A Tale with Two Morals

Last week, I was working on a document for a project team of which I am a member. I had agreed to send it to my colleague so he could give his comments, and then we could send it to the entire team the next day, at the latest. I sent the document as an attachment, and went back to my work.
The next afternoon, I received an urgent e-mail from my colleague, which was forceful in its tone.
'Keith, (my colleague wrote), I am still waiting for his document. Let's not lose momentum on this. I would like to send this out to the project team as early as possible.'
I wrote back immediately that I had sent the document as an attachment in my previous mail. In case my colleague had a problem with attachments, I copied the text from the document and included it in the mail.
My colleague wrote back apologising, saying that he had somehow missed the attachment.
Originally, I had thought that he was obviously better with technology than me. This is an opinion I have about everyone. I am really bad at things like text messages, e-mail, etc., in fact I only have a very basic knowledge of any computer program. I still prefer to use a flipchart rather than Powerpoint. What is important, however, is that I know I'm useless. This is really a very important difference. I make it very clear to people what I am able and unable to do. This is why nobody is surprised when I send an e-mail with no attachments and only the text 'FYI' in the body. This is also why people will give me a copy of information in a way that is easy for me to take in, as they know that any other way increases the risk that I will not be able to talk to them about their offer later. To my knowledge, nobody thinks I am stupid. I try to improve my skills, but if I do, I keep it a secret!
Somebody who I'm reminded of in this aspect is Warren Buffett. First of all, I am in no way saying that the billionaire investor and I are similar in any other way (the difference in the number of zeroes in our bank account balances should convince anyone of that), but when I read the article on the swampland blog regarding Buffet's part in the fall of Lehman Brothers' Bank.

"Buffet was hurrying to a social event when he received a call from Bob Diamond, the head of Barclays Capital. Diamond was trying to buy Lehman Brothers and rescue it from oblivion, but he was having trouble with British authorities. So he had come up with another plan, one in which Buffett would provide insurance that might make it all work. It was all too complicated for Buffett to take in in a quick phone call, so he asked Diamond to fax him the details. Buffett got back to his hotel room around midnight and was surprised to find ... nothing. Lehman went under, and within days, the world was in a full-blown financial crisis.

Fast forward 10 months. Buffett, who admits he never has really learned the basics of his cell phone, asked his daughter Susan about a little indicator he had noticed on the screen: "Can you figure out what's on there?" It turned out to be the message from Diamond that he had been waiting for that night."

Later, when asked if Diamond's proposal would have persuaded him, Buffett admitted that it was a possibility.

For me, there are clearly two morals to this tale.
Firstly, we are (unfortunately) very definitley in the 21st century now, and part and parcel of this century's business in the fact that the main communication tools are e-mail, cellphone (including sms text messages), and voicemail. This is how business is done today. Many businesses no longer even have a fax. If someone carries a mobile phone, he or she should really be prepared to receive calls. If he or she does not answer every call, voicemail is inevitable.
The second moral is much more important, as it relates to my own technical skills. It is also one which many people are ignoring, and it is this: If someone asks you to send a fax, you send a fax. You assume that they have asked for a fax for a specific reason. They may prefer to receive faxes, or may not have time to listen at the moment, but a fax can be read at any time. Perhaps they don't have access to their computer, and don't know how to use voicemail.
A corollary of this rule is: If trillions of dollars may be at risk because of a vital part of the world merchant banking system is at risk, send a fax, leave a voicemail message, send an e-mail, send a letter by courier, and follow Warren Buffett to wherever he's going.

Anglik z Anglii

My friend is an Englishman who has been living in Krakow for some time. He keeps this very amusing blog which he describes as "him writing to companies and asking for things". Under the disguise of Anglik z Anglii, he complains about various things such as spelling mistakes (a can of tomatoes with 'peeled and choped' on the label), hygeine (a shop assistant picking up chocolate from the floor and placing it back into the display cabinet) and even the cultural ignorance of Polish musical institutions (the name of the group IRA having terrorist connotations in English)
Quite often, however, Anglik z Anglii complains about the kind of things we all complain about. Anglik would like to find apple-flavour yoghurt without cinnamon, he would like to buy biscuits that look like the picture on the packet. He would like to be able to buy a certain brand of beer that has stopped selling. He would like his teapot to stop making tea tasting of plastic.
Anglik z Anglii's blog is funny, lighthearted, clever and entertaining. What is interesteng for me is that it shows how far the gap can be between the UK and Poland in business-consumer relations. It's true that we don't all write to every company about everything, and I wouldn't write to a cinema about not getting free cornflakes, but there is a general rule in existance that when a customer complains, the customer is rewarded for making the effort. This is an unwritten rule, which companies use to encourage customers to provide feedback. However irrelevant it may be, there is almost no other opportunity for a company to get first-hand quality control information so easily. To paraphrase a business guru, if your customers aren't complaining, you should be really worried. Any effort should be made to get any kind of feedback.
My mother used to write to every company that dared to lower its standards. She complained to Cadbury that there weren't enough nuts in her whole-nut bar, she warned Kelloggs to check that there was a free gift insde every pack of Cornflakes, and when Nestle bought Rowantree, she asked if they had changed the chocolate used in KitKats, as she detected a drop in quality. Each time, she received a letter thanking her for her effort, and for providing the company with important information (actually, Nestle said that they had not changed the recipe, and suggested that her tast-buds were over-developed), together with a collection of chocolate bars, cereals, crisps, clothes with company logos, books, etc.
While I'm not suggesting that Anglik z Anglii is doing his best to get as much free food as possible (he does that for himself), it is nteresting to see that, at this time, to companies from around 15 have written back to him. Both of them have written excellent letters which thank Anglik for writing, and assure him that, if action has not been taken over his letter, at least it has been read carefully.
Again, looking at the follow-on effect, Our English Customer is satisfied after the fact, and a story about a company who he would never trust again becomes a story explaining why he would recommend this company to his friends. All for the price of one e-mail -and perhaps some free 'choped' tomatoes.

But, Because, But

Yesterday, I was listening to someone talking on the phone to her client. At this stage I should write that I wasn't spying on her, but coaching her on how to communicate with clients more effectively. This particular caller wanted my student to provide some information, and my student was trying to explain that the caller had already received the information, as she had sent out a full explanation by mail last week. And so, she kept starting every sentence with "But you already have that...", "But I..." "Because you didn't..." "Because I already..."etc. I really didn't like the conversation.
What was my problem? Although I wasn't listening to the caller's statements or questions, my student was making it very clear that she was in oppositon to everything her client was saying. While I would disagree if someone told me the sky was green and the sea was blue, I wouldn't start my argument with "But". The word but is used to warn the receiver that the next statement goes against what we have been saying. It sounds strange, for example, to say "She's fit, but she's healthy", or "I don't smoke, but I don't drink".
Occasionally, of course, we do have to use "but", but when every sentence you use starts with "but", the overall impression you give is that you disagree.
We are then presented with the question of what we can replace it with. Well, why not just leave it out? When someone asks you for information you have already sent, just give them a fact. "I sent it yesterday as an attachment". The difference is quite large. If my student had removed the "but", her answer would have delivered the message that she had already performed an action for the client before the client herself had requested it. My student would have made an overall impression of one who delivers. Depending on whether my student was making any progress with her client, you could argue that it would have been better and more effective to just send the information again. If you're thinking about clear communication, it might also help to think about what you want to achieve from it. For example, if a client says that they will pay me if I send an invoice. I'll send the invoice. My aim is to get paid, not to prove that my memory is better than theirs. No buts!

Thinking for the Client

There is a joke about a woman who explains to her doctor that she hasn't visited him for a long time as she has been feeling ill recently. Likewise, I haven't written anything on this blog for a while because I have been too busy working. At home, too, I've been busier than expected. I never thought a five-year old's birthday could make one feel so tired! Our son turned five at the beginning of this month, and we decided to take all the stress and organisation out of it by having the party in a place called Gibon, which is a large indoor children's adventure centre not far from where we live. My wife phoned and made all the arrangements, booked the Scooby Doo Room for the time and day we wanted, in the name of the Birthday Boy, and asked for an animator, a person who would lead the party and give the fifteen five-year olds tasks, run games, and generally ensure the parents had less to do with the children. She left her name and number as contact details.
A few days later, she received a call from the centre's manager, who said that they had noticed the bay's name was not Polish, nor was my wife's surname, and wanted to know if we would prefer the animator to speak English.
If you think about it, the manager did not need a large amount of detective skills to see an Irish first name, and that one of the mother's surname's is Irish, and conclude that the child probably speaks English. I'm sure that our son was the only Sean among the Jaceks and Macieks and Olas and Julkas in Gibon's history of birthday parties, so it didn't even require careful checking for the name to jump out and be noticed. However, what the manager did then was simple, yet rare and greatly appreciated. she took the initiative of contacting us and asking if we wished something different from what we asked.
My son speaks Polish (better than English, to my frustration), and all of his friends are Polish, so an English-speaking animator wasn't necessary, but before the manager phoned my wife, we didn't even know that it was possible to hire one. Often, if you don't know that the possibility to have something exists, you don't ask for it.
A colleague once told me of his visit to a dentist. He had booked the visit to get a filling for two of his teeth. After she had finished the job, he mentioned that he felt pain in a different part of his mouth. She replied that it may be due to the cavity in a tooth on the other side of his mouth. My colleague asked why she hadn't filled that cavity while she was working on the other two, to which she answered that he had booked the visit to take care of the other two teeth, which she had filled, and as he hadn't complained about the pain before, she didn't think he wanted it done.
I know teeth are more serious than a five-year-old's birthday party (except to the five-year-old!), but this example shows the contrast between thinking a little bit for your client, showing initiative -however small- and doing what you're told. I have no problem in recommending Gibon for any child's birthday party, but I'm not sure if my colleague would recommend his dentist.
Once again I seem to have written about Client Management rather than Communication, but the fact is that the little piece of empathy shown when talking to someone will help create, or build, the connection during the conversation. If both parties continue to imagine the situation from the other side, the working relationship becomes better and better, and before you know it, your conversation partner is telling everybody to take their five-year-old to your place. Make sure that's what you want, though!

Cultural Awareness - Foot-in-Mouth Disease

A friend of mine had bought a flat in Krakow some time ago, and had decided to sell it. As I live in Krakow, and she lives in Dublin, she asked me if I could help by delivering keys to the Estate Agent, and occasionally representing her to interested parties. For this reason, I found myself in an empty flat one Saturday morning with an Estate Agent and a couple from Zakopane to discuss which furnishings they wished to have included in the sale of the flat, and which they wanted to get rid of. During this time, the husband received a phone call, and excused himself. In order to make smalltalk, I fell back on that old Anglo-Irish standard, the weather. I remarked that the summer was slowly disappearing (it was September, and the temperature had fallen to the low twenties during the day). This topic was taken up with enthusiasm by the estate agent and the lady, who then said that she had seen a woman out walking with her baby in a pram, and the baby was not wearing a hat! The tone in which she said this left us in no doubt that she felt it was far too cold to have a baby outside with no hat. The estate agent reacted suitably shocked, and said that some parents were truly irresponsible when it came to their children's welfare. As an example, he mentioned a couple who had a baby of no more than a month old asleep in a car-seat which they were carrying around in a hypermarket. The lady agreed that they were behaving really stupidly, bringing their children to a 'breeding-place for viruses'. At this point, I quietly mentioned that in Ireland it was a regular occurence for parents to bring their children with them when they went shopping, and that children don't wear hats or coats outside until the weather is much colder. The others were a little surprised and embarrased at this, but I explained the theory behind this, that in Ireland we haven't such extremes of temperature, so we are less sensitised to changes in temperature. They declared that it was an interesting theory, but I am quite sure that they thought I and my kind were mad. They were also probaby feeling a little foolish at their faux pas.
I remember feeling uch the same level of awkwardness when I was about 10, and my friend had just got a new bike. I had a go on it, and said it was obviously a Raleigh Burner (Raleigh's answer to the BMX), as it looked much cooler than a BMX, because most BMX's had the letters 'BMX' placed all over them. When he told me the new bike was in fact a BMX, I felt really stupid.
When we think about Cultural Awareness, we often forget how pervasive and deep-rooted our culture is. The above example is a lesson. We all know not to offend our business colleagues by referring to them by first names (or last names, as the case may be), and we all remember the golden rule of when in Rome..., but how often would you think that there are cultural differences in when to put a hat on a baby!? This potential gaffe is on the same level as telling your new boss you think dog-owners are stupid, only to find out in the next sentence that she has two Yorkshire terriers. Of course, we will never get any closer in a relationship if we do not offer any personal information regarding our likes and dislikes, or our tastes and opinions, but there are many ways to express our opinions without offending our audience. "I wouldn't bring a small baby to a hypermarket, as I would be afraid of catching a virus" is a fine way to express the same opinion to develop the conversation without calling any person -or nation- stupid and irresponsible!

The Customer is (f**)King (stupid!)

Recently, I decided to buy hiking boots for my wife, as we were going on holiday to the mountains, and she had earlier said that she would like a new pair. I went to a local shoe shop, and asked for a pair in my wife's size. The lady behind the counter showed me the choices, and between us, we selected boots which I thought my wife would like, and which she thought were of good quality. I bought them, and noticed that the receipt stated that the shop did not offer refunds.
Later, my wife tried on the boots, and found that, not only were they too large, but there was a tear in the side of one of them. I went back to the shop, and explained the story to the lady. She said she was very sorry to hear about the problem, and looked for a pair without a tear, and in a smaller size. There were none. I explained that my wife had really liked the pattern, adn I was afraid of choosing a different pair. Without saying another word, she took the boots and receipt from me, and gave me back the money. She said that she was very sorry she couldn't give me the boots I had wanted, but that if I came back and tried later that month, she might have more of the same kind.
Before I went to the shop, I had expected to argue that the shop had no right to refuse refunds, and had prepared myself for the usual blank refusal from the shopkeeper. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the shop assistant actually cared for me, and wanted me to be satisfied with my purchase. While she was busy cancelling the sale and finding the money, I looked at the selection of men's shoes available, and decided that the next pair I bought would be from there.
It's amazing, but people often forget about Customer Service when they talk about sales skills, yet the sales assistant's readiness to break the shop's regulations to make me happy meant that, although no sale was made, a sale (or sales) would be made in the future. In my company, we are always looking for ways to satisfy clients' needs, even before the clients themselves are aware of them. Once, a client sent us notification of termination of their contract. Our Client Manager immediately arranged a face-to-face meeting to discuss the reasons for their termination of the contract. During this meeting, it came out that, while they were more than happy with the service we provided, they felt thay could not afford it -we were too expensive, in other words. The end result was that they continued with a more economic, streamlined service, and as soon as their business picked up, they returned to their previous plan.
This can be put into contrast with a company which used to look after our internet marketing. We were very unhappy with their sales service, and with the fact that they only contacted us to remind us to pay invoices. We decided we wanted to renegotiate our contract (in effect, change the plan), but at the same time test how they saw us as a client. We sent them two months' notice of termination of the contract. A week later, we received a phone call from the company, warning us that we were making a big mistake, and reminding us that we would still get two more invoices. That was enough of an answer!
Your clients become your clients because they need your goods or services. But there are hundreds (or thousands) of competitors offering the same, so you have to make sure that your clients need you. I can buy boots from anyone, so I may as well buy boots from somebody I like. And I will like somebody if I think they understand me.
My advice is this: talk to your customers. Then, listen to them. They'll be surprised, and you will too.

People are People!

Occasionally, people ask me if I have any good advice for them to remember as they start a new job, or when they are about to meet and do business with a new culture. My favourite maxim is this deep philosophy: 'People are People'
When I say this, most people either just laugh and say 'Isn't that the title of a Depeche Mode song?', or they just laugh, and remind themselves to get advice elsewhere. What Iactually mean, of course, becomes clear when you think about what people are. In the film Men in Black, a character learns that there are aliens living on Earth, and that this fact is kept a secret from the public. He asks 'Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.' His colleague answers:
'A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. '
This is an entry to my way of thinking. To continue, we can say that people are, at various times, thoughtful, kind, random, surprising, cruel, highly intelligent, equally stupid, forgetful, absent-minded, creative, dull, blank, unoriginal, unprepared, efficient, assuming, etc. The list of character traits that people can have is as long as the list of people on the planet!
With this in mind, it is a wonder that we are able to communicate effectively with anyone at all. Fortunately, people are people (!), and it is in human nature to communicate, to connect, and to want to join together and interact. This, together with our tendency to make assumptions (e.g. when someone says "Can I have some coffee?" we assume they want us to give it to them in a cup with boiling water poured on it) makes human interaction possible.
So, remembering that people are people, we should really hope that they have all the virtues, but prepare for the eventuality of them having all the vices! If we communicate using simple language that is impossible to misunderstand, and continuously ensure that the listener comprehends, and accepts the message, then we achieve our goal. In order to communicate effectively, we sould never assume that the listener 'is on our wavelength'. To paraphrase, we should treat the listener as if they are children.
Of course, I don't mean we should condescend, or speak in a patronising tone of voice, but we must remember that people are people, and children are very easily distracted, and very quickly lose focus. It is also true for us, that our listener may be trying (successfully or not) to multitask, and read while we are speaking, or speak while they are reading what we wrote. We must be prepared for our listener to be interrupted, or to suddenly be forced to leave. We cannot rule out the possibility that the head of a multinational corpporation is also distracted from a conversation (although he probably won't be distracted by the ice-cream van coming round the corner!).
Happily, the opposite is true, too, and because peope, make assumtions, and suppositions, we don't have to worry too much about giving explanations exact enough that a computer will understand and follow. How often do we hear or say the welcome comforter 'I know what you mean'?
My advice, therefore, for effective communication is to think of people as people, to consider, but also to welcome the human element.

You've got the Wrong Guy!

Today, I was going through some old anecdotes from www.businessballs.com, and I came across this great example of how we are often forced into situations we are not prepared for, and also how people will often hear what they want to hear. If it wasn't for the BBC video and source, you might even think the story had been invented as an illustration of how little attention is paid to what people say.
To summarize, the BBC interviewed the wrong man as an expert, and both the interviewer and interviewee were able to bring the interview to a close without laughing or crying. I wouldn't be surprised if nobody at home noticed, either.

Here is the text from Businessballs:

"This is a true story. It concerned Guy Goma, a lovely cuddly business graduate from the Congo, who on 8th May 2006 attended the BBC building in West London for an interview for an IT job. At the same time, the BBC News 24 TV channel was expecting a Guy Kewney, editor of the website Newswireless.net for a live 10.30am studio interview about the Apple court case judgement. (Apple Corps, owned by surviving Beatles McCartney and Starr, lost their case against Apple Computers, in which they sought to prevent the Apple name being used in relation to iTunes music downloads.)

Due to failed communications, entirely the BBC's fault (both Guys were blameless in this), the BBC News 24 staff grabbed the wrong Guy (waiting in a different reception to Guy Kewney), who, being an unassuming, foreign and extremely polite fellow, dutifully took his place in the studio, and after declining make-up (really), was introduced on live TV to viewers as Guy Kewney, editor of the technology website 'Newswireless', and then asked three questions by the BBC News 24 business presenter Karen Bowerman about the Apple judgements and its implications for internet music downloading.

Meanwhile the real Guy Kewney sat and watched 'himself' on the monitor in the BBC reception. See the interview.

What's so utterly fascinating about this, is:

Guy Goma initially expresses surprise about the interview situation, but, largely due to his broken English and heavy French accent the interviewer interprets and leads Mr Goma's response to mean that he is surprised about the court judgement. If you listen carefully Guy Goma does actually mention his 'interview' in his first answer. See the transcript below. However the pressure of the situation is too great and he has little option other than to play out the role that the fates have created for him. He actually does quite well, given that he knows little about the subject. Subsequent media reports that Guy Goma was a taxi driver are false - he's a business graduate. He later attended his IT job interview but regrettably was unsuccessful. You can read what Guy Kewney thought of it all on his own blog at www.newswireless.net (there are several entries - read them all to see the full picture).

the wrong guy interview transcript

Karen Bowerman: ...Well, Guy Kewney is editor of the technology website Newswireless.
[Camera switches to Guy Goma's face, portraying a mixture of shock, disbelief and impending disaster.]
KB: Hello, good morning to you.
Guy Goma: Good morning.
KB: Were you surprised by this verdict today?
GG: I am very surprised to see... this verdict, to come on me because I was not expecting that. When I came they told me something else and I am coming. Got an interview... [another word, impossible to discern] .... a big surprise anyway.
KB: A big surprise, yes, yes. [seeming a little anxious]
GG: Exactly. [growing in confidence]
KB: With regard to the costs involved do you think now more people will be downloading online?
GG: Actually, if you go everywhere you are gonna see a lot of people downloading to internet and the website everything they want. But I think, is much better for development and to empower people what they want and to get on the easy way and so faster if they are looking for.
KB: This does really seem the way the music industry's progressing now, that people want to go onto the website and download music.
GG: Exactly. You can go everywhere on the cyber cafe and you can take [maybe 'check'?], you can go easy. It's going to be very easy way for everyone to get something to the internet.
KB: Thank you [actually sounds more like 'Thank Kewney' - as if Ms Bowerman was a little distracted, no wonder]. Thanks very much indeed.

Lessons from this:

• Good clear communications are essential when managing any sort of interview.
• Pressure situations can easily lead people (especially interviewees) to give false impressions, which are no help to anyone.
• The behaviours demonstrated in this incident illustrate the power of suggestion, and NLP, albeit used mostly inadvertently in this case; the point is that all communications involve a hell of a lot more than just words..
• The power of the media to interpret just about anything for their own journalistic purposes is bloody frightening."

The Mother of All Translation Errors

Last week, one of our translation clients asked if we did not feel threatened by automatic translation websites, which reminded me of my days at University, when our Computer Aided Translation lecturer explained that translation programmes were generally fine if you translate the same style of texts again and again and again (the most famous translation programme, Meteo, just translates weather reports). If we were ever worried, she said, as to whether computers would replace translators completely, we just had to type the phrase ‘pig pen’ into a computer and wait for the results. There is a very good reason why translation is an arts degree, as there is so much more to it than flicking through a dictionary. My interest in translation led me to read this article, from the BBC, about translated texts in North Korea, a society so closed that there are very few native speakers of English in the country to proofread the government-sanctioned English language translations of propaganda. The language used by the Pyongyang Times is, apparently representative of the language used in the street, where a Korean phrasebook for tourists contains a section of ‘useful phrases’, such as “The American Yankee is a wolf in sheep’s clothing”, and “the US imperialists are the greatest threat to humanity in the 20^th Century”

Here is a great example of different values placed on words, where in North Korea, often-used words like ‘war’ don’t even register with people, yet cause concern among their southern neighbours. The more we use a word, the less meaning it has. An example closer to our lives is the amount of sincerity (or lack of sincerity) put in the expression ‘have a nice day’, or equivalent, that servers use to indicate they have finished serving us. In business, there is the word ‘issue’ –a fantastic word which everybody understands means ‘definitely not a problem’.

The North Korean translations are a perfect example of cultural differences between languages changing the overall meaning and sentiment of the text. Aggressive language is used on an everyday basis in North Korea, which, by definition, reduces the sentiment of such language to everyday –in other words, because this kind of aggressive language is used regularly, we cannot take it to mean that somebody is actually aggressive. Another example of the cultural difference gap is in the speeches of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The West is often critical of his speeches, accusing him of ‘sabre-rattling’. However, they make the first mistake of translation in not looking at who his target audience is. Certainly, he is not making his statements for the benefit of the Western media, but rather to his own people. Regardless of his political views, the language that Mr. Ahmadinejad uses is the language of a strong, proud, belligerent tribal leader –in essence, a perfect role model for a leader in Iran. The most famous quote of Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, was just before the Gulf War in 1991, when the Western press quoted him as warning people to expect ‘The Mother of all Battles’. Again, the difference a bit of context makes in translation is enormous. Firstly, the phrase ‘the mother of all x’ is an Arabic idiom, meaning that something is very large (for example, you might say you have the mother of all headaches the morning after a party). Furthermore, Hussein’s quote was in a speech warning his own troops to expect the mother of all battles, which his audience would have understood as a reference to the Battle of al-Qadisiyyah in 636AD, which saw an Islamic Arab army conquer Persia, leading in effect to the birth of the Iraqi nation. Hussein’s statement was actually a rally cry to his own soldiers, meant to warn them that the battle that was coming would be hard, but was justified. Again, leaving politics aside (which makes the world a lot nicer!), we see what is really a good piece of speech-writing, aimed to inspire, taken out of context by the Western press and redefined as aggressive.

So when reading the Pyongyang Times, take into account that it is a translation of texts written for a different audience, and translated by non-native speakers, with old dictionaries, from a different culture, and remember that aggressive language may not be intentionally aggressive.

1,700 insults in six months is a bit strong, however, so we may assume that the South Korean president is not a favourite of the paper.

Cultural Awareness with fries, please!

There is a large difference between academic knowledge and intelligence, between theory and practice. A reasonably bright child will be able to explain how to drive a bus, but I wouldn't get on a bus that had a child as its driver! Society protects itself by placing age limits on doing certain things -for example only people over the age of eighteen can drive a car. Qualifications and procedures also prevent people from doing things they shouldn't -For example, only qualified surgeons working at a particular hospital can performa surgical operation.
In business, however, the childish and incompetent are free to do what they want, with only heirarchy and internal procedures stopping them. The result is that quite often businesspeople have to make decisions that they are not qualified to make. For this reason, we prefer it when intelligent people with some kind of experience are in decision-making positions. Sometimes, though, especially when a business is doing something new, the decision-maker has to use her or his own judgement. Because there is no heirarchy or procedure in place to control, the person must make a decision and then see what happens. Sometimes the results are quite unexpected. Hoover's famous free flights fiasco, or the famous Mitsubishi Pajero example come instantly to mind. However, the latest example is really quite upsetting as far as executive thinking -or lack of thinking- goes.
In the 'Global Market', local marketing is quite important, to show that, although a company is a multinational conglomerate, it still thinks about the locals. Good examples of this are McDonalds, who even ditched their trademark red colour to use a blue sign in Israel to show that the restaurants serve kosher meals, and Canal+, who finance so many programmes and films in each of the countries it operates in, the locls often forget it is actually a French company. A very bad example has been made by Burger King, who wanted to advertise its Texican Whopper, and chose a symbol of success and wealth to promote it. Their choice? the Hindu deity Lakshmi, goddess of Wealth and Beauty. At no stage of the marketing and advertising project did anybody involved point out the fact that beef is forbidden in Hinduism.
The Texican whopper includes an all-beef patty, a beef chilli slice, and egg-based Cajun mayonnaise -all of which are forbidden by Hinduism. Displaying one of the religion's most popular deities about to eat this unholy trinity of products is sacrilege.
The advertisement ran in Spain, with the slogan "La merienda es sagrada" -the snack is sacred.
Hindus around the world protested, and Burger King quickly removed the ad and apologised, stating that it was not their intention to offend anyone.
They have also recently offended Mexico with an advert featuring a dwarf, a cowboy, a mask and a Mexican flag.
Perhaps for the executives at Burger King, it is time to think in a new area, and make the decision to change the advertising company?

Left where the lights used to be

I spent last weekend visiting family outside Krakow, and wanted to drive to the local bus station. I asked my host for directions, and he started to explain. "Get onto the Katowice road," he started, obviously assuming that I knew how to get from his house onto the Katowice road, "and drive on straight, and keep driving on straight. You'll start passing Real on the right." I wondered if he meant the only Real I know in the area. "Is that the Real in M1?" "Yes, that's the one! Then you turn left" My host's wife interjected "At the set of traffic lights" "Yes," agreed my host, "turn left at the traffic lights. Then you drive straight, and you start driving uphill, then you drive straight to the top of the hill, and then you start to drive downhill, and you drive downhill, and you drive straight, until you come to a large crossing, quite a large crossing, at the local stadium. There is a large taxi rank beside the stadium, too." I summarized "So, I go left at M1, and then go straight on to the large crossing at the stadium." "Yes, and then you go straight on," he continued , "and keep going straight on, until you get to a roundabout" I was surprised at what came next "...and then you turn right. Then you take the second left, which is about 200 metres after the first" -he never mentioned how far from the roundabout the first left was- " and drive straight on. And drive straight on until you get to the end of the street, and then turn right, and the bus station is on the left."
My host had used a description that was a million metaphorical miles from the description I would have used ("Left at M1, right at the roundabout, and take the second left, then the bus station is the next left."), and I remembered the old joke about an Irishman giving directions (go down to where the old tree used to be, and then you'll come to a large white house. Ignore that, and go on until you come to a field where Paddy sometimes leaves the cows...).
I read once that, if you ask a woman where the mustard is, the likelihood is that she will explain that it is behind the butter, and below the cold meats, in front of the mayonnaise. A man will probably tell you it is on the second shelf from the top, on the left. Men generally explain with coordinates, along with the philosophy of 'A place for everything, and everything in its place' Women use landmarks and reference points, seeing the world and everything in it as being related to each other.
What is interesting is that this is not news to anyone. We always complain that someone gives directions in a certain, specific way. 'He just gives the street names', 'She has to repeat every important detail twice', 'He gives the direction at every crossing, whether you go left, right or straight' Why not use this information to you advantage in the future? If someone always gives only street names when giving directions, then the best way to give him directions is not to tell him which landmark to look out for, but to tell him which streets to use. If someone reports every important detail twice, then he will understand something is important to you if you repeat it twice. I, for one, will give directions to my host in the clearest way ossible, with as many details as I can give. Why? He has already shown that this is the way he analyses and remembers directions.
Get into the habit of doing this, and you will find yourself automatically listening better to people giving directions. The end result is you will get lost less, and people will appreciate your directions.

Michael Jackson's Death: A Historic Event -in Communication

Michael Jackson passed away, and for about three days, this was the ost important event in the world. At least it was the most important event in the news. Of course, in this day and age, the media are less concerned with politics, and more concerned with celebrities. Recently, 100 years of a national newspaper have been made available online, and the early editions have whole transcripts of debates from the House of Commons. Of course, people are still interested in the workings of government and the national and intenational economy, but if one compares the content of a newspaper today with the contect of a newspaper of the early 20th century, it is difficult to find so much gossip and descriptions of new celebrity couples from the earlier paper. What has changed in society? Well, society has changed. A wider demographic can read now, and they also have the money and time to buy material to read. The press must cater to wider tastes.
A bigger sign of social behaviour for me can be seen in how society reacted to the death of Michael Jackson. When Lady Diana (Queen of Hearts) died, thousands of people collected around Buckingham Palace to leave flowers and console each other over the passing of their icon. Within hours of Jackson's death, hundreds of facebook groups had been started to commemorate the King of Pop and to share the grief. Now, setting up a group on a social website is the equivalent of taking time off work and travelling to a focal grieving point to lay a wreath (I'm sure somebody has written a 'lay flowers on MJ's tomb' application for facebook already!) . Facebook and other similar social networking sites are not so much a sign of the times, more a sign of the people. This is what people want to do in their free time. We have alread had people meeting and marrying over the internet. People grieve through the internet. Although the Catholic Church officially opposes it, people with guilty consciences can confess online, too. It seems there is nothing we don't prefer to do online. If this is just another sign of the death of face-to-face contact between real, living people, then I'll meet you in the online grieving site.

Just find an English-speaking friend, and ask...

Every now and again, a new story comes along to be added to the great list of terrible brand names that have been used. Usually, the examples are given in business school case studies as warnings to double check everything.
The last example is of the Russian Gas concern, Gazprom, and their new joint venture with Nigeria's state oil company. The name of the new company is Nigaz.
Of course this is causing a lot of comment, and there were a number of articles looking at the fau pas. The deal between was supposed to show off the Kremlin's growing interest in Africa's energy reserves, and instead, it will be used to show how provincial businesspeople can be, and that it is very important to have a good grasp of English.
The mistake was first pointed out on the popular site twitter, (which I will definitely have to write about in the near future!), and before long, it had moved on to marketing website Brand Republic, and finally onto the Guardian website.
I wrote that it was a mistake, but is it a mistake? It is common practice in Eastern European languages to form a name by putting the first syllables of all the important words together (Some Polish building companies -budownictwo- in Krakow are called Krak-Bud, Budokrak, PolBud, Budopol, etc.)
Take the name of the country first -perhaps out of respect- and you have 'Ni'. Take the first syllable from the Russian company, 'Gaz', and you must get 'Nigaz'. Some people have laughed that President Medvedev didn't ask anyone what it might mean before announcing the company at a press conference in Nigeria, but who on the president's staff has such a role -Cultural Omniscient? Another question is why should he?
The word may be offensive in English, but here we have a company which has a final product that will be marketed in Nigeria, where the Nigerians were not upset by the word, and Russia, in whose language the word is not insulting.
And what about where people are proud of the name? I lived in Germany where the Real hypermarket chain had outsourced the butcher's section to a family company whose name was the surname of its founders. With every piece of steak I bought, I would receive a label with the price, and the friendly greeting "Vielen Dank, Fuck GmbH". What should you do if your name is offensive in another language?
I'm sure for every product that has a funny or taboo meaning in English, there are more English product names that have taboo or funny meanings in other languages.
For example, Osram lightbulbs sell their products with no shame in Poland, where the name means "I defecate all around it". There is also the famous story of Mistubishi's 4x4 vehicle, the Pajero ( a name in Spanish for someone who enjoys masturbating a lot), which some argue well defines the drivers of these vehicles! The car was renamed the Montero in some regions of the world. The fact that we see these multimillion dollar concerens making mistakes like this is, for some reason, comforting. It gives us the feeling that everyone makes mistakes, and we aren't so worried by it. I wanted to see if the president of the German meat merchant agreed with me, but when I put 'Fuck President" into Google, a lot of websites about George W. Bush came up.

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!

One Sunday recently, my wife and children and I went to visit family friends, and in the noise and chaos of the children's playing around us, we started talking about lying. Not lying in bed asleep (although for parents of young children this is what they frequently dream about!), but not telling the truth. We quickly reached the conclusion that lying generally receives bad publicity. Whether we like it or not, the ability to communicate false messages is a vitally important lifeskill. If you don't believe it, think about the last time your mother asked you if she looked nice in that horrible new dress she bought!
Our friend declared that he was quite proud of the fact that his children were able to lie, which, at first, was shocking, but when I listened to what he had to say about it, I understood better what he meant. When you think that a child learns absolutely everything through experience at the beginning, it is really a giant step forward when the child is able to tell the difference between real and unreal, true and false, and be confident enough to know that what is being described is not real. Then, added to that, the child knows that describing an imagined situation will bring benefits ('I already asked Mummy, and she said I could have a sweet', or 'Did you hit your brother?' -'No').
While I can also quite happily declare that I'm proud that my children possess this ability, I am more proud of the fact that thay choose to admit to what they have done wrong (at least for now -I'm sure that will change soon enough), and that they only tell untruths when they are playing ('Daddy I'm a motorbike!).
Our friend then said that lying is necessary in business, which I agreed with to a certain extent. A character in one of Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels came from a tribe where almost nobody had the ability to tell a lie. For this reason, the ones who had this gift were nominated to the position of tribal liers, and it was they who were sent to negotiate and trade with other tribes. The example our friend gave, however, was of a different situation. He claimed that when dealing with subordinates who have made mistakes, a manager had to lie, and praise them, although he'd really like to just shout and swear at them. I was also surprised at this theory. In all the years I have had people work under me, I don't think I have ever felt the need to lie to them.
Of course, there is the question of diplomacy -I would never tell anyone they were rubbish, but there is also the question of propriety -of discussing the proper topic with the proper person. If one of my subordinates -at any time in my career- asked me if I thought they were ugly, pretty, in good shape, a good singer etc., I don't think that would have any effect on our work relationship. I would answer diplomatically, as I would if anybody asked me.
There is a saying "The truth, however ugly, is good. A lie, however beautiful, is bad." With this in mind, I wonder just how successful you can be as a manager if you lie to your staff. I much prefer to tell my staff what I really think about their ideas, work and input. The trick, though, is to make sure they know that these are your feelings, and not facts. "I think that you could have done better" is a fact, explaining the way you think. Such a statement can lead to discourse, as youmay discuss how the work could have been better, and a next step (or steps) can be planned together. "That is hopeless" is a useless phrase which has no positive quality whatsoever. In addition, it is stating your -highly subjective- opinion as a fact. This, in its own way, is a big lie, and one that is definitely bad.

Forty Years in Search of an 'a'.

According to an article by BBC science correspondent Pallab Ghosh, Niel Armstrong slipped when he stepped onto the moon in 1969. Ever since the historic event, people have debated about whether the first words ever spoken on the moon were
"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind", or
"That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind".
Armstrong himself was convinced that he had said the second sentence -which does in fact make more sense. However, the words of the first man on the moon have often been quoted in the first form, in which the word 'man' has roughly the same meaning as 'mankind', so making the sentence slightly more cryptic.
In an effort to solve this debate, Dr Chris Riley, author of the book Apollo 11, An Owner's Manual, and forensic linguist John Olsson carried out the most detailed analysis yet of Neil Armstrong's speech patterns.
Riley and Olsson studied archive material o Neil armstrong speaking, recorded throughout and after the Apollo 11 mission. They then took the original magnetic tape recordings made at Johnson Space Centre, Houston, which have recently been re-digitised to make uncompressed, higher-fidelity audio recordings.
These clearer recordings indicate that the "r" in "for" and "m" in "man" run into each other, leaving no room for an "a".
But there is a rising pitch in the word "man" and a falling pitch when he says "mankind", which suggests Commander Armstrong was contrasting using speech. According to Mr. Olsson, this indicates that Armstrong "knows the difference between man and mankind and that he meant man as in 'a man' not 'humanity'."
Mr. Olsson says that Armstrong may have "subconsciously drawn from his poetic instincts to utter a phrase that, far from being incorrect - was perfect for the moment."

Kuleshov -saying something by saying nothing

One Christmas, as a present, my brother got me a subscription to 'Empire', a British magazine about films. One of the issues delivered had a free book with it, 'The Empire Movie Miscellany'. Recently, I picked it up and read through it, and came across an entry titled 'The Kuleshov Effect'.
This name describes an experiment in film editing carried out by the Russian Filmmaker Lev Kuleshov. In the experiment, Kuleshov showed an image of the expresionless face of actor Ivan Mozzhukhin, and intercut it with shots of a plate of soup, a little girl and an old woman's coffin.
When the film was shown, audiences praised the mastery of the acting, and raved about Mozzhukhin's range, with his ability to display hunger, fatherly love, and grief with such finesse. Vsevolod Pudovkin (who later claimed to have been the co-creator of the experiment) described in 1929 how the audience "raved about the acting.... the heavy pensiveness of his mood over the forgotten soup, were touched and moved by the deep sorrow with which he looked on the dead woman, and admired the light, happy smile with which he surveyed the girl at play. But we knew that in all three cases the face was exactly the same."
Kuleshov used the experiment to indicate the usefulness and effectiveness of film editing. However, the implications are much more interesting on a broader scale. The experiment worked because viewers brought their own emotional reactions to the sequence of images, and then 'projected' their own assumptions and emotions onto the actor. Mozzukhin's blank expression became a blank canvas on which viewers could not help painting over with their own subconscious feelings. In short, then, we have another in a long line of examples of people assuming, instead of verifying, and so, the next opportunity for misinterpretation arises.
Everybody who is interested in communication knows about Professor Albert Mehrabian and his statistic regarding message transmissions. Essentially, Professor Mehrabian found that

• 7% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes is in the words that are spoken.
• 38% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes is paralinguistic (the way that the words are said).
• 55% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes is in facial expression.

While his findings relate only to emotions and feelings (as perfectly illustrated by Kuleshov's experiment), it is worth remembering that very often, more information is transmitted non-verbally than verbally. This is why we never see a country's President giving a 'state of the nation' speech in front of a burning car crash. A lot can be passed across (or, on the other hand, not) when the speaker allows the audience to assume. Of course, this may also be a good thing -the state of the nation may be that of a burning car crash!
When we want to deliver a message, we have to decide if we want to do it explicitly, in which case there is no doubt what we are communicating, or implicitly, allowing the audience to make its own conclusions. A student of mine told me of a case where she wanted to help a client who had asked for the e-mail address of her supervisor. She explained that she could not give out the e-mail address of John Smith, her supervisor at company, but the client could e-mail her at her address, which was the standard format of e-mail addresses for everyone in that company: Jane.Jones@company.com. The client, sounding offended, told her he was sorry she couldn't ooperate. Sometimes, we just have to hope our audience is clever enough to make assumptions.

Cocaine Gives You Wings!

About a year ago, the makers of energy drink Red Bull introduced a new cola-flavoured drink, Red Bull Cola, onto the market. Last week, a health institute in North-Rhine Westphalia found traces of cocaine in the drink, which led to authorities in six German states banning the drink. An article in TIME magazine reminds us that, until 1903 Coca Cola contained traces of cocaine, and explains that according to the analysis, the 0.13 micrograms of cocaine per can of the drink does not pose a serious health threat — you'd have to drink 12,000 litres of Red Bull Cola for negative effects to be felt! Indeed, officials confirmed that the cocaine levels were too low to pose a health threat but were not permitted in foodstuffs.
Stories like this come around from time to time, where a new product is found to have a harmful ingredient or effect. What interested me, though, is Red Bull's reaction to the report.
A Red Bull spokesman said "De-cocainized extract of coca leaf is used worldwide in foods as a natural flavoring", and Red Bull said its cola was "harmless and marketable" in both the US and EU.
It is quite easy to see that the authorities in question, while perhaps panicking, are just reacting to concerns that could be raised by the public. Red Bull's answer has two points that interest me. The first is that they seem to completely ignore that the findings are the result of research carried out by Institutes -accepted bodies of wisdom in society. Their statement also ignores the decisions of six German states (and, since the whole affair started, several countries which have called for the drink to be withdrawn), and so suggests that Red Bull are not concerned with what governments think.
I'm not suggesting they reinvent the drink, but often -as is the case in many differences of opinion- it's enough to say "We understand how you feel". Red Bull have shown no empathy whatsoever -a key factor in customer relations. They have decided that they would go ahead and do their own thing.
What is their thing? That is the next point. Red Bull's official statement claimed not that the drink was "harmless and acceptable", not that it was "harmless and drinkable", but that it was "harmless and marketable", not the warmest, kindest, most honourable characteristic of a drink. I can't help wondering if the attitude shown in the company's response didn't lose them some support, as they suggest that a) local governments don't know what they are doing, and b) they are able to market it, so it must be okay.
On the other side, given that Red Bull's website is full of videos and photos of extreme sports, high-energy racing machines and adrenaline-fuelled adventure, it may just be the reaction to what they see as great publicity!

Words of warning

Unesco unveils its first comprehensive database of
endangered tongues
Current data from the Ethnologue organisation (www.ethnologue.com) puts the number of languages spoken in the world at 6809. That's right, there is approximately one language for every million people in the world. English is just one.
Yesterday, Unesco announced that 2500 languages are under threat of disappearing worldwide. This means that the number of languages spoken may drop by more than a third.
The reason for this drop is, quite simply, money.
Everywhere around the world, young people leave rural areas and move toward cities in search of employment. In Krakow, where the majority of inhabitants don't come from Krakow, this is very obvious. However, although the rest of Poland may disagree, Polish is spoken in Krakow, too, and so the economic rural immigrants can more easily assimilate. In India or Brazil, where tribal languages are used in day-to-day communication in villages, people are moving to the city and picking up one of the more common languages. They generally stay in the city, and reject their native language in favour of their new language.
The effect on the 'dropped' language is, of course, devestating, but what of the effect on the new 'target' language?
I speak English every day. I speak to my family, my colleagues and friends, and to clients. Depending on the relationship, I alter my language. This is normal, we all do it in every language. However, the English I use when I speak to a group of people who mainly use English in business isa different version. In fact, it is not a regional dialect at all. This 'Offshore English' has developed as a direct result of non-native speakers communicating in a common, foreign, language. Offshore English is not 'bad' English, it is just a simpler form and more rigid structure than sloppy but aesthetic natural English. Why should a native speaker change his or her way of speaking? One of the answers, again, is money. One case study mentioned on www.usingenglish.com is of a contract to provide flight simulators to South Korea, where a French company won the contract because the buyers found it easier to understand the English spoken by the French that the English spoken by the British company.
For me, though, another reason for doctoring my language in a conversation is for the simple efficiency of having everything I say understood! I find people generally polite, and Polish people more polite than most. A result of this is that, if I were to ask a Pole "are you heading down for a one and one after the flicks?". They may answer in the positive, rather than admit they had no idea what a one and one or a flick is (and nor should they. A 'one and one' is Dublin slang for fish and chips, while 'the flicks' is common slang for the cinema). I am also aware of using 'false friends', words which sound similar but have a different meaning. For example, 'actually' in English does not mean 'aktualnie' in Polish. My language is noticably different when I speak exclusively to non-native speakers of English, one might say I am showing deference by speaking their language. Number 6810, perhaps?

Firm sorry for 'Mr. Blind' blunder

I came across this news article today. A man in Hull, England, received a letter from Council contractors addressing him as 'Mr. Blindman'. The company apologised saying the error happened when Mr Harris's disability was mistakenly entered on its database.
The 'Blindman' story did remind me of the urban legend of the man who complained about finding insects in the sleeping compartment of his overnight train. He complained, and then some time later, received a gracious letter from the Director of the company himself, apologizing, and ensuring that this was the first such case, and that his comments would be acted upon, and he was, in fact, contributing to improving the Company's standards. This pleased him immensely, until he found a transcribed note in the envelope: "Send this guy the bug letter!"
There is a danger when we perform repetetive tasks of our brain shutting off, and so we don't pay any attention to what we're doing. Data entry is perhaps the most obvious example, but there are others. A relative of mine owns a wholesale cash and carry business, where many business owners come and spend a long time selecting various luxury items to sell in their own businesses. The amount of time they spent there meant they often had phone calls relayed from their own office to the warehouse. I remember one case where a receptionist switched on the P.A. system and called "Mr. Tierney to reception. Telephone call for Mr. Tierney," followed by a pause, when normally the P.A. would be switched off, and then "...the big fat f---er!" I believe that was her last day in the firm.
I can't remember which one of the institutions in Krakow it is (as a foreigner, I had to register at so many), but occasionally I receive letters addressed to Miss Keith Byrne. This is as much due to the clerk not knowing if 'Keith' is a male or female name as it is to the clerk simply not checking.
The overall effect, however, is the same. There is a feeling that the company providing the service just doesn't care. And nobody wants to stay with a company that doesn't care. At the first opportunity, the client goes to a competitor. In the worst case, the client goes onto the news.
A good rule to follow is, when doing anything that is connected with a client or customer, or that may be seen by somebody outside the company, remember this, and always check, double check, and then check again. The next rule is to treat everything you do as belonging to this group of tasks. You just never know who's listening to you telling someone to send this guy the bug letter!

This is What I Meant!

For the last few years now, I've looked on as other people formed blogs, and listened as they talked about each other's blog. I'm not the most technologically aware person on this planet, and I just presumed this was the next craze from Japan, after Tamagotchi, Pokemon and dressing like a schoolgirl. More and more often, however, I noticed that the content of the editorials section of the online newspapeps I read were actually blogs. This relaxed me completely. The phenomenon of blogging is truly amazing. It gives us all instantly the power to have articles published which otherwise would never see the light of day. I must confess I am a little afraid that there's a reason why they would otherwise never see the light of day.
Now, whereas the internet used to be 85% pictures of Japanese schoolgirls dressing (or undressing) like schoolgirls, it's now around 60% of this, 15% everything else and 25% lists of The 50 best albums of all-time, The 20 best guitar solos of all time, My Top 10 Tom Cruise Films, My 40 favourite Japanese Schoolgirls, etc.
However, quite often, I find articles or have thoughts, which I feel could enhance and improve peope's lives. Hopefully, you will read this, the least useful post on this blog, and still check one of the others. They are much more interesting, if you find Communication interesting. I do, and I don;t think I'm so strange. Anyway, welcome to my World!