincidentally had just finished rolling out a series of sales training programs for investment bankers. During our meeting, the directors began to get feedback on a key portion of the program—contacting clients when there is bad news. This sudden decline in the market filled that bill.
In the past, the bankers would wait for clients to contact them. The clients usually would be upset, many yelling and making gratuitous comments, so you can imagine the trepidation of the bankers at the prospect of taking the initiative to contact these angry clients first, portfolio managers who were holding stocks and funds the bankers had recommended and sold to them—stocks and funds that had lost a significant percentage of their value in just a few short hours. Calling clients at that moment felt like asking for trouble. The temptation was very strong to hold off on making first contact. Things were bad enough without pouring salt on this wound. No one wanted to risk being beat up any further.
Yet, some of the bankers who had gone through the sales training program overcame their fear and picked up the phone to make the calls. The result? Gratitude. Yes, that’s right, gratitude, for having had the guts to call and see how their clients were feeling, discuss the reasons it might have happened, and just plain commiserate. These portfolio managers, not known for being faint of heart, were consoled by the simple gesture of a phone call meant to reach out to them and help them buck up during a time of tremendous stress.
The result of those single, individual calls was enormous prestige bestowed on the investment bankers and their employer—just the opposite of what those who didn’t call received. A monumental amount of good will was generated. Clients told these bankers that they were the only ones who had called. Guess which investment bank got the next piece of business?
You might think about this story the next time things go wrong. I always do.
Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • ruth@ruthsherman.com • www.ruthsherman.com
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
January 15, 2007
12:14 pm | 0 recommendations | 9 comments
At the urging of Rob Blackadar, Director of Government Sales for United Rentals, I logged onto MacWorld's website to watch Steve Jobs's 2007 keynote. I had never seen Jobs present before, though I had certainly heard of his legendary status as a speaker among the Mac faithful.
Going in, I expected something truly extraordinary. What I saw was a presentation that was pretty good, but not astounding. The presentation was long -- nearly 2 hours -- much of the time taken up with a tutorial for the product of the day, the so-called iPhone. Jobs's voice is nothing special, though it's fairly expressive. His stage presence is very good; he doesn't stand behind anything and he walks around the stage with a very open posture and broad gestures. I will say that the slide presentation that supports him is fabulous – very simple and graphic. (See one of my recent posts for more on slides.) But he's not especially funny or entertaining, though the product demo certainly is fun to watch. So what's going on with Jobs who seems to have developed this reputation of genius when it comes to presentation skills?
Steve Jobs connects emotionally with his audience. He is truly excited about his company and its products. He also likes his audience, and they like him. There is intimacy. It's a winning combination.
We’ve all seen speakers who, reluctant to show how they feel, deliver in a monotone voice with stiff physical presence (if there’s any presence at all). These speakers often have good information; the material is well-researched and it is much needed by their audiences. But these speakers are afraid to become intimate with their listeners. And, in many cases, they subsequently fail to communicate their messages resulting in a waste of time for all concerned.
Some of them fear coming off as too slick. Many a client of mine has expressed concerns about coming off as too “salesy” or theatrical. One client, a large, multinational private bank, was planning to take some wealthy clients on a retreat to a luxury resort where clients would attend workshops on financial planning and investing led by these bankers. The bankers were very worried that they might be seen as “selling” too much. My response was that the wealthy people who had accepted the bank’s invitation were busy people who did not need a free vacation. The reason they were there was to hear about the services and products it had to offer. They wanted to be sold! Once my clients realized this, they felt much freer to be passionate about their business and the retreat was a big success.
There are three questions you should ask yourself when trying to inject some emotional content into what you are saying:
1. Do you believe what you are speaking about?
2. Would you take your own advice?
3. Are you willing to risk disapproval?
If you believe what you are speaking about, it shouldn’t be too difficult to inject some feeling into the vocal and physical display. But what if you don't believe what you are speaking about? In such a situation, you have a choice: you can find another topic (or another job) or make a commitment to try to find things about your pitch that you do believe in and focus on them. The second question asks you to put yourself in your listener’s shoes. This is something all speakers must do all the time and it is an incredibly difficult task because it’s tough to be objective. The third question may be the most important. No one likes to be disapproved of, but my experience is that if you take the risk of displaying some feeling, some passion, audiences will eat it up.
Allowing your feelings to show won’t make you seem “salesy” or theatrical, but real. Steve Jobs is the real deal, at least when it comes to pushing Apple and its products. Such authenticity will allow you, too, to connect with your listeners and create intimacy, even in a room of thousands. You may not attain genius status a la Jobs right away, but you will certainly keep your public excited and salivating for more.
Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • ruth@ruthsherman.com • www.ruthsherman.com
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
January 8, 2007
12:04 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
During the presidential campaign of 2004, when I was being called upon by the press to comment on candidates' communication styles, I was asked by Lester Holt on his MSNBC program for one suggestion for each candidate. I said that Kerry should tell more stories because when he did that, it made him come alive, which he certainly needed to do more often. For Bush, I suggested that he find a mistake he would be willing to own up to and apologize for it.
At the time, it seemed that it had been a long time since anyone in any position of power had apologized for something. The American public was overdue for some words of contrition from both its political and business leaders. No one was willing to step up, face up and say, "I'm sorry." This is an issue we, as a society, still grapple with. In my speeches, I discuss apology as one of the most powerful communication tools. Unfortunately, I have to caution my audiences not to look to our business and political leaders as role models. This is too bad, because not only is it is a critical skill, but also a leadership skill that can be remarkably effective, regardless of what position you hold.
When a mistake is made or a personal wrong is committed, the resulting feelings can be ones of anger, hurt and/or betrayal. These reactions result in a diminishment of trust. The hard work of building solid relationships is derailed. People who are mad at each other have difficulty working together. Naturally, business suffers. But a well-timed and sincerely intended apology can defuse such a situation almost instantaneously.
Most of us can empathize with a colleague who has made a mistake. We have a natural tendency to think, "There but for the grace of God, go I." If an attempt is made at apology, we understand the humbling nature of the act and we feel for the apologizer. In addition, it often takes courage to admit a mistake, there is inherent risk, so there may even be feelings of admiration that kick in. During the apology process, the power dynamics of the communication are reversed. The person who felt victimized is now in the position of power and given a choice to accept the apology and move on, or not.
For an apology to have maximum impact, timing is crucial, which is to say, get right to it and don't let things fester. But apologizing alone is not enough. You must also have some solutions ready. In fact, I usually link apologizing with explaining. That does not mean creating excuses; it means having thought through the problem and attempted to understand where things went awry and how to avert such situations in the future. The goal is for a conversation to take place with the give and take necessary to ensure understanding.
You also have to mean it.
Many people ask me what to do when the situation in question is not their fault. Every situation is different, of course, and I know I may raise a few eyebrows here, but my advice is to not spend time and energy worrying about whose fault the problem really is. The rule of thumb is that if by apologizing, you can get things back on track, then do it. Apologize anyway. It's often not a question of fault, but of keeping the lines of communication open and running smoothly. If it's the word itself that rankles, I often suggest substituting the word "regret" for "sorry." It's a less emotionally charged word and although it doesn't have quite the same impact, it may do the trick.
President Bush did not take my advice, of course, although he has taken a few stabs at apology in the last couple of years. They have been mostly ineffective, because he doesn't seem sincere and he seems to backpedal. Business leaders don’t seem to be racing to apologize either. That doesn’t mean you can’t. Yes, it’s hard. It’s scary. But it works.
Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • ruth@ruthsherman.com • www.ruthsherman.com
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
January 4, 2007
11:15 am | 0 recommendations | 16 comments
I'm on a mission this year. A mission to expunge PowerPoint slides from all my clients' presentations. For a while, I thought it was getting better. People seemed to be using fewer slides, though they were as poorly designed as ever. But, alas, there seems to have been a relapse. Maybe it's because Microsoft comes out with new bells and whistles every couple of years or so and the temptation to use them is just too great to resist. I realize with an addiction like this one, expecting people to do away with it entirely is probably unrealistic. Well, a girl can dream, can't she?
In lieu of going cold turkey, I'd like to recommend a few techniques that will improve any presentation and that will encourage the weaning process.
1. Limit the number of slides. These days, it is not unusual for a 30-minute presentation to contain 30-40 slides. THIS IS WAY TOO MUCH! Think about it from the audience point of view: They have to sit there and listen to a disembodied voice read to them. They have better ways to spend their time. When it's me in the audience being bored, I just wish the presenter had sent the presentation to me and let me read it at my leisure rather than forcing me to attend the event. Bottom line, for a 30-minute presentation, choose the 5-10 most important slides. (Hint: 5 is better –- and so much braver –- than 10.)
2. Limit the information on each slide. There should be no more than 4-5 bulleted items or chart items on a slide. The fewer, the better. These can be fragments. You don't have to write complete sentences or include every thought you've ever had on the subject. These bullets should function as triggers or cues for elaboration. I once watched a terrific presentation by the president of a major ad agency whose slides each consisted of a single statement –- no headers, no details, very powerful.
3. Make sure the slide is readable. How many times have you found yourself struggling to read a slide because the font was too small? This is another happy outcome of cramming too much info onto a slide. Have mercy on your audience. Body copy should be at least 18 points. 20+ is better.
4. Use message titles. Instead of a slide with a headline that says "Performance," which in reality tells nothing about performance, consider a more complete thought such as "Company X significantly outperformed the S&P through 12/31/06". If you're stuck, you can often find the makings of a message title in your very first point on the slide. If you do nothing else as a result of reading this post, do this.
5. Use animation and other bells and whistles sparingly. Most of the effects PowerPoint offers are useless. There is, however, at least one winning effect, the slide transition, "cover down." This effect creates a smooth, professional transition from slide to slide and far outperforms the default transition. Make sure you click "apply to all." If you're bent on animating the information on the slide, experiment with those in the "peek" and "wipe" categories.
6. Automate effects as much as possible. There may be an item or two on an occasional slide that you would like to control by mouse click, but if you're clicking for each item to appear, trust me, it's too much work for you and too much "noise" for the audience.
7. Make liberal use of the "B" key. Most people don't know this, but if you press the letter B on your keyboard during a PowerPoint presentation, the screen will go dark. This is a wonderful feature if, for example, you get into an audience discussion and want to eliminate the distraction of the projected image. When you're ready to move on, press B again and you'll be right where you left off.
8. Do not use a laser pointer. I don't know whose brilliant idea this little piece of technology was, but not only is it distracting, it is quite ineffective, magnifying every movement or tremor of your hand. Can you say Stage Fright?
There is much more to this, but these techniques should start you on the road to recovery. I'll have more on presentations, including PowerPoint in a future post.
Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • ruth (at) ruthsherman (dot) com • www.ruthsherman.com
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
January 2, 2007
07:26 am | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
On the day after Christmas, the The New York Times published an Op-Ed piece by guest columnist Orlando Patterson, a professor of sociology at Harvard. Patterson's piece discussed the issue of authenticity versus sincerity. Authenticity, according to the piece, is defined as expressing the true inner self, prejudices and all. Patterson claims this popular viewpoint is overrated. What Patterson cares more about is sincerity, defined as presenting oneself to the world according to standards of social interaction, concealing socially unacceptable feelings in favor of behaviors that, although they may exist on the surface only, function to keep non-intimate relationships running smoothly.
This is an interesting premise and something that I have always promoted in my work with clients. It works in a couple of ways: The more obvious one is when a client has to deliver a presentation. Almost without fail, the client expresses concerns about authenticity, worrying that if they adopt certain behaviors and use them in performance, they will somehow bury their real, genuine selves under layers of artifice. My response is that no one cares about who they really are. What they care about is getting good information from someone who is not going to bore them to tears.
The less obvious and thornier issue arises around interpersonal communication. People claim they want and need to be themselves, warts and alland that it is dishonest to do anything less. But when I point out that we all have many selves and the one we employ at work is significantly different from the one we employ at home which also differs from the one we employ with friends, clients nod knowingly. In all relationships, there are times when we hide our true feelings and hold our tongues to ensure harmony. Think of all the little white lies we tell, viewed by most as necessary mechanisms to keep the lines of communication open and flowing smoothly. Being completely honest and authentic can amount to a recipe for disaster.
Behaving harmoniously also helps to build trust and thus, relationships. And there is a further benefit. The better a relationship, the more likely it is that the holder of prejudices and biases will question such beliefs, which often leads to a change of heart.
So does that mean we should always be faking it? Is there never a time when we can let our real, authentic selves break through? We have no further to look than some of the recent celebrity communication whoppers for the answer including Mel Gibson's drunken tirade against Jews and Michael Richards's anti African-American outburst. I think it would've been better for everyone if these "authentic" feelings had been kept buried. Although we may think that we are glad to know the true feelings of such celebrities, because it either confirms what we suspected or so we can make more informed choices when choosing to patronize them and their entertainment products, it is pyrrhic, at best. The overwhelming feelings, the ones that are really front and center in such cases are feelings of hurt and betrayal.
I'm completely comfortable knowing that there is much I don't know -- and don't want to know -- about certain people in my sphere. And there are things about me that I don't want others to know. By being so disciplined, I hope that my relationships will grow, I will question my own biases and prejudices, and any pre-conceived notions I have will change.
Fake it 'til you make it. It may be a cliché, but it is a wise cliché.
Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • ruth@ruthsherman.com • www.ruthsherman.com
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
December 28, 2006
12:03 pm | 0 recommendations | 5 comments
I just got off the phone with Jim Blasingame, where I was a guest on his daily radio program for small business. Jim was curious about what my take was on some of the communication challenges occurring between the most recent generation to enter the workforce, Generation Y, and their bosses, most of whom are members of the Baby Boom generation.
My mostly Boomer clients, and, to some extent, older Gen X'ers, are going nuts about this. They are throwing up their hands in frustration. On the one hand, they have all been in business for a long time, now, and feel they have a pretty good grasp of how the business world works. On the other, they are acutely aware of the fact that they desperately need these young people to staff and help grow their businesses. Problem is that there seems to be a big disconnect when it comes to standards of communication and behavior.
There are a few parts to this problem. One part is that there are always conflicts between generations. Another is that the level of workplace formality has been declining for some time. Think dressing down and tele-commuting. Still another is the way this generation has been raised. In general, Gen Y has been the most privileged and child-centered generation in history.
The biggest one, however, has been the advent of technology and its offspring, email, IM and txt. Gen Y has grown up in and around this world of virtual communication. Unlike their parents, they have not had to spend nearly as much time socializing face-to-face. Their social interactions have been conducted while sitting alone in front of a computer, IM-ing with several people at once. Therefore they did not gain much experience reading the nonverbal cues inherent in face-to-face or even voice-to-voice communication, aka, the telephone. This dependence on remote forms of communication has left many younger workers bereft of interpersonal skills that Boomers value such as deference and respect.
The Boomers, on the other hand, have had technology thrust upon them, and although most have learned what they had to in order to get by and stay current, they have largely left the "technological heavy lifting" to others. Boomers have stuck to many of the old ways of doing business that their parents taught them, calling on clients in person, networking at business meetings, showing respect and deference to those who are more senior or with whom they would like to do business.
So what can be done to reconcile these differences? For one thing, both generations have some adapting to do. Boomers need to recognize that the workplace has changed and for the better, I believe. They also have to take a good deal of responsibility for the way Generation Y communicates and behaves. Boomers are Gen Y's parents, after all. They have to make a continuing commitment to helping this latest generation find their way via some significant mentoring and training. They're not just going to pick it up. Finally, they have to accept that Gen Y has a lot to offer. Not only are they facile with and open to just about any technology that comes down the pike, they are an incredibly hard-working and competitive generation. They are on top of the latest news and are voracious researchers. There is much that the Boomers can learn from this ambitious and savvy group of young workers.
Generation Y needs to understand that the Boomers do know a lot – more than they do in many critical areas. The younger people will also need patience and understanding: patience with their older bosses and understanding of the need to come out from behind the shelter that electronic communication provides and meet their public face-to-face. While it certainly has its place, technology will never be a complete substitute for the connection that is made meeting people in person. They also need to know that learning how a business works is not the same a cramming for a college exam. Such things take time.
There is much to be optimistic about. As Boomers begin retiring in droves and younger workers take their rightful place as business leaders, the workplace will evolve to meet the needs of the talented millions. Mining this talent will indeed require an openness and dialogue like no other. I can hardly think of anything more exciting.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
December 21, 2006
01:49 pm | 0 recommendations | 4 comments
A few days ago, I received my annual holiday greeting card from my friend and colleague, Diane Gargiulo. Diane owns Gargiulo + Parners, a strategic communications company in New York. As usual, the card was very cleverly designed. This year's graphic was understated and clean, the colors neutral with a splash of red to herald the season and the font (I think), the same one that is used in the company's marketing materials. Most significant, however, was the message, which was consistent with and reinforced the business's mission and brand while being fun and festive at the same time. Finally, it was signed by each member of the staff and Diane added a personal note to me.
When I say that I can't wait to receive Diane's holiday cards, I am not kidding. In fact, this year, it seemed the card arrived a little later than usual which had me drumming my fingers wondering what was taking so long. Every year the card is a delight. Although I certainly enjoy receiving cards from the many others who send them to me, there is nowhere near the level of anticipation and excitement I feel when Diane's card arrives in the mail.
So I thought it would be a good idea to think more deeply about this skillful use of aesthetics and design in business communication and how it can be applied to add tremendous value.
One common definition of aesthetics is "the study of the mind and emotions in relation to the sense of beauty." (Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 20 Dec. 2006. )
Regarding its value, the author Virginia Postrel states:
"[Aesthetics has value in and of itself and the value comes from] pleasure and meaning--our biological response as visual, tactile creatures and our cultural memories and associations. In between is our desire for novelty. As biological creatures, we notice and appreciate changes in sensory stimuli."
In my last entry, I discussed face-to-face communication as a way to gain an advantage. Getting out there, however, is not enough. You must be adept at interacting with others to get the full payoff. This skill enables us to make use of the sensory stimuli inherent in communication and connect emotionally with others, which gives us a tremendous boost as we seek ways to stand out in a brutally competitive marketplace.
The problem is that through the ages, good interpersonal style--let's call it the aesthetics of communication--has been dismissed as considerably less important than substance. Clients who come to me for help frequently worry about coming across as inauthentic, not genuine, phony and too "salesy." Such attitudes deprive them of a fantastic opportunity to differentiate themselves aesthetically, which, in many cases, may be one of the only differentiators left.
One of the best recent examples of a product in which aesthetics plays a major role is the iPod, a music player that does the same, exact thing as several other, significantly less expensive competitors but consistently outsells them by a large margin. I will never forget the first time I took one out of its box. The pure white front and polished metal back made me feel like I was handling a piece of jewelry. In the case of the iPod, form doesn't follow function; form (or aesthetics or design) goes hand-in-hand with function to make the product almost irresistible. Millions of buyers can't be wrong.
So why are we so resistant when it comes to applying principles of aesthetics or design to the ways in which we communicate? Why do we give it such short shrift? Is it really due to all those smart people constantly telling us that this stuff shouldn't count--that, in the end, substance is the only thing that really matters?
The problem is that for all their intelligence, the dismissive ones have not yet found a good, neat way to measure the value of aesthetics or design or form. This is nothing new. Such intangibles have always been notoriously difficult to quantify and in our bottom-line, business plan obsessed world, if you can't measure it, you can't manage it. But as the former Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart famously said when trying to define obscenity in a case that was before the Court, "I know it when I see it."
We know good or great design when we see it, too, and we also know well-executed business communication. Which is exactly what Diane Gargiulo's holiday card is. The takeaways are numerous. Understated, clean design and neutral colors translate to images of class and lack of ostentation. Use of the color red translates to recognition of the season. The carefully constructed message translates to business know-how. The signatures translate to individual outreach and caring and let's not forget the personal note. While they are probably not on every card that goes out, I suspect Diane writes notes to most. Translation: "Our relationship is important to me." Whew, talk about sensory stimuli! There is one more thing. It is clear to me that much thought goes into producing just the right card. Getting it out with all those signatures and personal notes is very time-consuming. I imagine that Diane has an annual holiday card signing party with really good food. Translation: "We'll work hard for you, too, and we'll have some fun doing it."
This is an awfully powerful message in such a small package. After being on the receiving end for so long, this year I hired a graphic designer to design my own unique card. The reactions are slowly trickling in, which is encouraging because in the past, I heard nothing. I'm guessing that I'll hear more after the holidays and I'll keep you posted on that.
Next year, I plan to get an earlier start designing my card. I'm already looking forward to Diane's.
Have a great holiday.
Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • ruth@ruthsherman.com • www.ruthsherman.com
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
December 18, 2006
09:00 am | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
A couple of weeks ago, Steven Johnson, an author who blogs for The New York Times, discussed the issue of virtual communication and social connections. His jumping off point was a column by Thomas Friedman in the same newspaper that lamented the fact that due to the proliferation of technology, we don’t speak to each other as much as we used to. As a result, Friedman said, social connection is on the decline, blocked by technology, and not a good omen for the future of the world. Johnson argued that in his view, technology has made us more connected and he was less worried than Friedman about the effect on civilization.
Toward the end of his blog entry, Johnson said something that really perked up my ears: “But the Web gives us more of those opportunities, and for the most part, I think it gives us better opportunities. What it doesn’t directly provide is face-to-face connection. So the question becomes: how important is face-to-face?”
As someone who works to help business leaders and their corporations communicate better, it has long been one of my tenets, my articles of faith, that face-to-face communication is indispensable, that there is no substitute for it. But, I have to admit, as technology gains more of a toehold and occupies a larger piece of the communication space, I find it more and more difficult to take such a hard line.
In speeches that I give (face-to-face), I ask for a show of hands in answer to a series of questions. They are “How many of you find that you txt, IM or email more than you speak to someone on the phone or face-to-face?” At least half the hands always go up. The second question is “How many of you txt, IM or email when you should be speaking on the phone or face-to-face?” More than half of the hands go up. My third question is “How many of you have found that after several times of going back and forth by txt, IM or email, you pick up the phone or go see the person on the other end and solve the problem in 30 seconds?” Almost all the hands go up.
Clearly, speaking can be a more efficient way of coming to agreement or solving a problem than the methods technology provides. No matter how instantaneous we think virtual communication is, it is no match for the speed and efficiency of the spoken word. This is not unimportant in a business environment where time has become the most precious commodity. But there is another, even more important benefit: There is an emotional component to speaking that we work to expunge from writing and, let’s be clear, txt, IM and email are writing. Emotional content fosters connections and we lose the ability to connect on an emotional level when we delegate much, if not most, of our communicating to the written forms.
When we write, the meaning is contained in the words. When we speak, however, meaning is largely contained in how we say the words. Tone, expression, volume, word emphasis, even accent and dialect, contain information that gives meaning to our words. And that is only the voice! If we add hand and body movement, facial expression and eye communication, dress and adornment, there is a rich lode of information that just cannot be communicated by words alone.
An excellent example of the importance of face-to-face communication is the way in which politicians conduct campaigns. I know of no one who would vote for a candidate sight unseen. It is for that reason that candidates feel compelled to use TV so ubiquitously and for the attendant and escalating costs of running a campaign. This is because we get so much more information about the person by seeing them, the more up-close-and-personal, the better. Questions such as “do I like and trust this person,” are much easier to get answers to when we have had a chance to meet or at least see a candidate, than when we only hear about the candidate or get written information about him or her.
Successful business leaders are well aware of this fact. While they depend on blackberrys and the other “can’t do without” technologies, they know that if they don’t see their customers, if they don’t network with their peers or mingle with their employees, they will be at a significant disadvantage in today’s ultra-competitive marketplace.
On the other hand, virtual communication has significant benefits. For one thing, written information can be looked over and fixed before hitting that send button. This is certainly important when we compose formal documents where it is still expected that grammar and spelling be correct. It can be important, too, with the informal written forms of communication, txt, IM, and email that we use as a substitute for communicating face-to-face or at least voice-to-voice. Proper spelling and grammar are, of course, less important, but we can still sit on a missive and think before we send. Another benefit, and I think this is what Steven Johnson is talking about, is that we can keep in touch and dialogue with people who are very far away or with others who may live close by, but with whom we would not ordinarily meet face-to-face. There is no question that this ability to communicate instantly with others all over our planet has been a tremendous boon to business. Does this foster social connections? Well, yes, it does, if you call brief back and forth written messages a social connection.
To me, however, and I think to most people, if they think it through, being connected socially is much more about thinking and feeling than content. A face-to-face or even a phone conversation often has some dead air, moments when two—or more people—just sit there, without speaking, but thinking and feeling instead, so that the next words are at least likely to be more thoughtful if not imbued with some emotion. “Do I like you?” That is a question that can only be answered by ongoing face-to-face communication. And not only do we vote for people we like, but we do much more business with them than with those we don’t.
So, to answer Steven Johnson’s question, “How important is face-to-face,” I think the answer is that despite the onslaught of technology and pressure to use alternative methods for everyday communication, it’s still very important, that is, if you want to do really well in business.
Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • ruth@ruthsherman.com • www.ruthsherman.com
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
December 13, 2006
05:16 pm | 0 recommendations | 2 comments
'Tis the season to mingle. Office parties and other business/social events abound. Many of us find this kind of exercise excruciatingly painful. It's tough, especially if you're running a business, to carve out the time to go to the many functions the season imposes. There is usually a mountain of year-end tasks to take care of. Our eye is on the prize -- those precious few days between Christmas and the New Year when the phones are not ringing off the hook. Who wants to be stuck in the office finishing up paperwork then? Better to get it done now and if that means no going out, well so be it.
Time, or the lack thereof, isn’t the only problem. More people than you might imagine are uncomfortable with the whole holiday party scene. A lot of effort is involved. Questions like "Do I have to dress up?" and "Who's going to be there?" are top of mind, not to mention, "Do I have to bring a gift?" Just entertaining these energy-sapping questions is enough to make some people want to crawl back into their office, lock the door and throw away the key.
But there are real and lasting advantages to going to holiday business parties. Unlike any other time of the year, December is a great time to reach out to customers, clients, staff and employees. Although most of them are also feeling pressed by work, they're also feeling festive. Clients and customers are looking to deepen their relationships with their vendors. (Yes, it's true!) Employees and staff want to get to know the boss or senior team better. The boss has an opportunity to show employees his or her softer side. It's a short and fleeting period and only happens once a year.
The trick is to choose carefully and be strategic about which events you go to. It always amazes me that business people who wouldn’t do anything that moves them one inch away from their business plan, approach the whole holiday party thing without any thought at all.
So how do you choose? Certainly client invitations should be at the top of your list. If, for some reason, you must refuse, you had better have a very good excuse or be prepared to lose that client’s business. And, by the way, this behavior is not limited to the holiday season. Next are the boss's invites. You might think that the boss only has sway over you during the workday, but you’d be wrong. And don't make the additional mistake of thinking that an invitation from your boss is optional. It’s not. The third must-do event is the company party. Sure, it's big, the usual suspects drink too much and the music is often bad. But you don’t have to stay for the whole thing. Just go for an hour or two, grab some hors d'oeuvres, a drink (doesn't have to be alcohol) and make small talk with the right people.
Zeroing in on the right people should be a key to your strategy. After all, if you're going to take the trouble to attend a holiday business party, you might as well get something in return. First and foremost, be sure to speak to the host. After that, it's up to you. You can narrow things down a bit by asking yourself the following questions:
- Who do I need or want to curry favor with come 2007?
- Who would I like to get to know a little better?
- Who should get to know me a little better?
Some readers may find this calculating and not in keeping with the holiday spirit. I would ask those readers to be mindful that in the holiday business party realm, the operative word is business.
But that doesn't mean you have to talk business and here's where a lot of people get tripped up. My advice is to keep things light, which is in keeping with the seasonal nature of these events. Small talk topics like vacations, family, entertainment of all kinds, food, restaurants -- you get the idea. These types of topics may seem like a waste of energy but it has been well established that small talk facilitates the move into the “big” talk that you’ll be looking forward to when everyone re-boots in January.
So don't file those invitations under "G" just yet. Choose the few that have the biggest payoff for you and your business; think of it as part of your business plan. You will surely expand your business reach and, who knows, you may actually have a good time doing it.
Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • ruth@ruthsherman.com • www.ruthsherman.com
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
