Performance Reviews, Part I: How to Write Evaluations that Serve Employees and Organizations Alike

Posted on by
3

By Caroline M. Cole

In the coming months, organizations may see an uptick in the number of employees stepping up their game; adopting their best behaviors; and working to make the strongest impression on supervisors, coworkers, subordinates, and clients—sure signs that review cycles are upon us again. Whether they’re called performance evaluations, merit reviews, employee appraisals, or something else, these assessments, in their ideal form, offer employees matter-of-fact feedback on their performance and productivity, validating efforts and, as necessary, refocusing or redirecting others. In the process, performance reviews encourage transparency of expectation, help organizations identify where and how team members could be put to greatest use, and enhance channels of communication between and among various divisions and their participants. These ideals, however, are seldom realized in most review systems.Performance Reviews

Performance reviews have increasingly become a nerve-wracking gauntlet in which people are mercilessly scrutinized, sorted, and ranked in an effort to determine who gets what recognition, project assignments, salaries, bonuses, promotions, or even continued employment. Unfortunately, such zero-sum evaluation models encourage people at all levels to game the system, rather than use it to accurately assess, critique, and promote contributions that can serve individual employees and the larger organization.

Consider, for example, competing objectives between employees and management, which alone are enough to undermine most review systems. Whereas employees seek more promotions, better opportunities, higher salaries, and bigger bonuses, management works to keep costs as low as possible, often creating “Us” and “Them” factions that can encourage both sides to skew evaluations in ways that serve their respective interests. Yet while “us–them” divisions may be most obvious between different levels, they can likewise emerge within a single tier of an organization’s hierarchy. For example, there are team members and other allies—supposedly competing against those in other divisions or offices for limited resources—who will give one another more favorable reviews than may be warranted as part of an unspoken quid pro quo agreement; these same individuals may likewise give people beyond their immediate cohort (their alleged competitors) unfavorable or simply lukewarm evaluations, directly or indirectly sabotaging others within the same company. Whatever the reason, the result is the same: scores of evaluations that leave organizations unsure of an employee’s actual contributions, larger divisions and teams dismayed by the efforts that are and are not recognized, and individual employees less certain of where or how to apply their talents for greatest impact.

Performance reviews should and can be more than what many people experience. Therefore, whether we are evaluating subordinates, peers, or even those overseeing our work, the strategies below can help us write evaluations that serve employees and organizations alike.

• Focus on performance, not (just) personality. Evaluations are easier when considering quantifiable targets and objectives, such as percentages, dollar amounts, quantities, and other figures that reveal the extent to which someone has met particular benchmarks; for instance, if the goal was to raise $500,000 in revenue, evaluations can matter-of-factly recognize employees who do, in fact, raise $500,000, praise those who exceed $500,000, and call out those who raise less than $500,000.

Harder to evaluate are the soft skills, which are often tied to an individual’s character and personality, such as work ethics, attitude, flexibility, adaptability, communication skills, time management, and social grace. These and other subjective elements inevitably emerge in performance reviews, because they can be instrumental in helping employees meet quantifiable targets and objectives; they are likewise valuable for encouraging office congeniality and, by extension, for enhancing company culture. Problems arise, however, when performance reviews adopt a bottom-up approach, which can promote overly subjective, biased evaluations, regardless of any measureable evidence to the contrary.

Starting with the reviewer’s thoughts about the person being assessed, bottom-up evaluations tend to be (more) glowing when reviewers like the individual and less favorable, or even damning, when reviewers do not care for the person under review. As such, bottom-up evaluations can be misleading. After all, people may be kind, generous, and pleasant, but ineffective in the work they do. Similarly, those who seem aloof, curt, or otherwise rough around the edges may be able to accomplish all they are required to do, and more, with the highest quality. Again, personality and other subjective traits may figure into the employee’s overall performance, but grounding evaluations primarily or even solely in an employee’s personality can inadvertently reward well-liked, but low performing individuals and punish high performers who may not be as popular.

Evaluations will always contain subjective observations, but if we are to provide information that can help individual employees, managers, and the larger organization make decisions about how to achieve various goals in the most efficient, company-approved manner, we must be as attentive to people’s performance as we are to their likability. Starting with a job description can help us generate top-down evaluations that move us in that direction.

• Start with the job description. Top-down evaluations assess employees against pre-determined goals and directives, explicitly correlating what employees have done (or have not done) against those demands. A job description is often the starting point for identifying these objectives but, depending on the context, earlier reviews and conversations, as well as the person’s individual goals might help narrow or otherwise shape the expectations guiding a particular review. Therefore, in writing evaluations, we must first understand the individual’s job and the ways in which it contributes to larger organizational goals.

For instance, what are the person’s day-to-day obligations, as well as that person’s responsibilities on particular projects and assignments? What are the performance standards for such efforts; in other words what signs or benchmarks would indicate that someone has done all that which was required or expected? And finally, how, why, and to what extent do these efforts contribute to helping others meet individual and collective targets?

By understanding what people are being asked to do and why, we can better report where and how people are meeting various expectations. Along the way, we might also recognize where job descriptions are obsolete or otherwise in need of revision, minimizing the likelihood that we inadvertently penalize the individual for not addressing or participating in outdated tasks.

• Include the evaluative element. Gathering information on what a person was supposed to do and what the person actually did is the starting point for most performance reviews, but evaluations must do more than simply list job responsibilities and employee actions; they must assess the value of those actions and efforts as the particular employee has done them. In other words, the evaluation should explain the extent to which the employee’s completion or non-completion of those responsibilities has contributed to meeting, exceeding, or failing to accomplish larger goals. And herein lies one of the greatest challenges for writing evaluations: recognizing that participation in and of itself is not an indication of (useful) contribution.

Woody Allen said that “80% of success is showing up.” Clearly success requires that we show up, but we must also realize that simply showing up or even participating does not ensure success when and as needed. The time we spend on a task, for example, may not always produce the results we seek; the work we do may not always move projects forward; the leading, facilitating, reprimanding, cheerleading, and so on we offer may not always be what’s necessary at a given time; and, on occasion, we may not reach our goals, despite our best efforts. Unfortunately, performance reviews evaluate performance, not potential. Therefore, evaluations must identify the ways in which the person being reviewed has moved the team, division, and larger organization forward in reaching their individual and collective goals, as well as the ways that person (directly or indirectly) has hindered or delayed those efforts, given all of the variables in play. To address these elements, we might consider answers to the following questions about the person we are evaluating:

What, in general, did the person need to do, for whom, according to what criteria, for what aims, and by what deadline(s)?

* * *

Were there any extenuating circumstances that would have affected which expectations the person could meet, or how?

* * *

In spite of, or because of, any extenuating circumstances, did the person do all that was required, as expected?

* * *

On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 equals “not at all,” and 5 equals “to an exceptional degree,” how would each of the person’s contributions rank in terms of being sufficient, effective, appropriate, efficient, professional, timely, thoughtful, quality driven, and so on?

* * *

What was impact of the person’s individual and collective efforts on the team’s, division’s, and larger organization’s short- and long-term goals?

Depending on who is being evaluated and in what context, these questions may overlap, offering different ways to understand the value of the individual’s contributions. And while answers to these questions may not, in themselves, appear in a review, they can shape the types of comments we make and the details we emphasize or subordinate in our assessment.

• Resist hyperbole and other flashy language. In an attempt to praise (or condemn) people in an evaluation, reviewers often turn to adjectives, believing that modifiers inherently reflect value. An understandable position, especially considering that an often-consulted resource for writing evaluations is James E. Neal Jr.’s Effective Phrases for Performance Evaluations.

Grouping “effective phrases” into categories describing a person’s accuracy, computer skills, cooperation, innovation, management abilities, and so on, Neal offers hundreds of options for describing the ways people perform. And for those who may want to add a stylistic flair to their descriptions, Neal adds a list of “helpful adjectives” that reviewers can sprinkle throughout their evaluations, expressing their enthusiasm for individuals who may be curious, energetic, observant, resourceful, keen, enthusiastic, and so forth, resulting in statements like:

sustains a high achievement level,

is an abundant producer,

very reliable in meeting expectations,

displays strong competency,

is very talented in gaining the support of others,

shows highly effective computation skills,

is very knowledgeable over a wide range of responsibilities,

demonstrates effective delegation techniques,

makes reasonable decisions, and

capably handles potentially volatile situations

Performance reviews that include such phrases may sound supportive, yet the fact that these and comparable phrases draw upon relative terms means that the value of an employee’s contribution is up for interpretation. Regrettably, in contexts with competing agendas, fluid interpretations in performance reviews can be problematic for employees and companies alike.

Relative terms are words—typically adjectives, but also concepts—that assume identical points of reference for defining, gauging, and understanding value. In performance reviews, relative terms would be phrases and words like far-reaching, high-achieving, action-oriented, solid, fresh, enthusiastic, innovative, abundant, reliable, and strong. Yet, while people who write performance evaluations know what they mean when they use these words, and while people who read performance reviews know what they mean when they see these words, it’s unclear, and unlikely, that those writing and reading evaluations mean exactly the same thing. Unfortunately, when people do not share identical points of reference, relative terms become “relative” to each participant’s individual point of reference.

Consider a gruff officemate that a supervisor describes as “customer-oriented,” or a manager that barks orders being described as “pro-active” or “assertive,” or those who don’t solicit others’ feedback being called “independent.” These different interpretations and, by extension, different understandings of terms and phrases inevitably result in miscommunication. Therefore, if we are to fairly and accurately convey the impact of what someone’s work does or offers, we must move away from modifiers and, instead, offer indisputable facts. In other words, we need to identify and replace the relative terms that conventionally overwhelm performance reviews with details that others can understand—regardless of their context, background, and biases.

To demonstrate, take the phrase “…promotes a creative environment.” In this example, the adjective “creative” is the relative term, for what “creative” means depends on a person’s experiences and frames of reference for creativity. Those working for a graphic design studio, for instance, will define “creative” differently than those working in software development, school administration, and financial services. There may also be concerns about what it means to “promote” such environments. For some, it may be initiating and financially sustaining particular programs, services, activities, and endeavors; for others, it can mean not directly hindering things from occurring.

If we are to help others understand exactly what we mean by “creative,” or any other adjective we might be tempted to include in a review, we must provide tangible, uncontested details that others can recognize and interpret in the absence of first-hand observation. In other words, we must show, not tell.

One strategy for moving beyond relative terms is using the “X was so Y” trope comedians would use to encourage audiences to respond, “How Y is/was it?” In the case of our example, “…promotes a creative environment” would prompt the response, “How creative is/was it?” Comedians might offer a punch line, but performance reviews would offer details to answer the audience’s question. For example:

“…sponsors weekly brainstorming sessions to help team members discuss strategies for resolving individual and collective concerns.”

“…at every stage of development, randomly draws the names of 3–5 employees from every division of the company—regardless of the division’s or employee’s connection to the immediate project—to solicit feedback on how to refine the product before sending it into production.”

Such information needs no additional commentary or qualifiers to help readers interpret what we mean (e.g., “She’s really creative—she sponsors weekly brainstorming sessions to help team members discuss strategies for resolving individual and collective concerns”). The details we offer should speak for themselves, allowing readers to understand the person’s contribution as creative, responsive, supportive, encouraging, or any other adjective they might provide on their own, based on both the details we offer, and those we don’t.

Given the problems of relativity, we can understand the concerns conventional performance reviews generate with comments like:

Elizabeth is highly motivated, friendly and personable.

Response cards continue to suggest that Philip has inadequate customer service skills.

Xi uses his diverse experience in customer service and extensive leadership experience to make valuable contributions to the company.

We have received regular complaints that Lisa is not offering her team members sufficient guidance or encouragement.

Sheryl is a fast learner, able to master complex details quickly with minimal supervision.

Bryant uses his exceptional experience in sales to move products.

Running through the “X was so Y” trope, or the reporter’s “Five Ws” and the questions “How?” and “So What?,” we can see potential discrepancies. “Highly motivated” according to what standards? “Friendly” by whose definition? “Inadequate” in what ways? “Personable” in what forum? What constitutes “diverse experience” or “extensive leadership”? What time frames are assumed by “regular” and how much is “sufficient”? What do “complex details” represent, and how “quickly” were they learned? What type of supervision is conventional in comparable contexts, thereby allowing someone to suggest an “insufficient” amount has been offered?

Such questions, left unanswered, make it harder for those reading evaluations to gauge not only what the employee has done, but what that individual may be able to do going forward. In contrast, by linking employee contributions to job responsibilities; by replacing relative terms with quantifiable or observable details that indicate how, why, to what extent the employee has met, exceeded, or failed to reach particular targets; and by explaining how the employee’s actions and behaviors have served or hindered larger goals, we can help employees and companies make better decisions moving forward. Consider, for example, the following performance review excerpts:

In March 2019, Tricia was assigned to the Inkwell account to review the proposed budget and identify ways the team might be able to cut production costs by 3–5%. In the months that followed, she organized one-on-one and team meetings with the eight developers stationed in offices throughout California to understand each stage of development and the resources developers needed individually and collectively at each stage. Based on these discussions, she then arranged for developers to meet face-to-face two days each month to work on project segments. By streamlining communication an resources between and among the developers, the larger team was able to catch and address programming problems at earlier stages than would have been possible otherwise, shaving two months off the original production time and saving 7.5% in overall project costs.

* * *

Zachary remains one of three editors for the firm’s website, focusing primarily on the financial segments, yet contributing to the tech discussions as necessary. In June, he proposed writing a weekly personal finance blog, and his blog launched the first week in August. The site continues to gain 3–4% new subscribers each month overall but, since Zachary began blogging, an additional 1500–2000 people (or 1.6% of total subscribers) have subscribed to the site through the link on his blog page; of these new subscribers, 21% have purchased products from the site, generating over $180,000 in sales within six months.

* * *

Although Janice was to take an increasingly active role in pitching products to potential VCs firms, the market has been uncharacteristically sluggish during Q1 and Q2, minimizing funding opportunities throughout the industry. Thus Janice turned her attention to researching current and potential VCs and developed one-page company profiles for 93 organizations that might be interested in providing seed funding for projects in development or otherwise underwriting products we have discussed bringing to new markets. In the meantime, developers have been using Janice’s company profiles to identify VC-valued features they could incorporate into products, thereby appealing to broader audiences.

* * *

Each day, Blake uploads sales, expense, and new business data for the 15 Image Collection Packages sold exclusively online; he then uses that data to track and analyze product line sales and costs to generate sales forecast reports that the marketing team uses to develop advertising objective, strategies, plans. Although Blake meets weekly deadlines with these reports, he does not always maintain the database of competitive products (which entails researching competitive products, evaluating product characteristics, tracking market share, pricing, and advertising), limiting the information the marketing team has to create product campaigns.

Depending on the context, such descriptions can present employees as innovative, collaborative, resourceful, supportive, encouraging, adept at solving problems, resourceful, productive, adaptable, sufficient, capable, average, low-performing, and so on—all without using adjectives that someone else might interpret differently. But more importantly, they help employees and larger organizations identify specific actions and behaviors that are moving projects forward as expected, or better-than expected, as well as area that may need attention.

* * *

Review cycles are seldom popular because egos are fragile, expectations can be unclear, and stakes remain high, prompting individuals on both sides of the evaluation to distrust the process at-large. Yet while performance reviews may never become a welcome enterprise, they should—at the very least—become fairer, more transparent, and more constructive assessment tools. In doing so, they can help employees and organizations identify ways to move forward in ways that enhance individual and collective performance.

Working toward Areté…
In the space below, share your experiences and observations about reviews—both those you have written and those you have read—and the elements that have helped you and others make critical decisions.

Share Button

How to Dazzle During an Interview

Posted on by
Reply

By Caroline M. Cole

Many applicants know what they should do during an interview, and most can identify what they should not to do. Unfortunately, the conventional do’s and don’ts list applicants use when preparing for interviews configure these discussions as a series of isolated tasks to complete and mentally check off as the candidate moves through the process: Dress professionally, check. Arrive on time, check. Offer confident handshake, check. Show enthusiasm, check. Answer questions, check. Send thank you note, check. But even candidates who move through these steps with ease can leave a hiring manager feeling lukewarm about their fit for the position for one reason: In their quest to dazzle during an interview, candidates focus more on their performance; unfortunately, performance is seldom the foundation for the genuine relationships organizations need with their team members.How to Dazzle During an Interview

On the surface, interviews seem grounded in power differentials, and why not? Candidates are looking for a job, and companies have openings, so candidates feel compelled to suck up to an organization or otherwise strut their stuff in order to make an impact. Ironically, however, the most impressive interviews are not about power or even showmanship but, rather, respect and reciprocity.

Based on the conviction that both parties could be better off by working together than they would be working independently, interviews are opportunities to discuss if, and how, a collaboration would be mutually beneficial. Yet because symbiotic relationships are contingent upon an authentic awareness of and concern for one another’s interests, and because applicants have more information about themselves and the types of companies they’d like to work for, candidates need to do the heavy lifting. Specifically, candidates must do more than help a company learn about their capabilities; they must demonstrate a sincere interest in helping the organization meet its needs.

To accomplish these goals, candidates need to understand both themselves and the company they wish to join. After all, it is only by knowing where, how, and to what extent (if at all) their ambitions intersect with or map onto a prospective employer’s objectives that candidates would be able to argue that a reciprocal alliance is, in fact, possible. The discussion below thus offers strategies for how candidates can gather and use information to promote win-win collaborations—the foundation of dazzling interviews.

In working to understand themselves, candidates should recognize that they are the “product” they’re trying to pitch to prospective employers so, like an effective salesperson, they must know their product intimately. Contrary to belief, however, self-awareness is not an automatic byproduct of living, which means job applicants must be proactive in not only identifying the experiences, talents, interests, values, and so on they have (i.e., product specifications), but the ways in which those elements—in isolation or in combination—would be of use to the companies to whom they are “selling” their services (i.e., consumer value). Therefore, to dazzle during an interview, you should be prepared to answer the following questions on a moment’s notice.

• Who am I? Although this question can move candidates into abstract, esoteric responses, you might consider how you would describe yourself in professional contexts. You might begin with descriptions of your strengths, your limitations, your interests, and your expertise, but you should also work to answer questions that can help you identify what motivates and inspires you so as to target industries and contexts that will help you be your best self. For instance, what characteristics do you value most in yourself, and in others? What adjectives would you use to describe yourself? What beliefs shape the way you see and interact with others? What behaviors, actions, attitudes, and habits do you aim to have or demonstrate on a daily basis?

• What have I done? Whereas the previous question focuses on who you are, this question focuses on what you have accomplished. Taking inventory, you may discover that you have accomplished many things in your life, but hiring managers are most interested in learning about the accomplishments that would increase their success; therefore, you might start with accomplishments that demonstrate characteristics, skills, or talents that could be put to use in the organizations with whom you are speaking.

To that end, you might consider what have you done—individually and collaboratively—in school, industry, or even in your community that has improved circumstances, solved problems, or otherwise increased value for others. Along the way, you should aim to identify the training, skills, and experiences that helped you move forward, as well as elements that may have limited your success. Collectively, this information can help you identify what you can or would be willing to continue doing in other forums.

• What do I want to do? Although people may know things, companies pay their employees to do things. Therefore, you must be able to discuss the type of work that interests you. Certainly this work may be inherent in a job title; for example, managers manage, consultants consult, researchers research, and analysts analyze. Nevertheless, you might also consider ways in which that work could be configured beyond the job title in light of people you’d like to work with, forums or environments in which you’d like to circulate, services you’d like to offer, products you’d like to make, and so forth. Questions that can help you identify such work include: What needs do you strive to fill, and how do you work to fill them? What projects or endeavors to date have given you the greatest satisfaction? What activities give you the most fulfillment? What contributions would you want to make, and how do you envision making them? What would you do if time, money, and fear were not obstacles or, alternately, if success were guaranteed?

• Where do I want to do it? The way candidates respond to this question can say much about their values and interests. For instance, some candidates might describe particular industries, while others will focus on specific divisions or positions within an organization. Others might discuss geographic location. Given the variety of answers, you might consider your response to the question “what do I want to do?” as a starting point for answering “where do you want to do it?” in case the work you want to do is possible only within particular environments. If not, you can use other “where” factors to identify additional and, perhaps, less conventional opportunities.

• Why do I want to do it? Knowing what they want to do will help job applicants find forums for how they can do it most effectively, but understanding why they want to do it can help candidates make more meaningful contributions.

In his book Start With Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action, Simon Sinek explains the “Golden Circle” (his model for inspirational leadership that inverses conventional starting points for human motivation), arguing that people don’t buy what you do it; they buy why you do it. Applying his argument to employment practices, Sinek suggests that when a company hires people for what they can do, it attracts employees who pursue results (the “what”), such as money, status, power, and other accolades. In contrast, when a company hires people for why they do what they do, it can attract candidates whose vision resonates with it’s own. This matters, according to Sinek, because individuals who see an organization’s vision as an extension of their own will be more likely to offer their blood, sweat, and tears to help realize and extend that vision, and these are the candidates that will stand out.

• Where do I see myself in 5, 10, or 20 years? Definitive answers may be impossible, for experiences continue to shape and move people in directions they may not always foresee. Even so, you should be able to explain where you’d like to go, because few companies want the responsibility of deciding your career path. Granted the direction you see yourself moving should be flexible, allowing for deviations or complete reversals, but having short- and long-term professional goals can help companies identify where and how there may be mutual benefit. Equally important is that this information can help you identify organizations that could move you more quickly and efficiently in your target direction.

 Where and how you enter, take up, and respond to these questions will say much about you and what you can bring to an organization. And though it may be tempting to simply think about answers, offering a clear, concrete, and succinct response under pressure can be challenging. Therefore, rather than just consider ways you might answer each question, you should write down a 250–300 word response to each question. The resulting answers can give you tangible reference points for your conversations with organizations. As importantly, they offer a concrete foundation to help you prepare for and respond to most interview questions.

*  *  *

Being able to answers the questions above will put you in a better position to have genuine, thoughtful conversations that are of interest and value to both parties—providing you select organizations that match your interests and values. While this statement may seem obvious, industry practice suggests otherwise. For example, there are candidates who cast their nets broadly and apply to numerous companies they admit are of little to no interest, simply hoping to get an offer. Others will sign up for or participate in interviews with companies they have no intention of working with just to practice interviewing for organizations they truly aspire to join. Whatever the reason, the results are the same: candidates waste recruiters’ and companies’ time for personal gain, a move that inherently suggests there’s little mutual respect. Therefore, before submitting application materials or agreeing to an interview, candidates should take the “$50,000 Investment Test.”

Consider, for example, that asking companies to pay their employees for the work they do on behalf of the organization is one thing, but asking employees to pay the organization for the opportunity to do that work is quite another. And yet that’s exactly what employees do. Granted, they may not be writing out checks, but employees are investing in their employers with the energy they spend, the materials they produce, the products they sell, the ideas they offer, the clients they secure… all contributing to the company’s brand and bottom line. The question thus becomes whether you’re pitching yourself to organizations that could help you meet your goals, satisfy your vision, or otherwise make the contributions you’d like to make in the most productive and meaningful ways, even as you help the organization meet its goals. In other words, would you be willing to pay the organizations you’re talking with to do the work they need done?

To help answer this question, assume you had $50,000 (or the annual salary your profession supports) to invest in a single company for one year. Would you trust any company you’re applying to with that entire investment? For example, would you write a personal check to the company’s CEO? Would you buy stock in the company as it’s presently configured or managed? Would you invest in the research and development of the organization’s products and services, or actually purchase the results of those efforts? Would you financially subsidize work the organization does, the values it espouses, the direction its heading, the reputation it holds, the leadership if offers, and the systems it maintains?

Once you’ve identified an organization you’d be willing to invest in, push yourself to answer “Why?” For example, what is it about what the company does, or about the way it does it, or about the people it serves, or about the reasons it exists that appeals to you? In other words, why this organization as opposed to others that might do comparable things, in comparable ways, for comparable audiences? Then consider to what extent those answers overlap with the information you generated while answering the earlier questions about yourself. The greater the overlap, the stronger the connection you’ll be able to promote in your discussion.You + Target Organization

By understanding where, how, and to what extent your training, experiences, values, concerns, and so forth map onto those of the organization you’re interested in joining, you can identify more common ground and use this information to discuss where and how you might work together in mutually rewarding ways. In the process, you might discover that you do more than outshine the candidates who are simply looking for a job. You may actually eclipse them.

Working toward Areté…
Share your experiences and ideas for establishing genuine connections during an interview in the space below.

Share Button

Setting Boundaries to Increase Productivity, Sanity, and Good Will

Posted on by
Reply

By Caroline M. Cole

You’re working on a report that’s due by the end of the day and the phone rings; it’s a client you haven’t talked to for a while, wanting to discuss an idea for a new campaign. Or, it’s your first day back from vacation and, as you’re trying to reacquaint yourself with projects and their status, coworkers continue to stop by your cubicle, wanting to hear about your adventures. Or, you’re verifying the last few calculations with the hope of actually leaving the office before 9pm, when your assistant walks into your office, needing help with another project. Or, you’re having dinner with friends and your smart phone continues to vibrate. Or, you’re heading out the door to spend the day with family when your supervisor calls, asking you to review the file she just emailed.Setting Boundaries to Increase Productivity, Sanity, and Good Will

None of these interruptions is a problem in and of itself; in fact, these and comparable events offer opportunities to connect to, collaborate with, and support others in ways that promote congeniality and, perhaps, increase karma. Collectively, however, they can leave us feeling frustrated or even depleted, for each time we hit “pause” on the projects and people we are focusing on, we may find ourselves getting further behind or progressively disconnected from that which matters to us.

In Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success, Adam Grant, professor at the Wharton School of Business, explains this phenomenon is particularly common among “selfless givers,” individuals who operate with a high regard for others, often at the expense of themselves, and he offers strategies for helping individuals overcome the so-called “doormat effect” while maintaining a generous spirit. But regardless of where we might fall on Grant’s continuum of reciprocity styles, all of us can benefit from setting boundaries.

To decide where and how boundaries can best serve our purposes, we must first understand where our time goes in concrete ways. For some, a calendar serves this purpose but, in many cases, calendars simply call out anomalies in a schedule: one-time appointments, meetings, deadlines, social events, and so on. Getting less attention are the on-going responsibilities that are loosely grouped under generic blobs of time we might classify as work, school, family, and social life—forums and relationships that have myriad demands of their own.

Consider, for example, the tasks employees might face at work during any given week. In addition to the day-to-day responsibilities, there may be special projects underway, as well as those the employee might initiate or be assigned to in the near future; scheduled appointments; impromptu meetings; and countless ad hoc conversations, phone calls, emails, and texts. For those who may be students, the demands might include attending classes, completing labs, doing researching, participating in study groups or class projects, meeting with faculty, writing papers, and completing assignments—not to mention any extra curricular activities or employment the student may have.

Next, consider what it takes to run a household of any size: shopping for groceries, preparing meals, doing laundry and other housework, paying bills, running errands, coordinating activities for and with children, caring for pets, completing home maintenance projects, and so on.

A social life also demands time to coordinate schedules, make arrangements, host a gathering, or to simply go out. And, if we add in the time we might want for solitary activities—such as reading, working on a hobby, or simply updating our social media profiles—we see that our lives are increasingly packed with a range of commitments clamoring for time and attention.

Calendars, to-do lists, and countless apps are standing by, ready to help us organize life’s demands, but scheduling only the irregularities means that atypical endeavors get our highest priority, Meanwhile, all other people, projects, and goings-on are left to fight it out among themselves for any time that remains; unfortunately, in a society that sees time as money, employment-related responsibilities typically win out. Therefore, we must identify what we need or want to do if we are to find ways to use the time we have to greatest advantage.

Simply listing the demands in our lives, however, is insufficient. We must also distinguish what can help us succeed in each of those efforts. Regardless of whether we are working on a relationship, a project, or an activity, success may be more likely in the presence or absence of particular ingredients—be they people, resources, or surroundings—and while success might be possible in spite of these elements, knowing which factors can move us toward our goals with greater efficiency and which may hinder our efforts can help us decide when and how to engage in a particular endeavor.

If, for instance, portions of a project requires our use of equipment that is shared by multiple individuals, we might address those efforts at times of the day when the equipment is in less demand. If we need someone’s assistance to streamline portions of a project, we might address the parts we can on our own as we’re waiting for an opening in the other person’s schedule. If we need to talk with someone without interruption, we might schedule a meeting on a day or at a time when things are generally quiet, or when we could close doors or turn off our electronic devices with fewer repercussions. And, if we needed to run errands, we might plan to do so when traffic tends to lighter, parking is easier, and stores are less crowded. By identifying external variables and using them to our advantages, we can work with the momentum of success, rather than against it.

We can also use internal variables, such as our personal rhythms of engagement, to respond to demands in the most efficient manner. Consider, for instance, that while we might be able to function for 16+ hours a day, we cannot run at maximum capacity in every area of our life at every waking moment. Our physical, intellectual, psychological, and emotional levels of engagement wax and wane throughout the day, and people will experience these rhythms differently. “Morning people” may feel more energetic at the beginning of the day, and night owls may feel more alert in the evening; others may experience bursts of energy throughout the day. Understanding our personal rhythms can help us pick up, engage with, or work on endeavors at times when we would be most productive and effective; for example, we might take up conventional left-brain activities (that is, quantitative, analytical, and logical endeavors) when we feel most alert, and save right-brained activities for other times.

Knowing who and what demands our time and correlating those demands to optimal windows of opportunities as much as possible can help us be more productive, but to retain our sanity and to promote goodwill in the process, we also need to set and maintain boundaries. The discussion below offers strategies for doing so.

• Communicate our goals, needs, and limits. Though we might wish to be available for every project, person, or opportunity, there will be times we must decline personal involvement if only to minimize compromising our efforts in other forums. Therefore, we must articulate and prioritize the demands in our lives so we can make better decisions about where, when, and how to spend our time in ways that will move us closer to our personal and professional goals. Equally important is that we must convey that information to others so they can be allies in helping us achieve our goals, or at least understand what may be driving unpopular decisions.

People may not always agree with our choices, yet letting them know we can do and what we cannot do helps others know when they can rely on our assistance or contributions, and when they may need to make alternate arrangements.

• Adopt an open-mind policy. Wanting to be available to those in need, many people adopt an “open-door policy,” inviting others to drop in or otherwise make requests on an ad hoc basis. On the surface, this system may seem empowering, and yet 24-hour access seldom means 24-hour receptivity, if only because we are not always in the best frame of mind to listen to or otherwise engage with others. Caught in the middle of a project, trying to take care of other responsibilities, or tending to different needs, we will inevitably see any impromptu conversation, request, or demand as a disruption, meaning that both parties begin the exchange at a disadvantage. Although we cannot foresee every interaction or responsibility that comes our way, we can help others know when we could offer our full attention, and an open-mind policy, rather than an open-door policy, can help in this effort.

An open-mind policy creates specific timeframes or parameters for being not just physically available, but intellectually and emotionally attentive as well. Some people, for instance, have designated drop-in hours or encourage appointments; others are explicit about the times they are or are not available (for example, “You can call me in the office Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, 9am–5pm,” “I check this email account Monday through Friday, 7am–7pm,” or “Friday night is family night, so I’ll be unavailable after 6:00pm”). Though more formal or rigid than some people prefer, establishing such boundaries actually serve all parties. After all, by letting people know when we can be most attentive to their needs, we indicate that they and their concerns are worthy of our attention. We also allow people to organize their schedules and, perhaps, encourage greater preparation than impromptu meetings typically allow. Finally, by carving out times we are available for various projects and people, we make it possible to close our doors, turn off our phones, silent email alerts, or decline visitors to work on other elements or relationships that require our full concentration.

• Give priority to the tasks at hand. Designating time to the people, projects, activities, or responsibilities we need or want to address is a start, but it’s not enough; we must also keep other demands at bay.

Contrary to popular belief, studies show that most people are ineffective multi-taskers. In a National Public Radio interview with Ira Flatow, Clifford Nass, professor of psychology and communication at Stanford University discusses the myth of multi-tasking. Nass acknowledges that our brains are built to receive many stimuli simultaneously, but only if those stimuli are related; unfortunately, we’re often pulled in several different directions on various projects, and that’s where we encounter problems. Nass explains that “the research is almost unanimous… people who chronically multitask show an enormous range of deficits. They’re basically terrible at all sorts of cognitive tasks, including multitasking,” Nass asserts, because “people who multitask all the time can’t filter out irrelevancy. They can’t manage a working memory. They’re chronically distracted,” and the impact can be substantial.

Monitoring interruptions among office workers, Gloria Mark, professor of Information and Computer Science at the University of California, Irvine found that, whereas interruptions for automated tasks that don’t involve much thinking (e.g., signing a form) may result in minimal disengagement, interruptions that require people to shift cognitive resources or surroundings can be detrimental. Requests that ask people to shift topics, shuffle papers, open or close various windows on their computer, move around the office, and so on, Mark explains, make it harder for people to reconstruct where they left off and reorient to their original task. In fact, Mark found that workers needed an average of 25 minutes to recover from interruptions; thus, while individual disruptions may seem insignificant, cumulatively they can eat into our productivity in significant ways.

By establishing tangible or artificial boundaries that allow us to concentrate on one task at a time, we may find ourselves able to achieve far more than we could by spreading our attention half-heartedly across multiple endeavors.

• Be attentive to ooze. Focusing on the task at hand can help us excel but, when we’ve finished with the particular conversation, project, task, job, and so on of the moment, we need to move onto others, without feelings of guilt. In other words, we must be attentive to ooze.

Projects, responsibilities and, at times, relationships will expand to fill the time we give them, and some will demand even more, unless we establish tangible or intangible barriers to prevent them from seeping into other parts of our lives. Unfortunately, in a culture that praises multi-tasking and 24/7 accessibility, we find that boundaries are not only harder to create, but harder to maintain.

Employment is the most common sources of ooze. Never-ending work demands not only occupy people’s time in the office but, progressively, their time away as employees are expected to answer emails and calls at all hours. Further complicating matters is that companies are increasingly organizing retreats, dinners, after-hour drinks, social outings, and other gatherings beyond the office to increase congeniality, inadvertently co-opting time employees might prefer to spend elsewhere or with people other than their coworkers. But work is not the only source of ooze. Family demands can affect employee availability, even during scheduled work hours. Meanwhile, social media makes it possible for family, friends, and associates to check in at every hour of the day, promoting more anxiety for people who may feel compelled to respond immediately to every beep and buzz emitting from their devices.

The ooze has become so great that people, struggling to reclaim their time, are playing games like “phone stack” or instituting “date night,” “family time,” and digital curfews to establish or maintain boundaries in their lives. Yet while such activities can help keep others at bay, we must also recognize the ways we may be creating opportunities for ooze, simply by teaching people how to treat us. For example, by picking up every call or answering every text almost instantaneously, regardless of what we’re doing; by responding to every email message within moments; by becoming one of the first respondents to group messages; by volunteering for every project; and by remaining immediately and endlessly accessible, we teach people to depend us 24/7, even when we may not be the most appropriate individual; we may simply be the first or only person to respond.

As the demands of one forum in our life begin to ooze into other forums, the boundaries become so blurry that we risk loosing sight of our priorities or how to achieve them in the midst of everything screaming for our attention. The result: we busy ourselves with several low-stakes efforts that can seem urgent, but which, in reality, are distracting us from endeavors that are truly important.

We can and should be spectacular in the various forums of our lives. At work, for example, we should show up on time; do what we’ve been asked to do with precision; initiate or volunteer to participate on additional projects; help colleagues meet their demands; and make whatever contributions we can to move people, teams, and the larger company forward. But when we leave the office, we should aim to disconnect from work demands as much as possible. Certainly there may be days we need to go into the office early, stay late, or even go in on the weekend, but these times should be the exception, rather the norm. The same is true for life beyond the office; namely, we should be fully present in the relationships, projects, and social events of the moment, thereby allowing us to turn our attention to other matters when necessary, confident we have not shortchanged anyone or anything in the process.

By establishing boundaries that separate the forums in our lives as much as possible, and by establishing boundaries within those individual arenas, we not only “train” others to see us as more valuable resources, but we also train ourselves to give our best selves to the people and projects that need us.

• Reciprocate. Expecting others to respect our boundaries requires us to respect others’ boundaries. People asking to reschedule, or saying “I’m sorry, I can’t…,” does not give us license to berate, badger, or guilt trip them into doing what we’d like them to do. “No” is, after all, a complete sentence.

It may not be our preference, and it might not be convenient. But if we expect others to be sensitive to or respectful of our boundaries, we must return the favor and help others succeed in the ways they have defined.

* * *

In “Mending Wall,” Robert Frost writes:

Before I built a wall, I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense.

Like Frost, we, too, might wonder about the value of boundaries, especially since they have so often been used to discourage or prohibit access on one hand, or to contain or restrict on another. Certainly boundaries have been and continue to be used in such ways, but they can also be used to promote collective interests. After all, as the often-quoted line of Frost’s poem suggests, “Good fences make good neighbors.”

In the same way that children call out boundaries when playing tag to make the game manageable for all players, or like a guardrail that keeps us safely on the road even when conditions may not be ideal, establishing and maintaining parameters in our own lives can help us be more efficient, more effective, and more successful. Boundaries allow us to interact with and move alongside others, but they also help us move through our own spaces with greater ease. In doing so, we can enhance our performance, maximize our productivity, maintain our sanity and, in the process, be of greatest service to others.

Working toward Areté…
What are your strategies for setting boundaries in ways that serve all? Share your ideas and experiences in the space below.

Share Button

“To My Dearest Reader:” Salutations to Target and Engage the Unacquainted

Posted on by
Reply

By Caroline M. Cole

In a digital world, letters are less common than they used to be, but when they do appear, they may incorporate outdated salutation references or presumptuous forms of address, both of which can start communication on a problematic note.Letterbox

From the Latin word salutationem, meaning “greeting” or “salute,” a salutation is the “Dear… “ portion of a correspondence in a conventional letter or, increasingly, an email exchange. In addressing readers we know, the salutation may require minimal thought. Whether we opt to use the reader’s first name or nickname (e.g., “Dear Liz,” “Dear B–,” ), omit the reader’s name completely (e.g., “Hey,” “Greetings!”), or bypass the salutation altogether, we assume that the reader will use the context of our larger relationship to receive our message in good faith. Writing messages to individuals we do not know, however, can be more complicated.

Depending on the culture and context, for example, salutations may require an awareness of position, titles, degrees of formality, gender, and other context-specific protocols to confer the appropriate respect upon the reader without appearing overly formal, clumsy, or just oblivious.

Considering that people have seconds to make a first impression, and considering that those impressions can shape immediate and subsequent interactions, this discussion examines how writers can use a salutation to target and engage an unacquainted individual in the most professional manner.

• • •

One consideration is salutation consistency with other elements in the message. Although unnecessary for electronic messages, traditional letters need writers to consider two parts of the document (the inside address and the actual salutation) to craft an effective salutation, because references to the reader in these areas should coincide. For instance:

Reader’s Name, Reader’s Title
Company’s Name
Street Address
City, State Zip Code

Dear Reader’s Name:

When writing someone we know, the inside address and the salutation may show greater variation. For example, the inside address—a carryover from the address that would appear in the window of a envelope—should adopt mailing address conventions (which often include the reader’s title, as well as a full, formal name) to ensure the materials are delivered to the designated individual; the salutation, however, may reflect our level of familiarity with the document’s recipient, as the following example demonstrates:

Dr. Thomas K. Osborn, M.D.
Chief of Surgery
Mercy Hospital
9876 Main Street, Suite 874
New York, NY 10000

Dear Tom:

When, however, we are writing to someone we do not know or have not met, we would incorporate components of the reader’s name, as it appears in the inside address, in our salutation:

Dr. Thomas K. Osborn, M.D.
Chief of Surgery
Mercy Hospital
9876 Main Street, Suite 874
New York, NY 10000 

Dear Dr. Osborn:

Comparable salutations might appear in electronic communication, where inside addresses are replaced by email headers:

—————————————————————–
To: thomas.osborn@mercyhospital.com
From: joanne.grant@mercyhospital.com
Subject: Tuesday’s Staff Meeting
—————————————————————–

Dear Tom:

OR…

—————————————————————–
To: thomas.osborn@mercyhospital.com
From: smtyler@osmedicaltraining.com
Subject: OS Training Seminar Opportunities
—————————————————————–

Dear Dr. Osborn:

In viewing these example, some people may ask why the salutation uses a colon, rather than a comma. There are different theories. Some suggest using a comma when the salutation uses only the reader’s first-name and a colon when it uses the reader’s full name. Others will say it depends on context. For some, that context is cultural, as each country may have its own formatting conventions; within those contexts, choices may also depend on whether the document appears in a professional or social context. America business communication conventions dictate that salutations use a colon, regardless of how the reader is referenced.

As for using “Dear” in the salutation, this reference is neither overly intimate, nor suggestive of amorous feelings in American business communication; rather, this phrasing has become a generic convention signaling the beginning of a letter, in much the same way that “Once upon a time…” indicates the beginning of a fairytale. Variations to this salutation, however, will change the sentiment. “Dearest…,” “My Dear…” and other modifications can suggest greater intimacy than warranted by a professionally cordial greeting, especially between strangers. Therefore, when writing to individuals we have never met, we should use a neutral salutation, and “Dear…” fills that need.

Another salutation consideration is specificity. The salutation portion of a letter or email is often the first place readers look to see whether the information is, in fact, directed to them. It is precisely for this reason that generic salutations, like “To Whom It May Concern,” can work against writers. After all, the more generic the reference, the less familiar and more distant the writer will seem to the reader. And considering how quickly we tend to dismiss messages with generic salutations, we must recognize that others might be equally dismissive, saying “It doesn’t concern me… .”

Equally problematic salutations are “Dear Sir,” “Dear Sir or Madam,” or “Dear Sir/Madam.” Somewhat better than “To Whom in May Concern,” these references are still overly general, making it not only harder for readers to see if they’re being targeted for any particular reason, but harder for writers to identify specific details a reader may want or need to know when defined only by gender. These references also create problems for those trying to make an inside address and salutation correspond with each other. Writers will not, for example, target the most appropriate reader with the following details:

Sir or Madam
Hasburrow Financial
876 Townsend Circle
Houston, TX, 77005

Dear Sir or Madam:

Certainly removing references to a generic reader in the inside address will create a more aesthetically pleasing mailing label, but not specifying a particular reader will suggest the information has no particular audience and, as such, will probably get little or no attention.

The final consideration concerns the use of professional and social titles. Referencing readers who have a professional title can be fairly straightforward. More challenging is what to do when we may not be sure if someone has a title or when we may be in circumstances where a professional title is unnecessary. The information below examines strategies for each of these circumstances.

When Professional Titles are Appropriate

Some professions confer a title that becomes part of an address. Although titles are frequently linked to academic degrees or training—as in the case of Dr. for individuals with an M.D., D.D.S., D.V.M., or Ph.D.—some titles may be acquired through the individual’s office or position, as in the case of some government officials, diplomats, clerical and religious leaders, military personnel, and university officials. For instance:

Dear President Obama:
Dear Chief Justice Roberts:
Dear Governor Richards:
Dear Representative Carley:
Dear Judge Stone:
Dear Mayor Attkins:
Dear Commissioner Osborn:
Dear Cardinal George:
Dear Rabbi Adler:
Dear Chancellor Delany:
Dear Colonel Wakayama:
Dear Sergeant Major Stuart:
Dear Dean Fong:
Dear Professor Ligossi:

Business card references, e-mail signature blocks, degree abbreviations following the individual’s name can help writers identify which of these titles, if any, would be appropriate. Writers should recognize, however, that while some graduate degrees identify expertise in a given field or context, they may not translate into a salutation title; some of these degrees include an M.B.A., a Juris Doctorate, and M.S.W..

Similarly, some professional titles are dropped in social forums. For instance, using the title “Dr.” or “Professor” when addressing those with an M.D. or a Ph.D. is appropriate when sending materials or e-mails to an office address or work-affiliated email account, but using these titles in a social context (say, an invitation to a party) can be pretentious.

When Professional Titles Aren’t Available or Appropriate

At times, we may find ourselves needing to correspond with someone who does not have a professional title, or we may need to address an individual in a social forum, prompting us to modify our approach to salutations. The challenge is addressing individuals we do not know or have not met in a way that conveys sincerity and respect.

Many writers default to conventional social titles, namely Mr. for males and Ms., Mrs., or Miss. for females. As harmless as some of these honorific titles may seem, however, they can raise concerns—especially among unacquainted individuals. The discussion below examines the advantages and disadvantages of these choices, allowing writers to select the most effective reference, regardless of the context.

Master, Mr., Messrs.
The title Mr. is derived from the word master, a term used to describe someone who owned or oversaw property; Messrs., the plural of Mr., comes from the French courts, which used the monsieur (from mon sieur, meaning “my lord”) as an honorific title for the eldest living brother of the king.

Originating in or extending the titles used to recognize nobility, high ranking officials, and other distinguished individuals, the word Mr. is followed by a name—unless addressing a stranger in conversation, as in “Excuse me, Mister.” As such, an inside address and salutation for a male reader would be written:

Mr. Sherman Marlow
9918 Beverly Drive, #998
Chicago, IL 60602

Dear Mr. Marlowe:

Or, when addressing two or more male readers, as so:

Messrs. Sherman Marlowe and Thomas Bentley
Marlowe, Bentley, and Associates
340 Lake Shore Drive, Suite 608
Chicago, IL 60601

Dear Messrs. Marlowe and Bentley:

As the abbreviation Mr. became more common in business matters, the title Master became the honorific for addressing young males in both oral and written communication. In correspondence, the title would appear in the mailing address and salutation as follows:

Master Jonathan Quibly
573 Elm Street
Toledo, Ohio 43606

Dear Master Quibly,

Although this reference has fallen out of favor among members of the general public, it still appears in the correspondence of writers from particular cultures and generations.

Miss, Mrs. Ms., Mmes.
Originally having little to do with age or marital status, titles for females—like those for males—had to do with one’s position in society. For example, the word Mistress, or it shortened form Miss., was the equivalent of master, referencing married and unmarried women who oversaw household matters and its personnel.

In the 19th century, “Mrs.” came to reference married females, while “Miss.” was used to refer to both unmarried adult women and children.

Casey Miller and Kate Swift, authors of Words and Women: New Language in New Times, suggest this shift was due to the Industrial Revolution, when women began working outside of the home, thereby making it harder for males to tell by appearance alone “to whom she ‘belonged’ or whether she was ‘available.’” Attaching “Miss.” to all unmarried females, Miller and Swift note, thus served a dual purpose. First, it gave males insight into a females’ availability. Second, by lumping all unmarried females into a single, generic category of “young and inexperienced,” the reference pressured females into marriage in order to avoid the stigma of being considered unwanted beyond the age of 18.

The honorific “Ms.” made its appearance at the start of the 20th century, when and unnamed (and presumably male) writer proposed the reference in a November 10, 1901, edition of The Sunday Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts—most likely for simple etiquette and expediency to address the “embarrassing position [caused] by ignorance of the status of some women,” rather than for feminist motives. The suggestion got modest circulation in the months that followed, but faded from view until 1932, when a letter to the New York Times reintroduced the possibility of “Ms.” to refer to females whose marital status was unknown. As with the original proposal, the suggestion was quickly abandoned, but resurfaced again in the 1950s, when business writing guides offered “Ms.” as a way to minimize debates between “Miss.” and “Mrs.”; the fact that business guides advocated its use gave “Ms.” more traction, but mostly with in secretarial circles. In late 1969 or early 1970, the 50th anniversary of suffrage gave a new, and more lasting push for using “Ms.” to reference women in a manner that was not defined by marriage.

Since the 1970s, “Ms.” has served as a default title for females but, its connection to the feminist movement and to women who wanted to be seen as more than an extension of their husbands has made the title’s acceptance a contentious one. Even today, people will pause to see if, in fact, “Ms.” is the best honorific title, and therein lies the problem: People hesitate to consider whether a female is married before deciding the most appropriate form of address in ways they do not hesitate when addressing males.

In his turn of the century work The Devil’s Dictionary, a collection of satirical comments about various words in the English language, journalist Ambrose Bierce commented on conventional social titles, going as far as to propose that we introduce a term for unmarried males to remain consistent in our forms of address:

Miss, n. A title with which we brand unmarried women to indicate that they are in the market. Miss, Missis (Mrs.) and Mister (Mr.) are the three most distinctly disagreeable words in the language, in sound and sense. Two are corruptions of Mistress, the other of Master. In the general abolition of social titles in this our country they miraculously escaped to plague us. If we must have them let us be consistent and give one to the unmarried man. I venture to suggest Mush, abbreviated to Mh.

An easier solution, however, may be to work around honorific titles and adopt the following principle for all professional and social correspondence in which we are addressing someone we have not met:

When professional titles are available, use them.
When professional titles are unknown or unavailable,
use only the reader’s first and last name(s).

Applying this principle would result in an inside address and salutation like the following:

Stephen Ellison
128 Pine Grove
Los Angeles, CA 90096

Dear Stephen Ellison:

* * *

Linda Eng, CEO
Stylus Printing
9951 Heather Lane, #320
Albany, NY 12227

Dear Linda Eng:

* * *

Amanda Whitney-Bower
341 Jefferson Blvd.
Harrison, MI 48625

Dear Amanda Whitney-Bower:

* * *

Chris Fox
Needlework Enterprises
7800 Seaside
New Port, OR 97365

Dear Chris Fox:

* * *

T.K. Powers
637 Frederick Drive, Suite 15
Clarksville, MA 21029

Dear T.K. Lewis:

* * *

Yu-Ting Chen
5667 Lily Drive
San Jose, CA 95014

Dear Yu-Ting Chen:

* * *

In adopting this strategy, we:

 • Remain professional, even in times of uncertainty.
Some people will argue that deleting a social title is unprofessional, and several cultures maintain protocols that use conventional titles, even those which are grounded in the reader’s gender. American business communication protocols, however, allow us to retain professionalism by using both the reader’s given and family name(s). Even when we might err because we do not know the reader’s professional title, we minimize the faux pas by using the reader’s first and last name in our address. The key, here, is both names.

Contrary to popular belief, using only the reader’s first name—especially with individuals we have never met—is not friendly and welcoming; it is overly familiar and presumptuous, suggesting the writer and reader are peers or intimates when context or other conventional hierarchies may suggest otherwise (for example, job applicant appealing to a hiring manager, a novice reaching out to an expert, a junior member seeking advice from a senior member, a younger individual addressing and older person). By using the reader’s first and last name, we demonstrate respect even when we may not be certain of other dynamics at work.

• Minimize errors in title selection.
Some people have names that make it easier to identify the person’s gender, but gender-neutral names are becoming more common. Moreover, an increasingly global community is exposing us names we may not have enough cultural cues to see as “male” or “female.” In such cases, we would have a 50-50 chance of using an inaccurate social title and, is some contexts, such a gaffe can be costly. By removing honorific titles altogether, we can accurately reference readers without inadvertently insulting them.

• Demonstrate consistency in practice.
By applying a single, uniform rule for males and females, we need only remember one strategy, rather than individual terms that may or may not be appropriate in various contexts, allowing us to be more consistent in our practices. As importantly, we suggest that respect is not contingent upon gender or marital status—categories that are grounds for discrimination within the United States.

In cases where a person’s name is unknown and, despite all of the advances we have gained in an Internet age, the target reader’s name cannot be found, the next best strategy may be to use a title to help direct our message to the most plausible audience. For example:

Dear Hiring Manager:
Dear Human Resources Manager:
Dear Admissions Committee Member:
Dear Director of Marketing:
Dear Homeowner:
Dear Community Member:

Such references can be equally appropriate when writing to P.O. Box addresses or their equivalent, giving messages a better chance of reaching the intended audience by trying to narrow the possibilities with less generic references.

* * *

Conventional letters are increasingly being replaced by electronic communication, making salutations less common. But it is all the more reason to consider salutation protocols, because with fewer examples in circulation, the ones that do appear will receive more attention. By greeting someone in a neutral, but respectful manner, we can set a favorable stage for the interactions that follow.

Working toward Areté…
Use the space below to share your strategies for addressing people you have not met in your correspondence—or your experiences in being addressed by unacquainted individuals.

Share Button

To Make the Greatest Impression on Others, Listen Up!

Posted on by
Reply

By Caroline M. Cole

In 1968, American visual artist and leading pop art figure Andy Warhol observed that “in the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes,” and the decades since have exploded with venues to make that possible. Television talk shows in the 1970s and 1980s, for example, began shifting the norms of whose ideas were worth hearing by providing a platform where everyday individuals could open their lives and pour out their hearts. A decade later, tabloid talk shows began increasing the numbers of people on stage by handing a microphone to all who were willing to appear before a camera and share their ideas and stories—no matter how controversial or outlandish. The Real World, Big Brother, and other reality shows intensified matters by putting non-professionals before a camera, not to talk about themselves for an hour, but to live out their stories before an audience of millions. Meanwhile competitions like American Idol and America’s Got Talent continue to widen the spotlight, suggesting everyone is like Norma Desmond: ready for their close-up.To Make the Greatest Impression on Others, Listen Up!

Personal websites, blogs, YouTube videos, e-publishing, Twitter, Facebook, and other social networking sites have added to the fray, overwhelming our lives with forums in which people representing all cross-sections of society are vying to broadcast their stories, their ideas, their observations, and even themselves to the world. Along the way, they’re finding that their Warholian 15 minutes of fame is not enough, making them increasingly reluctant to relinquish the spotlight for anyone else. But as everyone scrambles to get and stay on stage, is there anyone willing to be in the audience and actually listen?

Compared to talking, many consider listening a passive activity, especially in cultures that value “doing” as a sign of productivity; therefore, those who listen are often seen as the weaker, submissive participant in a conversation. For example, in her research on verbal interactions, Pamela M. Fishman notes that conversations demand more than simply the presence of others; they require “the display of their continuing agreement to pay attention to one another…through the continual, turn-by-turn efforts of the participants.” Unfortunately, she goes on to note, participants often replicate society’s hierarchies, thereby keeping members of the dominant group in more powerful positions (including that of speaker) and members of the subordinate group in roles that neither control nor benefit from the process; they are, according to Fishman, “the ‘shitworkers’ of routine interaction”—individuals that help keep the conversation going with various communication strategies, among which is being a “good listener.” In such contexts, it becomes easier to understand why listening is the literacy skill that gets least attention. Everyone wants to be the one who is noticed, not the one noticing others. But even those who want to be better listeners may be acting in ways that inadvertently sabotage their efforts.

Some people, for instance, assume that remaining silent while someone speaks is sufficient for listening to occur, while others believe that being able to recount what someone has said is evidence that listening has taken place. In both cases, individuals may have heard what has been said, but hearing and listening—though interdependent—are different.

Hearing is the ability to perceive auditory signals that come to us through sound waves. It is a passive activity in that, providing we do not have any auditory impairment, we can still hear sounds, even though we may not be conscious of them. Listening, on the other hand, involves noticing particular sounds from among all of the sounds in our environment, processing them, and deciphering their meaning within the particular context. For example, we can hear the noise a door makes when it slams, but listening involves interpreting that noise: Is it a windy day? Did someone leave in anger? Is the door’s hinge pins loose, or could the weather stripping around the door be worn?

Hearing the sound, considering possible interpretations, and identifying the most plausible meaning in a given context is the essence of listening, and it is this process that allows us to establish relationships with and deepen connections to each other. The following strategies can help in this enterprise.

• Be present. Televisions and music playing in the background, smart phones and other digital devices going off, people coming into and going out of the room, working on projects or addressing other matters at the same time, and other elements that take our attention off the individual who is speaking hinder our efforts to be available in the ways that help us both hear and understand what someone is trying to say. And while we may be able to participate in some activities simultaneously, communication requires a mindfulness of both explicit and implicit conversation cues. Therefore, by minimizing distractions and focusing our attention on the speaker, we can be present in the ways that active listening requires and, hence, more successful in our exchanges.

• Listen to understand what others mean. Hearing what speakers say is critical to listening, but accurately interpreting what they mean requires us to consider more than just their words.

Albert Mehrabian, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at UCLA, devised the “7%–38%–55% rule” to explain inconsistencies between verbal and nonverbal channels. According to Mehrabian, 55% of communication is body language, 38% is the tone of voice, and 7% is the actual words spoken, prompting many to suggest that 80­–90% of communication is non-verbal. Mehrabian cautions against such overgeneralizations, going as far as to post a disclaimer on his website: “This and other equations regarding relative importance of verbal and nonverbal messages were derived from experiments dealing with communications of feelings and attitudes (i.e., like–dislike). Unless a communicator is talking about their feelings or attitudes, these equations are not applicable.” Even so, people continue to use his research to argue that communication is primarily non-verbal.

While Mehrabian and others debate the percentages of verbal and non-verbal communication, what’s important to this discussion is the idea that communication is more than words alone. Therefore, if we aim to understand what others are saying, we must not only be attentive to what they say, but the ways they are saying it (for example, their delivery, their body language), the reasons they may be saying it, the context in which they are saying it, the audiences to whom they are saying it, and so on if we are to increase the accuracy of our interpretations.

• Remain silent as others are speaking, and let them finish. If we are talking, we are not listening. Therefore, even if we think we know what someone is trying to say, we should be patient and remain quiet until that person has finished talking. As the Greek philosopher Epictetus observed, “Nature hath given men one tongue but two ears, that we may hear from others twice as much as we speak.”

Listening may not require absolute silence at all times. In fact, Fishman’s research suggests that much of the maintenance work in a conversation actually involves talking, such as “minimal responses” (that is, words like umm, mm-hmm, yeah, oh…) inserted between a speaker’s breaths—not over the speaker’s words—to signal an ongoing attention to and interest in what is being said. Research by Candace West and Don H. Zimmerman suggests that constructive conversation overlaps might also include statements or questions signaling a need for clarification—not an attempt to “violate” the speaker’s turn in talking (for example, “I’m not sure who X is…” or “I’m unfamiliar with the concept of Y. Could you explain what that is?”). But even in the midst of such conversation maintenance work, we should remain attentive to what the speaker is saying.

Staying quiet while others are talking requires discipline and practice—especially when we may disagree or when the person may be complaining about us. Counting to three once the speaker has stopped talking is one strategy for enhancing communication, ensuring that the person has finished his or her thought, not simply taking a breath. But whatever our system, remaining patient and letting others finish their ideas and their sentences demonstrates an interest in what they consider important, disconcerting, valuable, noteworthy, and so forth. We also avail ourselves to new information or different understandings of topics and, perhaps, of the speakers themselves.

• Focus on what others are saying, rather than what we will say next. Although listening involves a willingness to learn from another person, Stephen R. Covey writes in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People that “most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.” Unfortunately, by using silence to plan how we might respond, rebut, or redirect the conversation altogether, we indicate that we are less interested in what others have to share than we are with securing the stage for our own egos: we have important ideas to share, we have interesting perspectives to add, we have a worthwhile contribution to make here, and so on—and we think our contributions are more worthy that what the present speaker has to offer.

Granted we may have things to offer the conversation, but others do as well. Therefore, by providing a space where everyone can share the microphone in front of an attentive audience, we can promote more inclusive discussions that enrich the perspectives of all participants.

• Let speakers hold onto the spotlight and help them shine. While people are speaking, the listeners’ comments, facial expressions, and asides can reveal what they think about the speakers’ topic, the speakers’ views on the subject, and even the speakers themselves. Responding “I know that,” “you can’t be serious,” “that’s stupid,” and so on, for example, suggest the speaker is willfully wasting our time with information that is not worth sharing. Muttering things under our breath and side conversations can be equally disruptive. The former lets others know there’s disagreement, but in a way that is not conducive for them to respond constructively; the latter suggests the speaker is not worth listening to and can also prevent others from hearing what someone is trying to say. But disruptive responses are not always passive-aggressive. Statements like “I know what you mean,” “oh, me too…,” or “When I was in a similar situation…” may convey empathy but, depending on the context, they also redirect the focus away from what the speaker is trying to say and onto ourselves, even briefly. The same holds true for most quips that people interject into a discussion, for such comments suggest, “Look at me and how clever I am!”

Body language can also discourage accurate listening. Crossing arms and legs, turning our torso away from the speaker, rolling our eyes, scowling, looking at a watch or clock, drumming our fingers, doodling, checking smart phones or other digital devices, and so on can all suggest a lack of interest in what someone is saying, which will inevitably affect what listeners hear and the accuracy of their interpretations of that information.

This discussion is not to suggest that we cannot disagree with or take offense at what someone is saying, but effective communication requires participants to hear out, rather than derail speakers so that we can help others deliver their best performance and, in doing so, establish a platform that allows us to enter the spotlight in a way that merits equal consideration.

• Keep our biases in check, and verify what the other person has said before responding. Filtering information through our own biases and perceptions, we often hear things that the other person may have neither said nor meant, prompting us to respond or react in unjustified ways. Therefore, in addition to letting speakers finish their ideas without interruption, we should ensure our own ideas—either about the topic or about the speakers themselves—are not distorting their message.

To that end, once the person has finished speaking, we should delay any approval or criticism until after we have confirmed that our understanding of what the other person said is, in fact, accurate. We can do so by offering a neutral, matter-of-fact summary of the speaker’s comments or ideas in a way that the speaker him or herself would confirm. Along the way, we should ask open-ended questions for clarification or ask the speaker to elaborate on the ideas or information we may not have fully understood. For example:

 “To be sure I understand your ideas about… could you explain what you mean when you said…?”

“I’d like to clarify something you said about… Can you say more about how…?”

“I am unfamiliar with… , so I don’t readily see how these ideas connect. Could you tell me more?”

Even when we think we understand what the person has said, we should reiterate or paraphrase key points and ask the speaker to confirm whether we have understood correctly; for instance:

“I hear you saying… Is that what you mean?”

“I’d like to make sure I understand your position accurately…”

“It seems as if you’re suggesting… Is my interpretation correct?”

In recapping what others have said, we can enhance our connection to the speaker by adopting language echoing their presentation and, perhaps, learning style. For instance, auditory learners might respond to sound-related language, such as “I hear you saying…” or “it sounds like… .” Visual learners might respond to phrases such as, “I imagine that…,” “I see…,” “It appears that….,” “Your observations that…,” “It looks like… .” Meanwhile, tactile- and feeling-oriented learners might find greater connection to statements like, “I sense that…,” “It feels as if…,” and “ I understand you saying that….”

Whatever language we use, our primary goal should be to verify what the person meant to say, minimizing any misunderstandings so we can make better decisions about how or if we might respond.

• Think before offering a response. Having verified our understanding, we must consider how to respond most constructively, even when we don’t agree with what has been said. In other words, how can we add value to the discussion and, simultaneously, protect the speaker’s ego? Author and executive educator Marshall Goldsmith explains one way to do so.

In What Got You Here Won’t Get You There, Goldsmith advises that we develop the habit of asking, “Is it worth it?” Noting that genuine conversations are more than a talk–respond–talk–respond exchange, Goldsmith explains that the most effective listeners are comparable to experienced chess players who think several moves ahead. That is, having heard what an individual has said, effective speakers will consider what they might say, the phrasing they might use, and the ways that response will make the person feel in the moment, in the hours, days, weeks… that follow—and they do all of this before opening their mouths.

By considering whether the immediate and subsequent exchanges are worth it, Goldsmith suggests we can bypass responses that have unintended and, perhaps, long-term repercussions—especially when we consider that the responses we offer (whether in words, in actions, or a combination thereof) tell others what kind of people we are: How important, respected, and valued do we make speakers feel as they are talking? Do we merely hear what others say, or do we actually listen to understand the messages they intend to offer? How well do we listen; that is, can we accurately report what others have said, regardless of whether we agree? How compassionately do we listen, in terms of our time, our attention, and our interpretations of the speaker’s message? By thinking about the ways our responses will affect immediate and subsequent exchanges, we can build and sustain relationships, even during times of disagreement.

• Postpone conversations that may need more time and attention than what is presently available. Active, accurate listening takes time, and while many conversations are possible in the moment, some topics or interactions may deserve more attention or time than is presently available. In such cases, it would be both strategic and honest to ask to postpone the discussion, rather than rush through points or otherwise shortchange the conversation in ways that leave others feeling unheard. In taking this approach, however, it is vital to propose a specific time frame and to follow up, lest this action be viewed as a tactic for avoiding uncomfortable conversations. For instance:

“This topic may need more time then we have left in our meeting. Can we pick up this conversation at the start of our call next week?”

“I’d like to think more about the concerns you raised. Could we arrange a time to meet next week to discuss these points more? What day would work for you?”

Although others might prefer an immediate response or resolution, delaying a conversation until a time that we can be fully engaged, prepared, or otherwise available can help them feel heard.

* * *

In their efforts to impress others and make a name for themselves, people will always compete to hold the microphone or to dominate the spotlight. The ability to listen, however, may be an even greater asset, for when we give people our attention, we make them feel as if they matter, as if they’re special, as if their comments are worth hearing, and as if they are worth listening to. It is empathy, concern, respect, and validation in action. And people notice.

They may not remember the words that were exchanged, but they will remember how they felt, and being both heard and understood will help them feel valued. And that feeling will make one of the greatest impressions.

Working toward Areté…
In the space below, share your observations and strategies for becoming better listeners.

Share Button

Bypass Slogans and Develop a Mission Statement to Build and Pitch Your Reputation

Posted on by
2

By Caroline M. Cole

DeBeers claims a “diamond is forever,” Exxon wants to be “a tiger in your tank,” Timex “takes a licking and keeps on ticking,” Energizer “keeps going and going and going,” and “Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there.” Meanwhile, BMW is “the ultimate driving machine,” Carlsberg is “probably the best lager in the world,” Maxwell House coffee is “good to the last drop,” Wheaties is the “breakfast of champions,” and Campbell Soup is just “M’m! M’m! Good!” Apple wanted you to “think different,” Burger King told you to “have it your way,” Subway encourages you “eat fresh,” the U.S. Army pushes you to “be all you can be,” and Nike tells you to “just do it.”Compass

Short and memorable, slogans are instrumental marketing tools that keep a company’s product in a consumer’s mind. Little wonder that some career coaches encourage job hunters to develop personal slogans to include with their applications as a way to stand out to and be remembered by prospective employers. This well-intended advice, however, is problematic, if only because it downplays or ignores the fact that effective slogans must be grounded in an organization’s mission statement; as such, slogans developed in isolation will seem random, shallow, and gimmicky. Nevertheless, there is something to be said about being able to sum up who we are and what we stand for in a few lines. It is for this reason that, regardless of our employment status, we should bypass slogans and, instead, develop a mission statement to project who we are and what we bring to every endeavor.

Conventionally, a mission statement (a.k.a., a corporate philosophy, credo, or value statement) is one or more sentences explaining the purpose, principles, and aspirations of an organization. By answering who, what, where, how, why, and for whom, mission statements articulate why the organization exists and, ideally, what makes it unique. While mission statements depict a company’s identity, slogans pitch that identity to specific markets, often by evoking functional and emotional benefits. Thus, whereas a company may have a single mission statement, it can have multiple slogans to promote individual products to different audiences. The Coca-Cola Company is a case in point.

Coca-Cola is most famous for its cola products, but the company itself represents over 50 beverage brands—including Minute Maid, Fanta, Hi-C, Fruitopia, Dasani water, Odwalla, and NESTEA—and its mission statement, appearing as a list of bullets, applies to the entire line:

• To refresh the world…
• To inspire moments of optimism and happiness…
• To create value and make a difference

In contrast, Coca-Cola has numerous slogans, each promoting a unique product in its line. Moreover, each of these products has several slogans to target different demographics, as the following products and their corresponding slogans demonstrate.

Coca-Cola (representative samples from its 46 slogans to date)
Drink Coca-Cola (1886), Delicious and Refreshing (1904), Refresh Yourself (1924), Ice Cold Sunshine (1932), The Best Friend Thirst Ever Had (1938) A Sign of Good Taste (1957) It’s the Real Thing (1969), Have a Coke and a Smile (1979), Official Soft Drink of Summer (1989), Always Coca-Cola (1993)

Minute Maid
The best there is (n.d.), Goodness you can taste (n.d.), Orange juice with real orange pulp (2007), Light on Calories. Loaded with Taste (2011), Put Good In. Get Good Out. (2013)

Fanta
Wanta Fanta (2001), Drink Fanta (n.d.), Fanta. Play on. (n.d.), More Fanta. Less serious (2011)

Dasani
Treat yourself well. Every day. (2001), Dasani water. Can’t live without it (2003)

As these and other product taglines demonstrate, slogans can be catchy, but they say little about the purpose, values, or goals that presumably give the product a reason for being in the first place. The same can be said of personal slogans an individual may espouse:

Born to be wild.
Conceive–believe–achieve.
Live free, or die.
Fight on.
Live life to the fullest.
No guts, no glory.
Be happy.
Have no fear.
Infuse life with passion, always.
Keep on keepin’ on.
What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger.
Failure isn’t an option.

Serving the same function as the slogans a company might use, these and comparable mottos convey attitudes and emotional sentiments to the audiences an individual may encounter, say a social or professional network; unfortunately, they likewise simplify and, perhaps, trivialize principles representing the individual as a whole.

Take, for instance, the motto “born to be wild.” This slogan might embody characteristics of someone people would like to be around, say, during a spring break vacation, a bachelor party, or a night out on the town, but it is unlikely that same persona would be welcome in a lecture, client meeting, maternity ward, memorial service, and so on. The individual who adopts this slogan might be able to acclimate to all of these venues with equal aplomb, but waving a “born to be wild” banner can inadvertently promote one set of personality traits at the expense of others. It is for this reason that a personal mission statement can be more effective in representing who we are.

Articulating the purpose and values of an entity (be it an organization or an individual), mission statements represent the essence of that entity, and it is from here that businesses and individuals can build and project their reputation.

In “The Power of Identity,” global brand consultant Wally Olins explains:

Every organization carries out thousands of transactions every day: it buys, it sells, it hires and fires, it makes, it promotes, it informs through advertising and the Web. In each transaction the organization is in some way presenting itself—or part of itself—to the various groups of people it deals with. The totality of the way the organization presents itself can be called its identity. What different audiences perceive is often called its image.

Although addressing organizations, Olin’s comments are equally applicable to the individual. Every transaction, every behavior, every interaction, every choice, every viewpoint, and so on reflects who we are, the values we hold, and the priorities we maintain. Collectively projecting an image to others, these elements give us a reputation, and regardless of whether we agree with that reputation, it shapes how others respond to and interact with us.

We may not always we able to control what others think of us, but we can be more conscientious of and proactive in where and how our choices, behaviors, and positions align with the values and beliefs we advocate. A mission statement is a tool that can help in this effort. And by adapting the strategies that organizations use to develop their mission statements, we can create a personal mission statement that ensures our purpose, principles, and aspirations are reflected in all facets of our lives.

*  *  *

To articulate why they exist, which is the foundation of any mission statement, organizations often start with conventional reporter questions (that is, who, what, where, how, why, and for whom), and plug the resulting answers into a mission statement template, such as:

<Name of organization> aims to <affect what change>, for <whom/what>
by <what manner or method> while <values to incorporate in the process>.

Although they can promote cookie-cutter phrasing, such templates are most effective when companies use them as guides, modifying them as necessary to emphasize or downplay elements that are important to the particular organization, as the following examples demonstrate:

The Connelly Group aims to improve the literacy practices of McDade County elementary school children by offering after-school tutoring programs that teach strategies in critical reading, writing, and thinking in ways that are sensitive to each student’s learning style.

Babbitt Farms advocates and promotes sustainable farming practices. Using green manures, organic fertilizers and amendments, and composting, we are committed to growing the healthiest produce for local markets. We also employ free-range husbandry methods, raising livestock in a manner that is humane for animals and responsible to the environment.

Custom Shelving Inc. is committed to making and installing long-lasting organizational systems for residential properties in the most cost-effective manner, guaranteed. In doing so, we bring integrity, honesty, and respect to all participants in all facets of the company—from our boardroom, to our workshops and warehouses, to our customer’s home.

Although companies may be able to use reporter-like questions to generate content for their mission statement, these questions might not be as effective for individuals. “Who am I?” “What am I?” “Why do I exist?” and comparable questions can seem too abstract or esoteric to address in any concrete, meaningful way in a handful of sentences. Therefore, we might use alternate questions to identify core beliefs, regardless of the work we do. For instance:

    • What motivates and inspires you?
    • In what areas do you excel?
    • What adjectives would you use to describe yourself?
    • What adjectives would you like others to use to describe you?
    • Which of your characteristics do you value most?
    • Whom do you admire and why?
    • What do you value most in others?
    • What are your priorities?
    • How do you define success in non-monetary terms?
    • What beliefs shape the way you see and interact with others?
    • What needs do you strive to fill, and how do you work to fill them?
    • What activities give you the most fulfillment?
    • What project or endeavor to date has given you the greatest satisfaction?
    • What contributions would you want to make, and how do you envision making those contributions?
    • What would you do if time, money, and fear were not obstacles, or if success were guaranteed?
    • What behaviors, actions, attitudes, and habits do you aim to have or demonstrate on a daily basis?
    • What legacy would you like to leave?
    • How would you like your obituary or tombstone to read?

These are not the only questions to ask. Rather, they offer a starting point for examining what we value in ourselves, in others, and in the contributions we can make. The fact that some of these question overlap likewise provides an opportunity to think about these matters from different perspectives; therefore, if some questions do not resonate, perhaps others will. Whatever questions we use, the goal is to identify patterns in terms of who we are, what we value, and forums that give us the most satisfaction. The resulting details can help us draft our personal mission statement.

Some individuals might find that the mission statement template businesses use (with modest changes) works for them as well:

<Name of person> aims to <affect what change>, for <whom/what>
by <what manner or method> while <values to incorporate in the process>.

For those who may need different structures or approaches to represent their values and missions, the following templates might spark ideas:

My purpose is to <do what, become…>. In order to <do or become this person>, I will <actions, behavior>.

*  *  *

Because <reasons>, I value <values>. Therefore, I am committed to living my life with <characteristics, principles> in order to <goals>. Other people will be able to recognize the values I hold <in what forums, by which actions, through which efforts…>

* * *

I believe <value, principles> because <reason>. To live out these values, I <do, be, achieve…what>, so that I can<reasons, goals>.

* * *

In order to <reasons, goals>, I will <do, become, achieve…> in ways that incorporate my beliefs that <beliefs, principles, values>.

* * *

I commit to <being, doing, living in what ways>, so that <reasons>.

* * *

To be recognized by <whom> as someone who is <characteristics, personality traits>, I will <do what, act how…>.

There are infinite possibilities for creating a personal mission statement so, rather than trying to develop a “correct” or perfect statement at this stage, we should focus on identifying and articulating the values and characteristics we have, as well as those we’d like to develop; the ways we’d like to put them into practice; the forums in which we’d like to use them; and, perhaps, the reasons for doing so.

At this point, some people ask whether they should create more than one personal statement, say one statement for personal endeavors and one for professional endeavors. Some companies, after all, develop a mission statement for individual divisions or components within the larger organization. For example, the multi-part mission statement that Ben & Jerry’s posts on its website highlights the forums in which the company lives out its purpose:

Ben & Jerry’s is founded on and dedicated to a sustainable corporate concept of linked prosperity. Our mission consists of 3 interrelated parts: 

Social Mission: To operate the Company in a way that actively recognizes the central role that business plays in society by initiating innovative ways to improve the quality of life locally, nationally and internationally.

Product Mission: To make, distribute and sell the finest quality all natural ice cream and euphoric concoctions with a continued commitment to incorporating wholesome, natural ingredients and promoting business practices that respect the Earth and the Environment.

Economic Mission: To operate the Company on a sustainable financial basis of profitable growth, increasing value for our stakeholders and expanding opportunities for development and career growth for our employees. 

Underlying the mission of Ben & Jerry’s is the determination to seek new and creative ways of addressing all three parts, while holding a deep respect for individuals inside and outside the company and for the communities of which they are a part.

The site goes on to list some of the ways the company lives out its “progressive, nonpartisan social mission that seeks to meet human needs and eliminate injustices in our local, national and international communities by integrating these concerns into our day-to-day business activities.”

Individuals can certainly follow this model, but prior to doing so, it may useful to consider why more than one mission statement would be necessary in the first place? Where might these statements be different? In what ways, and why?

The answers to these questions might reveal ways to make a single personal mission statement more precise, thereby allowing the individual to bring core belief, principles, and practices to personal and professional endeavors. Or, the answers may reveal inconsistencies and disruptions in the ways or forums in which the individual aspires to live; in this case, it may be more valuable to spend time examining whether it would be possible to bring together those incongruous parts, than developing distinct mission statements that encourage disparate values.

Once we have a draft of our personal mission statement, we can increase its effectiveness by making sure it is:

• Concise. Mission statements can be a phrase or a few sentences, but they are seldom more than a paragraph, primarily for reasons outlined in the following points. Therefore, as we modify and refine our statement, we should make sure that every word has earned its place in the final version.

• Simple. Mission statements do not need to be simplistic, but they should be simple enough to understood by a child. To that end, we should replace any jargon, flowery language, and other abstractions with concrete, tangible references that can help us and, as necessary, others know the criteria by which we live our lives.

• Memorable. Mission statements are most effective when they can be recalled at a moment’s notice—especially in moments of uncertainty, confusion, anxiety, or crisis; after all, it’s during these moments that turning to principles we articulated during more settled times can be most beneficial. The more concise and simple the statement, the easier it will be to remember.

• Genuine. Mission statements are not meant to impress others but, rather, guide us in being and becoming our best selves. Certainly our ideal image might be informed by others but, considering that we are often alone when it comes to explaining or defending our choices, we should create a mission statement that reflects what we believe; what we are willing to live by; what we are willing to defend; and what we are willing to accept the consequences for, if necessary.

• Obtainable, but challenging. Mission statements encourage us to commitment to and work toward upholding the best vision of ourselves. We may struggle to live up to this ideal in every decision and action; nevertheless, we should be able to recognize the times we succeed in living out our mission statement, even if we are not as consistent in those efforts as we’d like to be.

• Measureable. Mission statements should include tangible references, giving us benchmarks against which we can measure our progress. By identifying the types of choices, behaviors, actions, attitudes, and so on that are consistent with the values we profess, we can better assess the extent to which we are succeeding, as well as ways we may need to modify our efforts.

• Long standing. Whereas a company’s slogans can be replaced within a year or less, its mission statement provides a foundation upon which all other elements—decisions, products, services, offerings, acquisitions, among other things—are built for years to come. The same should be said of a personal mission statement.

Granted, the early drafts of our statement may need tweaking or even extensive revision to ensure it does, in fact, reflect what we are willing to do or support, but once we finalize our personal mission statement, we should commit to upholding the values and goals represented in our statement for the long haul. As such, we should continually monitor our actions and behaviors against our mission statement to make sure they are and remain in alignment. For additional insight, we might solicit feedback to gauge whether others’ perceptions of our choices and actions are in line with the image we aim to project and adjust our actions accordingly.

Companies use their mission statements to guide employees at all levels in making choices that are consistent with the company’s values. In comparable ways, we can use a personal mission statement as a compass to help us navigate the decisions and actions we encounter on our journey. Along the way, we can achieve greater clarity and direction in determining our priorities; identify where and how to use our talent, time, networks, money, and other resources to best support our values and goals; develop benchmarks to gauge our success and to determine where to modify our efforts; and remain focused on and accountable to endeavors that matter most to us.

Reputations are built and sustained by consistent practice. By developing a mission statement that articulates what we believe and by using that information as the criteria to measure our choices and behaviors, we can ensure greater consistency in what we do and, in turn, in what others see, helping us build and reinforce a reputation we value.

Working toward Areté…
Share your thoughts on devising or using a personal mission statement in the space below.

Share Button

The Power of Words, for Bad and Good

Posted on by
2

By Caroline M. Cole

Last week it was Rebecca Ann Sedwick, age 12, but there have been others: Erin Gallagher, 13. Bart Palosz, 15. Katie Webb, 12. Amanda Cummings, 15. Ryan Patrick Halligan, 13. Audrie Pott, 15. Phoebe Prince, 15. Tyler Clementi, 18. Jessica Logan, 18. Josh Pacheco, 17. Alexis Pilkington, 17. Brandon Bitner, 14. Gabriella Molina, 12. Lennon Baldwin, 15. Rehtaeh Parsons, 17. Jessica Laney, 16. Michael Joseph Berry, 17. Sarah Lynn Butler, 12. Kenneth Weishuhn Jr., 14. Rachel Neblett, 17. Magan Meirer, 13. The most familiar cases may focus on children and teens, but age doesn’t matter, as evident in the circumstances of Kevin Morrissey, 52; Jennifer Lynn-Marie Lenihan, 39; Marlene Braun, 46; Carl Dessureault, 44; Margaret Gettins, 50; and Annette Prada, 50. And for all of the stories we read or hear about, there are countless others: stories of individuals who were apparently driven to suicide because they were harassed, taunted, threatened, maligned, or otherwise bullied in person and in online forums.Rapier

In the fifth century bce, the Greek playwright Euripides wrote, “the tongue is mightier than the blade,” a message that still rings true today when we consider the ways people call each other names; tease, taunt, mock, belittle, or insult others; make jokes at someone else’s expense; share intimate details or personal information in order to embarrass others, damage reputations, or sabotage relationships; make up information or spread rumors that present others in unflattering ways; criticize, degrade, or otherwise shame others in public; transmit aggressive, intimidating, or hateful messages; threaten someone; and, increasingly urge people to kill themselves. And while the internet, in general, and social media, in particular, have magnified the reach and speed of these comments and behaviors, harassment has been around for some time.

In his Scientific American article “The Origins of Bullying,” Hogan Sherrow writes that bullying “is part of the human condition” with “origins deep in our evolutionary history.” Moreover, he observes, bullying is not unique to humans; it is evident in every major primate group, providing individual members or cohorts within that group a means to encourage conformity (even if it is through coercion), as well as survival and reproduction advantages. As such, bullying behaviors in primate species can be severe but, Sherrow contends, there’s a critical difference between the bullying practices of primates and humans: humans can intensify the impact of their bullying through the use language.

Noting that humans have combined language’s ability to communicate abstraction with “a phenomenal social memory that allows us to remember scores of individuals and their attributes,” Sherrow argues that humans are able to taunt, humiliate, spread rumors about, or otherwise “inflict harm…without putting themselves at risk, physically.” Online bullying, he adds, extends this behavior by giving individuals opportunity to “distance themselves from potential conflict and risk that provides them with a platform to be cruel,” and the results are devastating.

Studies show that children and adults who are verbally harassed show signs of sickness, loneliness, depression, anxiety, and stress. Under the weight of pervasive malicious comments, they begin to isolate themselves, avoid opportunities, withdraw from others, and engage in increasingly risky behaviors. And as the emotional, psychological, and economical impact of such hostility grows, people shrink from their potential, play small, stop showing up, and even quit—activities, projects, school, jobs and, at times, life itself.

Such results remind us of the power of communication, for whatever the forum, whatever the message, whomever the participants, our language can damage or heal; cut down or lift up; humiliate or encourage; condemn or redirect; distance or embrace.

Anti-bullying campaigns, task forces, workgroups, policies, laws, and other defensive strategies continue to emerge in an ongoing effort to stop the spread of bullying. Yet in addition to these efforts, we all have the opportunity to engage in an offensive strategy that requires no campaign materials, no website, no meetings or bureaucracy, and no fundraising. It is a commitment to using language in general and our words in particular to promote the significance of others, no matter who they are.

As noted in an earlier post, the word communication represents the process of joining with and connecting to others. It is, at its core, an affinity with, respect for, and commitment to the well-being and enrichment of the other person, and it is with this understanding that we can and should commit to using our language.

We may not be or act like the bullies depicted in the stories we read. We might even be the ones who intervene when we encounter such individuals harassing others. Even so, we can make a conscientious effort to increase the quality of every interaction we have, perhaps mitigating the language people are hearing in other forums.

An 1898 Christmas edition of The British Weekly includes a message by Ian Maclaren that reads, “Be pitiful, for every man is fighting a hard battle.” If we were to approach life with Maclaren’s premise that everyone is struggling in ways we may not see or cannot know, we might actively seek opportunities to use our language in ways that recognize, encourage, respect, console, support, elevate, inspire, and align ourselves others.

Consider, for example, Antoinette Tuff. On August 20, 2013, Michael Brandon Hill entered McNair Discovery Learning Academy in Decatur, Georgia, armed with an AK-47 assault rifle and other weapons. Having fired shots at the police officers outside the school several time, Hill was loading up with ammunition when Tuff, the school’s bookkeeper, began talking with him.

In a post-event interview with ABC News, Tuff says she tried to keep Hill calm by asking his name but, when he didn’t answer, she began sharing her life. Telling him about the pain and tragedies she had faced—including a 33-year marriage that fell apart and the “roller coaster” of opening a business—Tuff told Hill that we all have situations in our lives and if she could recover, so could he. After an hour of talking, Tuff got Hill, a person who was “willing to die,” to put down his weapons, empty his pockets and backpack, lay on the floor, and surrender to police without anyone being hurt.

Tuff did not solve Hill’s problems during that exchange, but she has shown that Euripides’ observation that “the tongue is mightier than the blade” does not have to end in ruin. The power of words can also be for good.

Unbeknownst to us, our words may be a voice at a critical juncture in someone’s existence, and the connection we make can be, literally, the difference between death and life. Our conversations might not remove the obstacles people face, and our exchanges may last only a moment. But we can commit to ensuring that all of our words work to offer friendship when someone is alone, recognize pain when someone is hurting, bestow respect when someone feels disregarded, give encouragement when someone is demoralized, provide comfort or compassion when someone is suffering, or validate an existence when someone feels no place in this world.

Buddha is credited with saying that “words have the power to both destroy and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world.” May we contribute to that change by using the power of words to recognize and reflect the value of others.

Working toward Areté…
In the space below, share your ideas on how to use the power of words for good.

Share Button

Early, Prompt, Fashionably Late, or Rude? Punctuality as a (Slippery) Virtue

Posted on by
2

By Caroline M. Cole

Colleagues walking into a meeting mid-discussion. Classmates strolling into a lecture in progress. Patrons looking for a seat once the movie or performance has begun. Patients checking in after scheduled appointments. Guests showing up as others are being served. Candidates arriving after an interview’s scheduled start time. Passengers boarding as pilots are preparing to push back from the gate. People texting that they are en route or “only 10 minutes away,” five or more minutes after they were supposed to have been there. Whatever the case, tardiness seems to be increasingly the rule, prompting different reactions from the parties involved. For example, some who are left waiting opt to ignore the behavior and redirect their attention to other people or matters; others, trying to help the belated party save face, dismiss the delay as “no big deal.” Some people confront latecomers in private, one-on-one conversations, while some call them out in a public shaming. And some just quietly fume, unsure of how or if to respond at all.punctuality as a virture

Those who are late also offer a range of responses. Embarrassed by their tardiness and any resulting disruption or inconvenience, many who are late sheepishly apologize, perhaps several times. Others dismiss their belated arrival as being fashionably late, and some nonchalantly admit they have a chronic inability to show up anywhere as scheduled.

Whatever the response, tardiness transmits messages—some of which may be inadvertently undermining the images we aim to project. Recognizing that some people use arrival times to gauge others’ or to establish their own character, this discussion examines how punctuality—however it may be defined by a culture—can be used to enhance a reputation.

From the Latin root punctum, meaning point or dot, the word “punctual” means arriving or fulfilling an obligation on or by the designated time, as conveyed in the expression “…on the dot.” Yet while punctuality is often called a virtue, connections between a person’s arrival and moral character is a relatively new phenomenon. Equally importantly is that it is a fluid, context-specific concept. As such, an awareness of punctuality’s origins and subsequent applications can help us make better decisions about how to meet this expectation in ways that serve all parties.

In A Geography of Time, Robert Levine, professor at California State University–Fresno, traces the way civilization learned to define, track and, ultimately, harness units of time. For example, whereas changes in climate conditions and celestial bodies allowed people to mark off seasons and months, sundials and shadow clocks made it possible to measure days, albeit erratically given that these methods were useless during inclement weather and at night. The advent of the water clock addressed this problem by allowing people to measure time by reading water levels as the water passed through a hole in a container. In addition to providing a more accurate and consistent measure of time than earlier devices, these water clocks (a precursor to hour glasses using sand) introduced opportunities to link time, activity and, for some, money.

Early court systems, for example, used water clocks to regulate the time each lawyer could speak. Noting that time was money in ancient Rome, Levine explains that lawyers would often ask judges “to grant water” (aquam dare)—that is, add water to the clock—so they would have more time to present their client’s case; those who lost water (aquam perdere), on the other hand, were said to be wasting time. Monasteries also used hour glasses to know when to sound bells that would mark hours for prayers and work, setting the stage for bells to ring at designated times throughout the day in both factories and schools.

Drawing upon Galileo’s work that connected pendulums and periods of oscillation, the first pendulum clock emerged in the early 1700s, enhancing both the accuracy in and divisions of time measurement. And as systems for marking days, hours, minutes, and seconds became more sophisticated, the connections to time became more personal. Time moved from clock towers in a public square, to grandfather clocks in a home, to timepieces in a pocket, to watches on a wrist. Yet despite the growing number of ways people were learning to mark off time, promptness was never a consideration because, as Levine writes, every community kept its own time, making it difficult if not impossible to synchronize events beyond a given area—that is, until the Industrial Revolution, which required a greater coordination of activities within and across space.

Levine credits the railway system for leading the way in standardizing time, because it needed common time tables to transport materials efficiently to stations that were, at first, running on different local times. Although standardizing railway times helped regulate manufacturing schedules and, ultimately, laid the foundation for an international time zone system, in the immediate future it helped connect concepts of time, efficiency, virtue, and success.

Consider, for example, the advertisements for time clocks that were being developed and marketed to factories as a way to “save money, enforce discipline and add to the productive time.” According to Levine, an 1891 advertisement for the Electric Signal Clock Company read: “If there is one virtue that should be cultivated more than any other by him who would succeed in life, it is punctuality: if there is one error to be avoided, it is being behind time.” The Blodgett Clock Company’s 1896 catalog copy echoed this sentiment, claiming that “order, promptness and regularity are cardinal principles to impress on the minds of young people.”

If linking punctuality to virtue did not work, there was always the possibility of linking tardiness to vice. One time clock manufacturer’s ad copy claimed that “there is nothing so fatal to the discipline of the plant… nor so disastrous to its smooth and profitable working as to have a body of men irregular in appearance, who come late and go out at odd times” and that time recorders were a way to “weed out these undesirables.” In such context, Levine writes, “the latecomer was characterized as a social inferior and, in some cases, a moral incompetent.”

Pocket watch and wristwatch manufacturers capitalized on the punctuality-as-a-virtue mindset, sometimes by linking their products to the new time-attentive railway system, as evident in the copy of a 1916 advertisement by the Hamilton Watch company, the “Railroad Timekeeper of America,” with the headline “Too Late!”:

There are certain types of men who haven’t much respect for Time. Time is nothing in the life of the tramp. Men of little character, wasters and dreamers rather pride themselves on their content of Time. Sooner or later, that ghostly, implacable hand reaches out and turns them back.

Any watch will do for the man who is content to drift in a few minutes late, but what a gap there is between him and the man who has disciplined himself to keep track of the seconds!

The Hamilton Watch is known as the Railroad Timekeeper of America. That title was honestly earned. Time is everything to a railroad man. To him, the words, “too late,” are ominous. They mean to him failure, danger, death. A railroad man is required to own an accurate watch. If his watch loses a certain number of seconds a month, it means buy a new watch or get a new job. …Hamilton Watches are as thin and beautiful as you could possibly desire. But after all, a watch is not a trinket to be selected for its looks. A fine watch is a wonderful instrument and must be judged solely by its performance and accurate measuring of time.”

Marketing its products to the hard-working, disciplined and, sometimes, stylish members of a now-industrialized society, Hamilton Watch reinforced ideas that time-sensitive individuals were the foundation of the new economy. Yet Hamilton Watch also set its sights on the next generation of those moving into the system, the college graduate, as seen in the copy a 1917 advertisement:

Ivied walls, venerable elms, a song drifting from an open dormitory window. As enduring as this haunting, life-long charm of campus memories are the gold watches [that were] recently presented to six Yale men for distinguished and loyal management of class affairs since their graduation.

The memento deemed worthy of symbolizing this high esteem of their classmates was a Hamilton Watch, “The Watch of Railroad Accuracy.”

In the years that followed, Hamilton Watch promoted versions of this message—occasionally expanding it’s pitch to include females—and in little over a decade, time and money were intimately intertwined, as evident in its 1930 advertisement headlined “Minutes mean Money!”:

“What time have you?” We asked the men about to board the famous limited. It seemed a silly question. There was a big clock in the station to which they could refer. And yet as the parade of prosperous, well-groomed, successful men passed through the gate, one after the other obligingly pulled out his watch.

54 out of the 59 had either exact time or were within a scant 30 seconds of it. Obviously they were men whose minutes meant money.

We don’t imply that carrying an accurate watch will bring a man success. But it is significant that successful men are accuracy-minded.

Today, watches are increasingly replaced by the clocks on a smart phone or some other digital device, but connections to earlier views of punctuality remain. One need only consider the myriad software programs and applications that not only keep track of activities, appointments, and various deadlines, but that text, flash, ping, or otherwise alert us when those commitments are drawing near. Yet even in a world that continually reminds us of where we need to be at any given time, punctuality remains a slippery concept.

One reason may be found in the challenges the railways had trying to coordinate train schedules at the turn of the last century: people need to synchronize values if they are to coordinate schedules. A related reason may be that efforts to become a more global community provide more opportunities for members of monochromatic and polychromatic cultures to interact and, at times, clash.

In his 1983 study The Dance of Life: The Other Dimension of Time, anthropologist Edward T. Hall describes how different societies view and structure time. According to Hall, low-context, task-oriented cultures (often found in Northern European and western countries) are monochromatic; these cultures emphasize promptness in ways that encourage its members to assess and schedule demands, focus on one thing at a time, and complete the task at hand. In contrast, high-context cultures that are “oriented toward people, human relationships and the family” are polychromatic; more common in the Mediterranean and in Latin America, these cultures view time as fluid, subordinating schedules to interpersonal relationships.

Some people criticize the subjective aspects of Hall’s work, but traces of his observations appear in the punctuality protocols that Terri Morrison, Wayne A. Conaway and George A. Borden address in Kiss, Bow, or Shake Hands: How to Do Business in Sixty Countries. For example, the authors note that Asian countries expect people to be on time. In Japan, punctuality is expected at all times. In China, lateness and cancellations are a serious affront. In Singapore, being late is considered insulting and impolite. In Hong Kong, punctuality demonstrates respect and, as such, is considered a virtue. In South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand, punctuality is considered courteous and good business. And while Asian countries may tolerate higher ranking individuals making subordinate individuals wait—often to demonstrate their own status—the expectation is for people to be prompt for business and social engagements.

Most European nations also value promptness. According to the authors, Germany is the most stringent country in the world regarding punctuality—noting that arriving just 2–3 minutes late can be insulting—but other nations also value promptness. Scandinavian countries, viewing tardiness as a sign of disrespect, expect punctuality for all business appointments and social engagement. Englanders expect punctuality (even in high traffic areas, such as London), as do people throughout Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Hungary, and Italy.

Not all European countries, however, uphold monochromatic punctuality protocols. For instance, the authors observe that promptness does not seem to be a high priority in Belarus, Poland, Russia, and some other Eastern European countries perhaps, they suggest, because communist rule guaranteed people’s employment regardless of whether they were on time; in fact, the authors say that Russians may be one or two hours late for appointments, considering patience, rather than punctuality, a greater virtue.

Similarly, punctuality is not necessarily considered a virtue in many Middle Eastern countries, and supplicants—which include foreigners doing business—are often kept waiting. Therefore, the authors advise that visitors to Saudi Arabia be prompt, but they should also be prepared that the person they are meeting may be late or never show up at all. The same practices are evident in Israel, unless people have adopted more Western attitudes toward punctuality.

Latin American countries, the authors observe, tend to have the most fluid view of schedules—for both visitors and native residents—though what constitutes punctuality depends on the nature of the event and the participants. Business meetings, for example, expect foreigners to be punctual, even though residents of the country may not adhere to the same standards; those native to the country may be 15–30 minutes late and still consider themselves on time. Social occasions, on the other hand, assume visiting and native attendees will arrive later than the specified time.

While Morrison and her co-authors document variations in punctuality around the world, tardiness can be viewed differently even within a single culture, depending on the occasion. In the United States, for instance, conventional punctuality guidelines suggest that people arrive 10–15 minutes early for events where those in attendance are to be seated or otherwise on hand when the event starts, such as performances, weddings, graduations, surprise parties, funerals and memorial services; they should arrive on time for brunches and luncheons, bridal and baby showers, and dinner parties; and they should arrive within 5–10 minutes of the designated start time for informal receptions and social gatherings.

Punctuality may be a virtue but, as these discussions suggest, the standards for determining what constitutes “punctual” are relative to context and participants. Therefore, the only thing we may be able to say with certainty is that adopting a one-size-fits-all approach in our arrivals can transmit messages we don’t intend about the people we are scheduled to meet, and about ourselves. As such, the first step to developing and enhancing a reputation on the grounds of promptness is to identify the context in which we are to scheduled to appear and the ways punctuality is viewed in that context by others with whom we plan to connect. With that understanding, we can then adjust our arrivals to accommodate their views of punctuality.

In doing so, we can establish and develop our reputation by conveying our:

• Respect. Arriving on time—as defined by the given context and its participants—demonstrates our awareness of and respect for others’ time. Even in cases where someone may not be specifically waiting on us (for example, a performance or a lecture), “making an entrance” redirects attention away from the occasion and onto our arrival as we try to situate ourselves and, depending on the occasion, ask others to bring us up to date on what has transpired. By being punctual, we can minimize disruptions and indicate we recognize the value of everyone’s time.

• Time management capabilities. Time is the great equalizer, giving us all 24-hours a day to accomplish what we consider important. The way we prioritize commitments to the people, organizations, and other endeavors in our lives says much about who and what we value; therefore, meeting people when and as expected shows that we consider them a priority.

• Reliability. Although emergencies arise, some things are not considered justifiable reason for being late: work distractions, losing track of time, forgetting, needing to grab lunch or use the restroom first, and traffic (unless someone is flying in and the delays originate in the airport). Some people would also add pets and children to the list, arguing that with regard to pets and children—as in all other cases—people should foresee potential delays and arrange their schedules accordingly. Granted, some things are impossible to predict and, in such cases, we should call or otherwise alert those who may be waiting as soon as we know that we will be late or otherwise unable to meet as scheduled. Even so, these moments should be the exception if we are to present ourselves as dependable.

Considering the ways punctuality conveys these characteristics, it is little wonder that people around the world view promptness as a sign of professionalism. All things being equal, then, punctual individuals may find themselves at a distinct advantage when others are considering whom to hire, promote, invite, or otherwise treat as a friend or ally in both industry and social contexts.

More importantly, though, is that arriving on time as defined by the given context demonstrates our willingness to be in sync with others, and it is for this reason alone that punctuality can be sufficient for establishing and building relationships that keep us in others’ esteem.

Working toward Areté…
Share your thoughts and experiences about punctuality—yours or others—in the space below.

Share Button

To Understand Why Everyone Should “Do Grammar,” Look to Ancient Greece

Posted on by
1

By Caroline M. Cole

A National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) discussion on LinkedIn asked members to list their “BIGGEST grammar pet peeve… the one you would seriously consider giving real years of your life just to get students to understand, and do correctly.” Generating over 150 comments, it has been one of the most popular NCTE discussions on the site. The most common complaint seems to focus on confused homonyms, such as it’s and its; your and you’re; and there, their, and they’re. Other criticisms, however, include inaccurate use of commas and semicolons; split infinitives; comma splices; inappropriate pronoun/antecedent and subject/verb agreement; run-on sentences; double negatives; incorrect descriptive and definitive adjectives; misused –ly adverbs; absent articles; starting sentences with coordinating conjunctions; run-on sentences; missing or misused apostrophes; and the incorrect use of transitive and intransitive verbs, such as lay/lie, raise/rise, or sit/set.Ancient Greece

Such criticisms, especially when made by teachers, usually evoke a backlash. Arguing that communication is about conveying ideas, many retort that, if an audience understands the writer or speaker’s intentions, the need to maintain archaic or elitist rules isn’t important. Others claim language evolves and that it’s just a matter of time before various grammar rules and conventions outlive their use and are forced into retirement, as exemplified in Megan Garber’s argument about “America’s least favorite pronoun” in The Atlantic article “For Whom the Bell Tolls.” Then, of course, there are those who say that, as long as technology continues to create and shape how we transmit information, we will see new ways of using, and dismissing, conventional practices of representing language.

Provocative as the debates on both sides may be, they remain grounded in problematic assumptions, including: there is a “correct” version of English (there’s not); linguists, language aficionados, and teachers have been and remain the guardians of the language (they haven’t been, and still aren’t); decisions about which language “rules” to uphold or condemn should be decided by the way we speak (like, um…they shouldn’t be, ya’ know); and it’s the masses who ultimately decide which rules will stand the test of time (they don’t, at least not always).

Assumptions aside, the topic of grammar merits attention if only because debates about its alleged uses and misuses conflate social, political, and economic arguments about intelligence, competence, and prestige in ways that affect how individuals are perceived. But there are other reasons for “doing grammar,” even if they get little recognition in current debates about language.

Ask people for their thoughts about grammar and the comments will run the gamut. On the one side are those who view grammar as a manifestation of “clear” thinking and writing. On the other side are those who see grammar as an irritant that’s forced upon language learners of all ages via memorization and other “drill-and-kill” lessons. In between are those who suggest that, while grammar is good to know and use, nowadays it’s just a quaint reminder of the things that used to be necessary to communicate—like quill pens, writing slates, and typewriters—but from which we have moved on. Yet the origin of and reasons for grammar are much deeper and richer than these comments suggest, and it is within this history that we see how grammar is invaluable even today.

The term “grammar” can be traced to Greece during the 5th century b.c., where it was used to describe the skill, expertise, or knowledge of someone who knew the “letters”; that is, an individual who could not only read and write, but who could set apart vowels, consonants, semi-consonants, syllables, and other language units—a formidable task in grammar’s infancy, when people had words to convey ideas but no way to explain how or why particular sentence structures, word combinations, morphemes, and so on were more effective than others. Such distinctions may seem insignificant today, but this knowledge was invaluable to a civilization that invested heavily in a person’s ability to engage, inform, debate, and refute others.

In Ancient Greece, the agora, the central gathering place, was the classroom, and philosophers like Protagoras, Gorgias, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle guided those who assembled in testing the merit and truth of ideas concerning governance, law, philosophy, art, science, religion, and warfare. Orators who understood how the language worked could sway audiences in these matters—sometimes in spite of their argument’s value or credibility—shaping not only the mind, body, and imagination of audience members, but the future of Athens as well. Grammar gave speakers that understanding.

In “The Birth of Grammar in Greece,” Andreas U. Schmidhauser traces the ways the Ancient Greeks developed systems for identifying and working with various components of language. According to Schmidhauser, the Sophists (fl. 450b.c) and those who followed began dividing words into categories with specific functions, grouping words into sentences, finding ways to connect sentences to build arguments, developing a science of sound, and using language to test the truth and falsehood of statements, ultimately laying the foundation for our current notions of grammar. Their efforts to develop a proficiency in grammar, however, were not motivated by a desire to define “correct” uses of the language. They were philosophers—seekers of wisdom—interested in addressing the problems in their society, and they were keenly aware that the most successful orators were those who could capture the attention of audience members and motivate them to action. They likewise understood that subtle variations in how they presented information could affect the audience’s perception and, hence, reception of their message. As such, the Ancient Greeks approached grammar rhetorically, not prescriptively.

Identifying discrete blocks of language and their function, the Ancient Greeks acquired a body of facts on the various constructions, forms, and uses of words in a sentence, and the resulting repertoire allowed them to then select combinations that were most effective for the purpose, audience, and context of their message. Descriptive grammar thus became one more tool in the Ancient Greeks’ toolbox for building and presenting successful arguments. Unfortunately, rhetorical approaches to grammar were increasingly downplayed, subordinated and, at times, lost all together as other cultures adopted the Greeks’ approach to language classification.

Consider, for example, Latin. Scholars developed a grammar for Latin in part to ensure that government and military treaties, scholarly and scientific work, religious doctrines, and other official documents that were written during the Roman occupation could be read, understood, and disseminated as the Empire began to crumble and people returned to their native dialects. The resulting grammar provided a Rosetta Stone of sorts, making it possible for later generations to learn and work with materials written in a “dead” language; it likewise gave people a common language for the times different dialects or languages might have hindered communication. But documenting the structures of a language that was no longer spoken and, hence, no longer evolving shifted descriptions of how people used Latin to prescriptions of its “correct” use.

The English language also saw shifts from descriptive to prescriptive uses of grammar, albeit for different reasons.

In 1066, when William the Conqueror became the first Norman king of England and established his seat of government in London, he replaced the Anglo-Saxon chiefs and clergy with French-speaking Norman warriors, infusing the English language with French vocabulary and idiomatic expressions. Reclaiming the throne in the thirteenth century, the English continued to use London as the center of government, but they transcribed old documents and began writing new ones in the dialect of English used at court and by the ruling classes in the area. The newly established universities at Oxford and Cambridge (both fewer than 60 miles from London) helped reinforce the norms of English that were concentrated in this region; language variations, however, continued to flourish as writers, transcribers, and translators incorporated their own preferences into handwritten manuscripts—at least until the advent of the printing press in the late 1400s.

Increasing the speed with which information could be produced and disseminated, printing presses were instrumental in stabilizing the language. In addition to minimizing discrepancies across multiple copies of a single work, the presses made it possible to put the same version into more people’s hands, indirectly promoting more consistent uses of the language. Further reinforcing consistency in English were the printers themselves, who pushed for more uniform spelling and language structures to make it easier to typeset manuscript. But it was the amount of information printing presses were able to generate that seemed to have some of the most profound effects on the origins of English grammar.

In a discussion of the history of English, Susanne Kemmer, Associate Professor of Linguistics at Rice University, explains it was the growth in written language that generated a need to develop resources that could help non-native and native speakers learn more about how the language worked. While some countries established academies to codify and normalize all aspects of their language (for example, the Accademia della Crusca and L’Académie française)—a practice of language regulating that continues today—Kemmer notes that such efforts did not take hold in English-speaking nations, even though there were (and remain) “language purification” movements that sought to minimize foreign influences on the language. Instead, dictionaries were being compiled, printed, and distributed, helping the individuals who were learning the vocabulary of a new language, as well as the English speakers who were wanting assistance with “hard words” which, according to Kemmer, were primarily loan words from Classical languages and other countries. But as much as these materials provided opportunities to fix the language, there were those who cautioned against definitive, prescriptive views of English. Samuel Johnson, who assembled A Dictionary of the English Language, was such an individual.

In the Preface to the 1755 edition of his work, Johnson explains that, despite the years he spent trying to bring order to, among other things, the orthography, etymology, signification, and function of the language in use, it was futile to believe it we could “fix our language, and put a stop to… alterations,” for numerous factors would continue to change the language. For example, there was commerce. Johnson acknowledges that business would bring together individuals with different backgrounds and languages and, as the participants “learn a mingled dialect,” English would change. Johnson notes that education would also change the language, as “those who have much leisure to think will always be enlarging the stock of ideas, and every increase of knowledge, whether real or fancied, will produce new words, or combinations of words.” Learning other languages will also affect English by encouraging unique ways to view the world and, thus, communicate those observations. Johnson concludes that “no dictionary of a living tongue ever can be perfect,” even if someone were to spend a lifetime addressing syntax and etymology. And yet, more than 250 years later, we still see debates about “correct” language use.

Using commonly known language patterns can help streamline the learning and use of language, but spending “real years of…life” to help someone understand any single grammar rule suggests a misunderstanding of the real value of grammar–especially when we consider that communication is still possible in the midst of unconventional, or even “wrong” uses of grammar. This argument is not to suggest that grammar has outlived its function. On the contrary, grammar is necessary if we are to have a system of communication that others can recognize, understand, and use to interact with others. But there are better reasons for learning grammar than simply avoiding the proverbial red pen.

Rather that pushing grammar as a set of rules to uphold at any cost, we would be better off promoting grammar as a knowledge and understanding of where and how words enter into which patterns and where alternate patterns exist. After all, it is with this information that we can, among other things, make more strategic choices in conveying intention, probability, permission, conditions, and suppositions; we can find ways to attribute or deflect responsibility; we can adjust the distance between ourselves and our audiences and, by extension, the level of intimacy we create; we can identify purpose and result, cause-and-effect, and concessions; we can emphasize and subordinate information more effectively; and, we can create stronger cohesion between and among our ideas.

The Ancient Greeks were committed to engaging with and motivating audiences about topics and concerns that affected their society, and a rhetorical approach to grammar gave them another tool to do so. The fact that we continue to read, cite, and draw upon their arguments centuries later is a testament to the power of using grammar in this way.

We can tap into this power by moving beyond the prescriptive views of grammar that dominate today’s conversations of language and, instead, by working to develop a greater awareness of and appreciation for the various ways information can be presented. In doing so, we add to our communication tool boxes, thereby helping us construct messages that can impact the audiences we aim to reach.

Working toward Areté…
What are your experiences in learning or working with grammar? Share your thoughts below.

Share Button