Out of the Mouths of Babes

One morning recently during a school holiday, I was getting ready to go to work, when my 7-year-old son asked me "Why can't you stay at home with us?" "I'd love to", I replied, "but I'm meeting people today to teach them some important things." "What?" he enquired. "Well, I'm teaching them how to phone their customers, and make sure that they're happy, and find out if they could do anything more for them." (Considering that it was before 8am, I was quite proud of my explanation) "That's easy!" answered my son, and added confidently "I can do that already!" "Go on!" He picked up my phone, and said "Hello? Hi, it's me. How are you? Are you happy? Would you like me to do anything more for you?" He hung up on his imaginary call partner and said "See? It's easy!" For the rest of the day, I tried to explain what mistakes he had made, and the point is, I still can't see anything wrong in it! Of course, there are questions regarding how quickly and to the point the main issues are brought up, and style is also a factor in conversation. However, my son asked the questions he wanted to, and still showed that he was listening. In fact, there is a very strong argument that his directness would show that he is more honest in his communication. I am surprised at the number of times people go into meetigns with clearly defined questions which they either never ask, or ask in such a vague way that they don't get answers. It may be that you don't know what your client is able to pay because you haven't asked, or you may not know if your staff like a new policy because you never said "Hey guys, do you like this new policy?" Again, I would like to repeat that everything should be in moderation, and there is a very real, and very good, reason why diplomatic language exists. However, there are some very good reasons for using simple, straightforward language too!

It Wouldn't Hurt to Say it Once in a While!

Recently, I recommended a group of accountants in an outsourcing project to start making nice calls. They didn't understandwhat I meant, as they were too busy writing e-mails to remind clients to pay outstanding invoices, and reminding the sales depatment to finally send missing documents. One exasperated soul told me "It's difficult to talk nice to someone when I have to phone him later and complain that he still hasn't paid 11 thousand pounds from last quarter. I don't even know if he's read my e-mails!" This last sentence made me suspicious. "Have you ever spoken to this guy on the phone?" I asked. "No", was the reply. Whether he liked it or not, my accountant friend already had a relationship with this indebted client. It turned out that the client, although late by three months with a five-figure amount, was on time in other ways, returning statements, documents, and answering other questions and queries the accountant had. In other words, the first ever time he would hear his colleague's voice was to be berated about a late payment. I agree that money is important, and I agree that the accountant should call the client about the outstanding sum. I do not agree that it should be the first phone call between the two. I checked with some of the others. Nobody ever picked up the telephone to just say "Thanks for that". Few of them regularly sent an e-mail longer than two words to say it, and yet it is one of the strongest tools in relationship-building. It is difficult to imagine asking a child to give you something, and not to say "Thank You." When a stranger opens a door for us, we say "Thank You". When our dog brings us back a muddy stick we have thrown away, we praise the dog for doing what we wanted. The result is that Fido wants to do something to please us again. Here, people are not so different from our four-leggeed friends. How much would it mean for you if you answered a call at work and were told "Hi, it's Steve from the Marketing Department, here. I'm just calling to let you know I got the files I asked for. Thanks a lot, it'll really help me prepare a great report. Keep up the good work!" As corny as this example sounds, we would all appreciate it if our efforts were acknowledged more often. The next time you get something you asked for, pick up the phone and say "Thanks". You -ans someone else- will be glad you did!

How To Write

I have recently coma across the website Letters of Note, a wonderful and well-curated website that "gathers and sorts fascinating letter, postcards, telegrams, faxes, and memos". It really is worth bookmarking or subscribing to it, as it rewards quickly and often, with such presents as a young David Bowie's letter to an American fan, a "Jerry Maguire" memo from Jeffrey Katzenberg, and Stephen Hawking's tongue-in-cheek answer to a request for a Time-travel equation ("If I had (one), I would win the National Lottery every week.")

The website's sister-site is Lists of Note, which aims to do the same thing with lists written and sent (or not) by well-known people, or on well-known themes. It was here that I came across this fantastic memo written by advertising guru David Ogilvy to all employees of his advertising agency, reminding them that writing is a skill, and should be treated as such.

The better you write, the higher you go in Ogilvy & Mather. People who think well, write well.

Woolly minded people write woolly memos, woolly letters and woolly speeches.

Good writing is not a natural gift. You have to learn to write well. Here are 10 hints:

1. Read the Roman-Raphaelson book on writing*. Read it three times.

2. Write the way you talk. Naturally.

3. Use short words, short sentences and short paragraphs.

4. Never use jargon words like reconceptualize, demassification,attitudinally, judgmentally. They are hallmarks of a pretentious ass.

5. Never write more than two pages on any subject.

6. Check your quotations.

7. Never send a letter or a memo on the day you write it. Read it aloud the next morning—and then edit it.

8. If it is something important, get a colleague to improve it.

9. Before you send your letter or your memo, make sure it is crystal clear what you want the recipient to do.

10. If you want ACTION, don't write. Go and tell the guy what you want.

*Writing That Works, by Kenneth Roman and Joel Raphaelson

I can quite easily count how many times I've given the same -or similar- advice to people looking to write more effectively in business; every time I am asked!

Of course, there is nothing in the list above, or in George Orwell's famous Rules for Effective Writing, which in itself requires study. However, it is definitely worth putting in front of you beside your monitor for daily reflection.

As I have said before, I have yet to receive a complaint regarding my own work, or the work of my colleagues, that it was too easy to understand! It is very difficult to suggest that you are not happy with someone's communication because you know exactly what he means!

Making things short, simple, and well-structured means that you are sure you're getting your idea across. And if you're getting your idea across, there's a bigger chance that people will agree with you.

Face to Face

I recently found that an old acquaintance had found a new job in a company which is setting up a location in Krakow. We met to discuss training needs for the company, and she told me all about her new job. She explained to me that the top management of the company flew in almost weekly to meet the new hires and see how the team were progressing with the new office. Each time they arrived in Krakow, they met everybody who had started work since they had last been in town, and got to know them. They were able to have regular progress meetings with their managers in person while they were in Krakow, too, and were on site to give advice, support, or help adjust targets when needed.

This reminded me of a contrasting e-mail I once received from a friend of mine who works in a Shared Services Centre in Dublin. She said that she didn't know if she was doing a good job, as she hadn't seen her direct supervisor in weeks, but because of that, she presumed her work was satisfactory. In the same conversation., she told me she was looking for a new job. She didn't say if the two facts were connected, but I am pretty sure they are.

Human beings are social animals. We need to interact (despite what we might tell others!). Besides, there is so much more that we can convey with a facial expression, tone of voice, a light gesture of the hand, that it's no surprise that we generally prefer to talk to people face-to-face than on the phone or by e-mail.

If you have a message to give, try to consider delivering it face-to-face, in person, wherever possible. I like talking to people. I'm sure you do, too, and so probably do your colleagues!

Don’t Try to Help!

Try this with your colleagues at work: Tell them you got a phone call from your parents, saying that they need you to help them in their house this weekend, but that you have already agreed to help another friend move house. Then tell them that you have called your friend and changed the date, and they are fine with that. Before you explain this last fact, though, take a sip of coffee. By the time you swallow the coffee, you will have two or three solutions presented to you. Often, when people start to tell us their problems, we immediately start looking for solutions. This is the ‘default’ human nature, to instinctively try to help. This impulse is increased if we spend our time in work solving problems (and most of us do work with people, and so spend all our time solving problems!)
However, as with our experiment, most people have already thought about their problems in a little greater depth before they relate them to us, and so our automatic response can seem at best overenthusiastic, at worst, dismissive. When people tell us what has happened to them, we must first of all decide if they are in fact telling us about a problem. They may be relating an interesting story, or gauging our reaction, or perhaps even boasting, if they themselves have already worked out a genial solution. Until we know what is expected of us, it may be best to delay reaction.
How can we tell what the other person wants from us? Why not ask them for clues? “How does that make you feel?”, “Have you any idea what you will do?” “How do you think I can help?”. Questions like these will clarify the issue without being too aloof. You might also avoid volunteering to do something you don’t need to.

What Employees Really Want!

A few months ago I was present at a talk given by the Centre Manager of a Shared Services Centre based in Krakow. The Centre employed 350 people at the time, and had plans to employ a further 150 or 200. During the talk, the Centre Manager was boasting about the Centre's reputation as a good employer, and shared with us the results of the Centre's last employee satisfaction survey.

As you could guess, a lot of people mentioned bonus schemes and salaries, but although the Centre pays average or higher for the industry, this seems to be an easy area to complain about.

Apart from the subjects relating directly to money, the most important factor in employment satisfaction was communication. This was ahead of facilities, working hours, atmosphere, even development opportunities.

The Manager explained that almost every employee mentioned that they wanted to have more information, sooner, from their managers. They weren't only referring to information immediately relevant to them, either! Communication is vital for so many different reasons, and not just for the ones mentioned in leadership meetings.

Of course, there is a certain size where an organisation must divide itself into departments, projects or teams, in order to survive with some kind of structure. However, in accordance with the rule of 'divide and conquer', one of the effects of this division is that the people in one department no longer really know what's going on in any of the other departments. Of course, it isn't necessary for the Accounts Payable Team to know what the Accounts Receiveable Team are doing, but it helps us feel more like we're part of the big picture if we are aware that there is a big picture!

There is a story of a TV production company who was experiencing reasonable success, and so decided to build their own offices instead of renting. When the architect asked them about designing a kitchen, the directors saw this as a great opportunity, and ordered that no kitchen was to be built. With no other opportunity but to eat lunch at their desks, they reasoned, productivity would rocket.

In fact, after the company moved into its purpose-built headquarters, productivity dropped by 50%! The reason was the exact same one -there was no canteen. People were no longer able to mingle between departments, chatting and gossiping while waiting for the kettle to boil, or the microwave to ping, or while eating their pizza. And so, the television production company -a company very much in a creative industry- had made it almost impossible for staff to be creative at work! No longer would people overhear a problem, and remark that their colleague had had a similar problem, but found a solution. Gone were the days when people would call out "does anybody know how to fix this?" and expect an answer, or at least sympathy!

Human beings are social animals, and despite people complaining about financial gains, deep down, all we want, any of us, is to be loved. Give your staff the opportunity to systematically chat, gossip, ask for advice, offer advice etc., and they will feel much more comfortable. And despite our pride of living in the 21st Century, we are still much more fond of using prehistoric methods -the office intranet is not an outlet for social communication! Make sure your staff is happy to chat. Just make sure they don't suddenly go quiet when the boss walks in!

Main points: communication weak. (Dress code, pay also)

Think for those who don't

This morning I was proofreading an article for a physics graduate student, who had written about a photovoltaic circuit. He had described something that happened in both situations, when S=0(switched off) and when S=1(switched off).

I have a background in languages and linguistics, and I have both feet firmly in the humanist camp, so it quite often happens when I read a scientific text that I ask the author to explain passages to me. I guessed that he had made a mistake when typing, and had wanted to write 'on' instead of 'off' at least once. But when?

When I asked my colleague if he was sure it was correct, he read the sentence and said it was correct. He is a physicist, though, and I thought that he may have just read the equations. In this case, I asked him to tell me if when S=0, the circuit is on or off. "Off", he answered. Next, I asked him if when S=1, the circuit is on or off. "On" was the reply. I crossed out the relevant "off", and wrote in "on", and asked him if it made sense now. He laughed when he realised he had read the piece three times and hadn't noticed.

Often, when we read or listen, we start to lose concentration, and our brains 'fill in' any information we don't pick up, by understanding what should be there. The other side of the coin is when we concentrate too much on the concept, and stop concentrating on what is being said or written. To see this is action, the next time you are in a restaurant, and the waiter asks in passing "Is everything alright?", answer in a pleasant tone of voice, "No, thank you, I'm not at all happy". Most probably, the waiter will smile, reply "That's fine", and walk off. Of course, this fact can be very useful at times.

The solution to this is quite easy, and is simply to ask the other person to repeat back what you have said, or to repeat what they have just said, in the form of a question. "So, if S=1, is the circuit off?" would be an example of checking to see that someone is listening to what they are saying. To check if the waiter was listening to you, the question might be "Is it fine that everything is not alright?"

The thing to remember, though, is this: If you're going to check that someone is paying attention, you had better be paying attention yourself!

What to Take Away from the Chinese Restaurant

Today, for the first time, in my blog, I want to recommend a business.
On Saturday, we decided to order our lunch from a Chinese restaurant. My wife, who was returning from the centre, would collect the food from the restaurant and bring it back. This is one of the benefits of this restaurant, we are able to phone in our order, and then it is ready when we collect it. But this is not why I want to recommend them.
This was to be our younger children's first experience of Chinese food, so we made sure we could order different -but not too exotic- choices for lunch. The restaurant's menu is varied, and everybody can find something they like. We ordered Sweet and Sour Pork, Beef Chop Suey and Crispy Chicken, with three portions of rice, and a portion of prawn crackers. This was more than enough for the five of us, as our restaurant is generous with the portions. But this is not why I want to recommend them.
My wife came back with the food, and as we unpacked the bags, we realised there were only two main courses there. We checked the bill, and saw that we had, indeed, paid for three. What happened next is why I want to recommend them.
My wife telephoned the restaurant and asked if she had left the third main course there. I heard her give our address, and then she said thank you and hung up. She said that the restaurant were sending the food right away.
Five minutes later, there was a knock on the door of out fourth-floor-without-a-lift flat. When I opened it, the manager of the restaurant was standing there, breathless, holding our missing Sweet and Sour Pork, together with a complimentary carton of juice and an apology.
This kind of service is becoming more common in Krakow, but it is far from normal.
Once, we ordered a pizza that should have taken 30 minutes, and took two hours to come. When I complained to the delivery person, he shrugged, and said "Traffic". I told him that the time was unacceptable, and asked him what he could do to compensate. Again, he shrugged his shoulders, and said "if you don't want it, don't pay for it, and I'll take it back". I asked him to wait while I phoned his manager. I called, and said I had placed an order two hours before, and they had delivered the pizza 90 minutes later than they had said they would. The manager said "yeah, traffic". I asked him if he expected me to pay the full price for the pizza, and he said "well, if you don't want it, tell the driver to bring it back."
We have not ordered from that pizzeria since this event. This is not such a problem, as there are many pizzerias in our area. Anyway, I think we'll be ordering Chinese more often.

Business like a Swan

The other day I received a letter from the electricity company regarding our energy supply and possible changes. I wanted to ask a question, and so I called the telephone number on the letter of the woman who was named as 'handling the case'. When she picked up the phone, I introduced myself and started to explain why I was calling, only for the woman to interrupt and ask me to wait "literally 30 seconds, because I'm standing at the printer". I waited, and when she had obviously collected her printout, walked from the printer to her workstation and sat down, she asked me to provide her with a reference number.
I will say that the service was very good. My questions were answered professionally and clearly, and the woman's tone was polite, friendly and helpful at all times (this is a rare occurence, but that is a topic for another blog entry!). What I didn't like was her revelation that she answered the phone while on the move.
Someone once provided me with an image of a business as a swan on a lake. Above the water line, everybody sees a graceful white bird moving effortlessly, gliding through the water. What nobody sees, however, under the water, are the black, webbed feet pushing, pulling and paddling about like crazy, working the whole time to move the swan like in a romantic story.
Everybody likes their suppliers to be professional, graceful, competence, in control, omniscient. We don't need to know they are run by humans, too. When I telephone a contact, I'd like to be told that she will call me back when she is available, not that she has gone to the toilet. If I ask for some details, I'd rather be told that you will refer the question to your manager than to be told you don't know where the information is.
One of my clients called her agent and asked about a report she had originally asked for two weeks earlier. The agent sadi that she had not been in the office recently, as she had fallen and hurt her knee, and so she had been lying down for two weeks before going in to have knee surgery, and was only back in the office now. Five minutes later, she revealed that her colleague in the office was handling her cases until she got back on her feet. While I like the idea of being natural when talking with business partners, I also feel one should present a professional, competent, businesslike persona at all times.
So remember the swan, and the image that we want to present to the public. Make sure that you only let people see below the water line if you don't mind them seeing how fast you are paddling.
On the other hand, the next time you are intimidated by someone's smooth, polished business image. Remember that their feet, too, are below the water.

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.