The Best Advice You Can Offer

Posted on by
Reply

By Caroline M. Cole

It can be a commencement speech. Perhaps a greeting card sentiment or yearbook inscription. Maybe it’s a banquet toast. Possibly it’s an informal conversation in the kitchenette or around the photocopier at work. It can even be an inspirational quote overlaying a photo that’s been downloaded, posted, “liked,” tweeted, and retweeted ad infinitum via Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter or some other social media feed. Advice is plentiful, but especially at this time of year, where graduations, weddings, baby showers, and other milestones provide myriad opportunities for well-meaning individuals to offer their observations, wisdom, and counsel on everything from careers, relationships, family planning, car and home purchases, vacation venues, and so on. And though well intended, as Philip Dormer Stanhope, the fourth Earl of Chesterfield, observed, “advice is seldom welcome, and those who need it most, like it least.”The best advice you can offer

Sometimes it’s because the intended recipients are distracted—as is often the case with graduates, wedding couples, and new parents who simply want to celebrate the occasion before absorbing new lessons. Sometimes it’s because advice, grounded in logic, struggles to find an audience in those who are processing the emotional. Sometimes it’s because people want the opportunity to make their own decisions and, by extension, their own mistakes. Sometimes it’s because people aren’t looking for advice per se but, rather, validation of what they’ve already decided or, increasingly, someone simply to listen. Yet while humorist and social commentator Will Rogers once said “never miss a good opportunity to shut up,” there are times when guidance, opinions, and even warnings are necessary.

Recognizing that any advice on how to give advice can be inherently hypocritical, this discussion’s approach to examining effective communication strategies focuses on questions we might ask before offering our suggestions, thereby ensuring our advice is both given and received in the best possible manner.

• Who are the participants in the exchange? Speech is a socially situated act, prompting participants to adopt the communication frameworks and strategies, norms, resources, and authority ascribed to them in other forums. Consequently, some individuals will feel more compelled to give (or accept) advice as a means of expressing or reinforcing the social relationships evident elsewhere; for example, parents, teachers, managers, advisors, and others who feel responsible for advising children, students, employees, clients, and the like may resist accepting any guidance these younger, less experienced, or even subordinate individuals could offer. However, the power dynamics which affect the ways participants relate to one another can also shape how participants contribute to conversations.

Drawing upon the work of social anthropologist Edwin Ardener, Cheris Kramarae, professor emeritus of speech communication and women’s studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, developed a “muted group theory” for communication, which helps explain how various groups come to understand and articulate their world views. Noting that males and females have different access to the authority and resources associated with power, Kramarae argues that they adopt different communication strategies to influence their own and others’ lives.

Males and, depending on the context, others in a dominate social group, for example, tend to adopt a communication style that privileges flat statements, assertions, emphatics, and directives, thereby presenting themselves as knowledgeable, confident, and authoritative. Enjoying the status that comes with being perceived as decisive leaders who are able to resolve issues and solve problems, males continue to employ these linguistic features in both formal and informal contexts. As such, even the most innocuous conversations can suggest minimal give-and-take between participants, as those in the perceived dominant group work to gain or maintain an elevated position through pronouncements and directives.

In contrast, females and others who occupy “muted” or subordinate positions tend to adopt a communication style that uses interrogatives, tag questions, raised intonations, hedges, and back-channels; that is, the feedback listeners give while someone is speaking to show continued interest (e.g., uh-huh, yeah, right, okay, hmm, really, wow). These style choices—coupled with the degrees of facial expressivity, eye-contact, torso alignment, proximity, and other body language cues tolerated in females—continue to fuel the stereotype that females are “good listeners.”

Various scholars suggest that muted-group communication strategies are more effective for encouraging discussion, collaboration, and negotiation. Unfortunately, as Dale Spender argues in Man Made Language, the mere fact that muted-group language structures deviate from those preferred by dominant group members means that these communication style choices—and those who use them—are considered aberrant from the “norm” and, thus, derided for being hesitant, uncertain, passive, and weak.

On the surface, this research may seem to have little relationship to the topic of advice-giving strategies, yet the connection isn’t necessarily the communication styles someone might adopt. Rather, it’s the roles participants may assume (consciously or unconsciously) in the discussion. Namely, taking up or falling into a dominant or muted group role can quickly shift an otherwise mundane conversation between partners, family members, friends, colleagues, and even strangers into a subtle if not palpable struggle for domination, and in the context of advice, that shift can be detrimental.

Because conversations often involve individuals who represent groups with varying levels of status, recognizing potential power imbalances and identifying ways we may be defaulting to or evoking communication styles that create or sustain those imbalances can help us see ways in which we may be inadvertently undermining our conversations with others.

• What is the purpose of the exchange? Renaissance scholar Desiderius Erasmus cautioned “don’t give your advice before you are called upon,” and yet most people, wanting to be of service, prematurely offer suggestions, counsel, and directives. The critical word, here, is “prematurely.”

We are a culture that believes in acting, doing, addressing, solving, and so on, equating movement with progress and stillness with stagnancy. Some people, however, may be neither be looking for nor needing advice. They may simply want someone who can listen without judgment, someone who can be present with them in their confusion, anger, frustration, or pain.

In his book The Road to Daybreak: A Spiritual Journey, Henri J. M. Nouwen writes that “when we honestly ask ourselves which person in our lives mean the most to us, we often find that it is those who, instead of giving advice, solutions, or cures, have chosen rather to share our pain and touch our wounds with a warm and tender hand. The friend who can be silent with us in a moment of despair or confusion, who can stay with us in an hour of grief and bereavement, who can tolerate not knowing, not curing, not healing and face with us the reality of our powerlessness, that is a friend who cares” (emphasis added).

Perhaps, then, when tempted to interject comments that begin “you should…” or “you need to…,” we might instead aim to be actively, but silently present. In our silence, we may discover they just need to vent or verbally process information. Or we may learn they actually want or need assistance, but we’re not the best person to provide it. If nothing else, we might ask if there’s anything specific we could do, rather than presume we know the answers.

By letting the other person shape the parameters of the conversations, we may be of greatest service by offering something even better than advice: empathy.

• Do we understand the situation as the other person sees it? Our advice can be only as good as our understanding of a given situation. Therefore, rather than assume we know or understand what someone may be experiencing, feeling, or needing, we might heed the words of Greek philosopher Epictetus: “Nature hath given [us] one tongue but two ears, that we may hear from others twice as much as we speak.”

Reconnaissance should be our first goal, working to gather as much information as possible—withstanding interpretation in the process—so as to understand the circumstances as the other person sees it. To clarify context or to fill in gaps, we might ask conventional reporter questions (e.g., who, what, where, when, why, how, to what extent, with what effect), resisting the urge to prepare comments and answers we could offer once they’ve finished talking. Similarly, if we find ourselves thinking about times we’ve been in comparable positions, we might refrain from interjecting statements such as, “I know how you feel…” (which can sound patronizing) or “I experienced something like that…” (which can redirect the focus away from them and onto us).

Empathizing with the person’s fear, anxiety, frustration, and so on is crucial in active listening, but it’s equally important to remember that different contexts, participants, resources, agendas, biases, and so on can alter a seemingly like situation in any number of ways. And while sometimes those differences may be negligible, sometimes the variations require unique responses. By working to understand things as the other person does, we could offer compassionate suggestions when—or if—we are asked.

• Is the advice we offer in the recipient’s best interest? The best suggestions help others move forward in the ways they want to move so they can become the best versions of themselves. As such, we need to keep our own egos in check.

Passing along our experience and wisdom can be of use to others, but sometimes we share information for our own benefit: to seem smart, worldly or wise; to appear responsible; to share the spotlight; to remain in control; and so on. While such motives do not necessarily discredit the advice we offer, they can raise questions about the real motives for or beneficiaries of any suggestions we might be able to give, thereby prompting others to ignore even the best ideas.

The more we are able to keep the other person’s success and well-being as our primary goal during the exchange, the more likely we are to provide advice that is, according to Samuel Taylor Coleridge, “like snow—the softer it falls, the longer it dwells upon, and the deeper in sinks into the mind.”

• Is the advice we offer achievable? Greek playwright Aeschylus observed that “it is an easy thing for one whose foot is on the outside of calamity to give advice.” Yet while giving advice may require minimal effort, offering suggestions that actually help others reach their goals in a manageable, effective way can be challenging.

In an effort to be swift in our assistance, we may give suggestions that conflate countless smaller steps; unfortunately, if we aren’t willing to help unpack that advice, it can come across as unrealistic, insensitive, or flippant. Consider, for example, employees who feel unhappy at work being told they should “just get another job” or “quit,” or students who are struggling with courses being advised to “apply themselves” or “study more,” or children who may have difficulties making friends being encouraged to “put yourself out there,” or people struggling to loose weight being advised to “eat less” and “exercise more.” Though well-intended, these and other abridged suggestions can seem impossible or even cruel to those who may want to change their circumstances but who may need smaller, concrete steps to understand how to do so—and sometimes those steps are easier to see through questions and inductive reasoning, rather than imperatives.

Using the case of those who may feel stuck at work, rather than suggest they “suck it up,” “be grateful they have a job in today’s economy,” or some other sweepingly general action, we might engage them in a conversation about when they feel stuck, why they feel stuck, how long they’ve had such feelings, and what they think needs to happen or change for them to feel more engaged. We might also ask about the things they enjoy doing at work, tasks they find interesting, projects they would like to do, and so on.

Such conversations—spurred on by a desire to understand, rather than solve the person’s situation—would make it possible for the other person to consider where he or she might find ways to shift the status quo, thereby allowing us to be allies, rather than advisors.

• What are the repercussions of the advice we offer?
Though some suggestions may work in one context, they may not work in every context for various reasons, many of which may be beyond the control of the individual participants. Extending the earlier discussion of muted group theory, for example, we would find that those in positions of power could say things that members of a muted group could not say if they were to achieve similar results; in other words, actions that might resolve a situation for some individuals could actually exacerbate matters for others. Thus, we should consider the advantages and disadvantages to any advice we offer, and we should encourage the other person to critique our suggestions as well.

By working to brainstorm strategies, rather than dictate actions, and by weighing the pros and cons of each possibility, we could help generate a range of solutions that are sensitive to the myriad variables in play. Equally important, we could help others find options they would feel most confident employing.

• Is the advice we offer truly optional? Hannah Whithall Smith, writer and speaker for various social movements at the turn of the twentieth century, observed that “the true secret of giving advice is, after you have honestly given it, to be perfectly indifferent whether it is taken or not, and never persist in trying to set people right.” Unfortunately, remaining “indifferent” to a person’s decisions can be challenging. Aside from any concern we may have for the individual’s success or well-being, there are time when our egos become more invested than they should be in whether someone accepts or rejects our advice, as evident in the ways we might respond when others decline our suggestions.

For example, after thinking (or even vocalizing) something like, “If you didn’t want my opinion, why did you ask for it?” we might remain more cognizant than otherwise about how things play out for the individual. Certainly we’d want the person to do well, but if things do not turn out as planned, we might be prepared to say, “I told you so…,” if only to salve our bruised ego. And if the person succeeds in spite of “rejecting” our advice, we might be loathe to admit that, perhaps, our advice wasn’t the best or only course of action, so any congratulations we offer risk sounding like a back-handed compliment (e.g., I’m glad it worked out for you after all).

Such feelings and responses might be mitigated if the people we advised were to come back and say something like, “Thanks for your suggestions, but I decided to go a different route because… .” Such conversations, however, might only be possible if those who were counseled solicited our advice in the first place (rather than our assuming they needed to hear our opinion), or if they were aware enough of their own decision-making process to parse whose advice they did accept, reject, or otherwise respond to in some manner.

Yet regardless of whether such conversations are possible, whenever we work from the assumption that people will or should take our advice—or explain why they didn’t—we should understand that our advice is more directive and compulsory than optional. If, then, we are to be invested in helping others achieve their goals, it shouldn’t matter whose advice they find of greatest use to reach those objectives. We should be equally sincere in our presence during their struggles and in our celebration at their victories.

* * *

In responding these questions, we may find that the answers vary with each exchange, and rightly so if we are to offer the best suggestions in light of the particular context, purpose, and person. But we might also begin to find in our conversations that the greatest assistance we can offer others isn’t advice per se, but an opportunity for them to share a part of themselves with someone who wants the best for them, regardless of where they find their answers, for it’s often in those moments that they discover they already know the path they should take.

Working toward Areté…
What makes you most receptive to advice? Use the space below to share your comments and observations to help others be more successful in their conversations.

Share Button

Staying Competitive while Un(der)employed

Posted on by
Reply

By Caroline M. Cole

Two weeks ago the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its latest Employment Situation report, indicating that an estimated 11.8 million people in America remain unemployed. Although Washington and Wall Street will inevitably debate what these and subsequent figures mean, companies remain cautious if not reticent about hiring for various reasons. Some employers say they’re still not convinced the economy is stabilizing the way some pundits suggest, while others say they’re waiting to see how current debates about government spending, tax rates, and policy mandates will impact their bottom line. Then there’s the glut of overqualified, unemployed individuals, which makes it possible for companies to take their time reviewing applications, delay decisions, and even manage with interns, volunteers, and part-time employees because employers know they could fill a position in a moment’s notice if necessary. Such reasons are understandable, but they offer little consolation for job applicants—especially the 4.4 million “long-term unemployed” (people who have not had a job for 27 weeks or more) that many companies are actively dismissing for reasons other than their qualifications.staying competitive while un(der)employed

In their October 2012 Federal Reserve Bank of Boston report, Rand Ghayad, doctoral student in economics at Northeastern University, and his doctoral advisor, William Dickens, found that even when long-term unemployed individuals were qualified for a position, they ranked lower than other candidates simply because of the time they had been out of the workforce. Supporting this theory is Ghayad’s field experiment, in which he submitted 4,800 fictional applications to 600 job openings across America. Varying the applications by experience in the industry, references to job hopping, and length of unemployment, he found that “recently unemployed applicants with no relevant experience are more likely to be invited for an interview than those with experience who have been unemployed for more than six months.”

A recruiter survey conducted by Bullhorn, a global leader in online recruiting software, supports Ghayad’s findings. Surveying 1,500 corporate recruiters and hiring managers who use its software, Bullhorn found that unemployment increases the likelihood of people remaining unemployed. According to the survey, recruiters agree that anyone who is presently not working can be hard to place, but the degree of difficulty increases with time between positions. For example, 17% of respondents indicate that it would be difficult to place candidates who have been unemployed for less than six months, and 36% say it would be difficult to place someone who’s been out of work 6–12 months. And if someone has been out of work for more than two years? Forty-four percent of survey respondents say it would be easier to place someone with a (non-felony) criminal record.

Employers are quick to explain why they’re hesitant to hire the unemployed in general, and the long-term unemployed in particular. Aside from arguing that it takes more resources to verify an unemployed person’s credentials, employers claim that people with jobs are continually proving they are valued by others; people with jobs are more competitive; people with jobs can adjust to similar or new tasks more quickly; and people with jobs may be applying for a position they really want, not just makeshift work to fill out their résumé before moving on.

These and comparable explanations inevitably prompt unemployed workers and their advocates to remind companies that not all terminations are fair or value-based. Some companies, for example, make employment decisions at a national level, reducing or eliminating positions according to spreadsheet data, rather than employee competence. Other businesses, having faced ever-diminishing resources in a recession with no end in sight, found it impossible to keep even their most valued staff members. Some sectors and organizations employ a “last hired, first fired” policy, regardless of employee performance, and some industries have been disproportionately affected by the recession, forcing record numbers of employees at all levels back into the job market.

The amount of time someone has been out of work should be neither the sole nor the primary factor in deciding whether someone is qualified for a position, yet the perceptions employers seem to have about unemployed applicants still keep qualified individuals from getting interviews and offers. And while applicants can continue to debate the accuracy, logic, or fairness of these perceptions, doing so has yet to change this problematic, though currently legal, hiring bias.

Whether they have been laid off today or whether they have been looking for work for months, applicants can be strategic and remain more competitive while un(der)employed. Recognizing employer prejudices is part of the process, but considering where and how some of these prejudices might be connected to and, perhaps, fueled by some job applicant behavior can help job seekers work to minimize or off-set employer concerns, regardless of their foundation. The discussion below offers ideas for doing so.

• Verify the work you’d like to do and the skills you have to do it. The frailty of today’s economy has turned many workplaces into a game of musical chairs, forcing even employees who enjoy their present seat to stand up and shuffle with the hopes finding a place to sit once the music stops. Employees who are fortunate enough to find a seat after each turn may be relieved, but they become increasingly anxious about when the music will start again and whether they can remain faster, savvier, or more agile than the other players each round. Meanwhile, the employees who are eliminated after each sequence are left to find their way in a progressively challenging job market. Some of these individuals target comparable positions in the same industry, with varying degrees of success. Others say they’re going to look for “more rewarding” opportunities, prompting them to explore new positions or different industries altogether.

The problems with these various and ongoing shakeouts are many, but one effect that generates employer criticism is the overwhelming number of applicants applying to positions for which they are not qualified. Understandable as people may be applying for jobs they think are similar to the ones they’ve held because of identical job titles; unfortunately, as the market has eliminated various jobs, some positions have absorbed additional responsibilities, making job titles less accurate descriptors of an employee’s responsibilities. Then there are cases where people apply for jobs because they see an overlap in the work they have done and the tasks called out in a job description, yet those same individuals might not have or emphasize the particular skills valued most by the new employer. There are also individuals applying for positions they’d like to do, even if they have few to none of the required skills. The most problematic cases, however, are the applicants who are applying broadly and indiscriminately, just to increase their odds of landing something.

Collectively, such applications increase the stereotypes that unemployment makes people unable to fairly and accurately assess their skill sets against company needs. Perhaps as damaging is the impression that people looking for work have no qualms about wasting companies’ time and resources when businesses are already feeling restrictions.

These concerns are not meant to discourage applicants from looking at different positions or even new careers. Rather they are a reminder that the burden for demonstrating an interest in and competence for each position rests with the candidate. To that end, candidates should resist the urge to distribute applications widely and generically and, instead, target and focus their materials.

While this suggestion may seem counter-intuitive, especially in tight job markets where people are told to get the word out, companies are less interested in hiring people who want a job; they’re interested in employees who want their job. Consequently, you should verify (for yourself) that you want to do the work the position demands—as the particular organization does it—rather than suggesting you’d do such-and-such if you had to; it may seem like a small difference, but these attitudes can affect an employer’s interpretation of job applicants. Similarly, resist assuming that your present experiences will automatically or quickly transfer to the new forum. Instead, identify skills you may need to fill in, develop, or hone, and start taking action to move in that direction. Doing so can help you discuss and demonstrate ways you could create value for the target company.

• Act quickly. In the early days of the recession, some employees used their layoffs to reassess career goals, launch their own business, or return to school. However, in their July 2011 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, Mark A. Aguiar, Erik Hurst, and Loukas Karabarbounis report that a majority of unemployed workers were using the time to complete projects around the house, spend more time with family and friends, engage in various hobbies, volunteer, travel, or simply take a break.

Some of these individuals ultimately took early retirement, while others eventually returned to the workforce, but as layoffs across all sectors continued to add highly educated, skilled individuals to the labor pool, opportunities to quickly and easily re-enter in the market disappeared. Unfortunately, this climate prompted many people, including employers, to pass judgment on workers who delayed looking for reemployment and, eventually, on those who struggled to find jobs at all. The result: blanket generalizations and stereotypes about employees’ commitment to work, their competitiveness in pursing opportunities, their attitudes of entitlement, and even their competence. Such prejudice is evident in comments like, “If people really wanted a job and if they were truly competent, it shouldn’t take months to find work—even if they had to take something ‘beneath’ them during the interim.”

Misinterpretations aside, such biases have and continue to create challenges for unemployed individuals looking for work, perhaps explaining Ghayad and Dickens’ findings that, while unemployment can create obstacles for everyone who’s looking for a job, those with shorter durations of unemployment ultimately fair better in securing interviews and offers.

Rightly or wrongly, companies factor employment gaps into a candidate’s credentials. Therefore, applicants should remain attentive to any lag time between positions, being particularly cautious as unemployment approaches 27 weeks—the point at which studies show a sudden drop in the interest companies give an applicant. Easier said than done, certainly, especially if someone has been out of work for several months already. In such cases, then, it can be strategic to shift the focus away from elements that raise flags for employers and toward activities and efforts that hiring managers value. The following actions may help in this endeavor.

• Keep job skills current. People who were exploring alternate career options or testing their entrepreneurial spirit during their unemployment often wrote “freelancer,” “contract worker,” or “self-employed” on their résumés but companies, increasingly distrustful of employment gaps, now see these references as code for “not working.” To offset this criticism, job hunters have been turning to volunteer work to gain new experiences, maintain marketable soft skills, and create a paper trail for where they’ve been spending their time. While such efforts are satisfactory to some employers or positions, they are insufficient for others—bewildering or even angering some applicants. The problem, however, isn’t that people aren’t engaged in worthwhile work, but that they may be doing work employers don’t consider directly relevant to the tasks they need done.

The comments overwhelming online discussion forums suggest that many people looking for jobs assume that professional and trade skills remain constant, even when they aren’t doing that work on a daily basis. Most skills, however, do not remain as strong, as sharp, as smooth, or as efficient without on-going use. And even if the skills themselves were to remain static, employers could consider them dated or obsolete simply by virtue of someone not keeping pace with people who are actively working in the profession and, perhaps, learning different or more efficient applications of various programs, strategies, technologies, regulations, and so on. As such, employers develop the perception that people who are out of work are less engaged with and, in turn, less proficient in general workplace and specific industry protocols that continue to evolve.

Companies look to hire people who can meet their needs with minimal lag time, and they don’t want the responsibility of bringing employees up to speed—especially if they believe (correctly or otherwise) that qualified candidates do exist, even if they’re poached from other companies. Therefore, if you’re wanting to continue doing particular work for your new employer, look for places to apply those specific skills in industry-valued ways during unemployment, even in informal or pro bono contexts. For example, accountants might find ways to offer financial services to a small business; software developers could see if a private office or non-profit organization would be able to use their skills; and teachers might find forums to tutor others in their areas of expertise.

Granted, workers may argue that they don’t want to volunteer to use their professional and trade skills; they want to be paid to use them. Payment for your talents is the ultimate goal, but in the interim, know that it will be easier to talk with prospective employers about the ways you’ve been using position-specific skills in less formal contexts than it would be to convince those same employers that you’ve retained those skills, even though you’ve been doing other things. As importantly, by applying your professional and trade skills in different forums and to other projects, you may be able to work with alternative programs or systems, learn novel approaches to problems, or discover new ways to understand employer or client concerns. Such developments and lessons can make you more appealing to prospective employers.

• Remain active in the profession. When leaving formal employment or moving beyond conventional office settings, it can be more difficult to stay in the loop on industry matters, especially when splitting time between job hunting and other demands. Therefore, you should develop a plan for remaining consistently and purposefully active in the profession, even during times of un(der)employment. For instance, you might join professional organizations; attend trade shows, conventions, and conferences; research companies of interest; follow industry trends; participate in field-specific discussions online; and read industry reports, publications, and blogs.

Social media is becoming the primary forum for many of these activities, so as you engage in industry-related discussions through LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, and so forth, remain attentive to the professional image you can project and foster in these forums. By (re)assessing your online profiles and contributions, you can ensure that the things companies and recruiters learn about you in myriad online forums serve to enhance your prospects as a job applicant and employee.

• Network. While staying apprised of what’s happening in your industry is critical, so is connecting with people who are actively engaged in the profession. Online forums can help in this effort, especially when participants are located in different areas, but they should not take the place of face-to-face interactions. By attending and participating in trade shows, conferences, and other professional events, you can meet and talk with individuals working directly in the field and, depending on your professional, with those who may have other connections to the industry (e.g., developers, suppliers, customers, clients). In the process, you might begin to identify people with whom you can set up informational interviews to discuss where companies and, by extension, the industry at large, may be heading. This information might help you find additional or alternative forums to apply your talents.

As you meet individuals with similar interests, you also might find people who’d be willing to serve as formal and informal mentors. These individuals may be willing to talk with you about specific aspects of the industry, answer questions, introduce you to people you should meet, or offer suggestions on how you could present yourself in ways that appeal to prospective employers.

Networking may sound like “one more thing to do,” but staying connected to those who “do” the profession in various ways can help you identify where to market your skills or ways to supplement your experiences to be more competitive. Networking can also help you tap into the so-called “hidden” job market, alerting you to positions and opportunities that are not widely, or publicly advertised. And, as companies increasingly use employee referral programs as their most powerful recruiting tool, you may find that your conversations open doors you never knew existed.

• Be realistic. Many employers say that even appealing job applicants are being rejected because of unrealistic expectations concerning responsibilities, salaries, benefits, or any combination thereof. While candidates might argue they deserve certain things because of their education, experience, former titles, previous salaries, and so on, the market still favors employers. Certainly employees should be fairly compensated, but the best way to ensure fair compensation is to remain realistic in both expectations and demands. Realistic will vary according to industry and position, making it all the more critical to stay active in the industry and to develop and sustain your professional network: you can gain insider information on the trends shaping employment decisions.

These strategies—in isolation or in combination—will not guarantee an interview or a job offer, but they can help job applicants find ways to present themselves as more competitive candidates.

These strategies can also be of use to those who have a job—especially one they like. After all, companies remain under pressure to reduce expenses, especially in tight economies. Sometimes a business can cut back on company functions, and at times it may need to scale back on employee benefits. Sometimes, however, organizations need to eliminate positions. Therefore, employees should always work to be a “top performer,” as their industry, company, or position defines it; keep their skills current; develop and maintain their professional networks; and continually look for ways to bring value to their team, supervisor, or company at large.

Again, there are no guarantees that such actions will save your job, especially in challenging economic environments, but such actions can help others see you as a valuable player and, sometimes, that can be enough.

Working toward Areté…
Share your experiences, observations, and suggestions about finding employment in today’s job market.

Share Button

“No, really. After You…”: The Door-Opening Ritual

Posted on by
Reply

By Caroline M. Cole

In 1983 Marilyn Frye, professor of philosophy and feminist theories, published an essay in which she examines the use and misuse of the word “oppression.” Drawing examples primarily from male and female interactions, Frye examines what, in fact, constitutes oppression (the restrictions and criticisms individuals face because of their membership within a larger group), and what does not (frustrations or limitations, especially those experienced because of self-imposed limitations). Although the essay itself is 16 pages, one discussion that stands out for many readers appears roughly one-third of the way through her argument.door knob

Having illustrated cases in which oppressed people in general, and women in particular, experience what she calls the “double bind—situations in which options are reduced to a very few and all of them expose one to penalty, censure, or deprivation,” Frye explains why oppression can be hard to recognize: Focusing on individual, microscopic double-bind moments makes it harder to see the larger, restrictive structures that maintain stratifications of gender, class, race, and so on. To demonstrate, she offers the male door-opening ritual, and it is this discussion that seems to move even neutral, if not disinterested readers to rage.

“How can she say that opening the door is an ‘oppressive’ gesture?” male and female readers often ask. “It’s a sign of respect,” others exclaim. “It’s just courteous,” some add. And even those who dismiss the entire debate as a relic of the women’s movement that was resolved decades ago still express annoyance at the mere suggestion that a man opening the door could be something other than “a nice thing to do.” Frye both recognizes and addresses these challenges by explaining that it is not the door opening gesture per se that’s oppressive but, rather, the fact that these and other considerate actions are held up as being helpful, attentive, and respectful even though larger, more obvious moments where assistance is needed or would be appreciated (e.g., housework, childcare) go unheeded on a regular basis.

Yet regardless of what readers think of Frye’s argument, in-person and online discussions about the door opening ritual continue to spark comments, questions, and controversy. Some males say they always open the door because “that’s the way [they] have been raised,” while others note they’ll only make a conscious effort to reach for the door when they’re trying to impress someone, say a client or a date. Others admit that they’re haphazard, either because they’re no longer sure what the protocol is or because most doors they use are revolving or automatic. And some males say they actively snub the ritual because they’re tired of being called misogynistic or insensitive when they’ve only tried to be polite. Females also weigh in on the issue, offering comments that range from disgust to suspicion to nonchalance to appreciation to expectation. Little wonder that people remain confused about what do with the door in order to extend or retain good will, even in the presence of strangers.

Many suggest the custom of opening doors for females—as well as other analogous chivalrous behaviors, such as males walking on the curbside of the street and males following or leading females upstairs or downstairs, respectively—originates in aristocratic codes of conduct, particularly those associated with medieval knighthood. Understandable as chivalry, a word that has become synonymous with gentlemanly behavior, is grounded in the French word chevalerie (horse soldiery), referring to the warriors on horseback guided by a code of conduct grounded in the laws and morals of warfare, similar to the Samurai’s warrior code, Bushido.

Chivalry

Protecting the king—God’s representative on earth—or his liege was a knight’s primary focus but, over time, the Knight’s Code, which valued honor, loyalty, bravery, and service, came to include more refined courtly behaviors to reflect the contexts in which a knight began to move. Honoring women was eventually folded into these expectations with the increasing veneration of the Virgin Mary during the Crusades.

As devotion to Mary as “the new Eve” grew, so did ideas of courtly love, an affection that transcended marital love by combining spiritual inspiration, adoration, and unrequited erotic desire. It was this tension, depicted in literature’s “Petrachan woman,” that helped put women on the proverbial pedestal, ironically for the very traits they could never embody or sustain as humans; that is, someone who arouses and inspires love, devotion, and servitude even as she must remain forever distant, detached, and unobtainable lest she loose the very characteristics that make her worthy of admiration and service in the first place: absolute purity and piety.

This context is partially responsible for the criticism opening a door gets when it’s offered as an example of how women are honored and respected, yet other connections between venerating women in general and door-opening rituals as extensions of chivalric codes are also suspect.

The veneration of the Virgin Mary, for example, may have elevated women from their otherwise subordinate and marginalized (if not cursed) place in society, but women were still consider morally corrupt, physically weak, and ever-prone to immoral and socially disruptive behavior. They were, after all, “daughters of Eve.” As such, it is unlikely that they would have been granted the so-called place of honor in moving through doorways that’s assumed in the gallantry of today’s door-opening rituals.

This discrepancy has prompted some to suggest that letting women through the door first was actually a means of self-preservation, for in cases of ambush, women would be attacked first, leaving the more important members of society, men, unharmed. An interesting theory, but history suggests it’s folklore more than anything else; after all, females that would have been in the company of knights—noble women and, beyond the court, widows, elderly women, and young children—would have been under a knight’s protection. Moreover, using anyone as a human shield would be considered an act of cowardice, violating the knight’s code of conduct.

Other suggestions that opening doors for women was a matter of courtesy originated in matters of practicality. For instance, the exterior and interior doors of courtly residences were generally so large and heavy—mostly for protection—that they required multiple individuals to open them. But even here, those who opened the door were seldom knights, royals, or other noteworthy males aiming to impress females; they would have been slaves and laborers working under their masters.

Women’s clothing may have played a role in door opening rituals, for the long trains on a dress, pannier petticoats, hooped skirts, bustles, and the like made it necessary for others to help females maneuver through doorways. But, aside from the fact that such clothing styles put the ritual of opening doors later than conventional codes of chivalry, once again the individuals who moved within the systems dictated by decorum and propriety did not touch the doors themselves. That was a job for domestic servants and other low-status individuals, many of whom were females attending their ladies and mistresses.

Legends and lore, child-raising practices, social and religious protocols, and ever-evolving gender roles continue to fuel debates about who can or should open a door for whom, but within the contexts of these arguments we see another trend emerging: people who seem either oblivious or indifferent to door handles at all.

Assuming the doors are neither automatic nor revolving, watching people enter and exit buildings reveals behavior that seems contrary to claims that door-opening rituals are indicators of simple courtesy: Lines of people pushing to enter and exit through a single, open door—often simultaneously—rather than opening the second, adjoining door to increase the flow of traffic; people watching or even harrumphing behind those who may be fumbling with packages, walkers, hand trucks, strollers, wheelchairs and so on, rather than offering assistance to get or hold the door; people flinging a door open without looking behind to see if someone is there to catch it; people assuming the first individual to arrive at or move through the door is obligated to hold it for everyone wanting to pass through, not just until a representative from the next party comes along; and people skirting around doors altogether, refusing to touch any part of the door before it snaps closed. As more people walk through life with handheld devices captivating their attention, individuals also seem increasingly unconcerned with doors in the presence of others, apparently assuming that those without a device in use or even in hand are default door openers.

Such observations are not to suggest that we return to the days where males are expected to dart ahead while females subtly slow their pace when approaching a door to comply with gendered obligations with unclear origin—especially when such actions have the potential to suggest power differentials that can embarrass one or both parties, such as putting one’s hand higher or arm behind the person’s who originally started to open the door so as to take control of the gesture, or simply refusing to go through a door held by someone that convention says should be helped through the doorway.

If, as people argue, opening the door for someone else is a common courtesy or a “considerate” behavior, it should be an action that can be offered up and accepted by any able-bodied individual—regardless of sex, race, age, class, and so on. By opening and holding the door for others and, in turn, graciously acknowledging when others reciprocate the gesture for us, we participate in helping each other move through life a little more easily.

Working toward Areté…
Share your experiences and observations about door-opening gestures in the space below.

Share Button

Complaints that Make Resolutions Possible, and Ideal

Posted on by
2

By Caroline M. Cole

If you’ve ever shopped in a store, ordered something online, eaten in a restaurant, or contracted someone for a short-or long-term project, chances are you’ve had an experience that has fallen short of what you needed or expected.Complaints that make resolutions possible

A few years ago, there was a fairly standard protocol for customers who found themselves in such a situation: they would talk with the immediate employee and, if necessary, ask to speak to a manager. If those conversations didn’t bring about the desired result, customers might fill out a comment card, write a letter, or call customer service to lodge a complaint with the corporate office. Should those efforts fail, customers would then turn to the Better Business Bureau or other consumer protection services. This process may be inefficient by today’s standards, and yet the parties involved, as well as any bystanders and those told of the events readily knew how serious a complaint was by how far it had moved up the chain. Those days are gone.

In the age of social media, customer service has taken on a new life. Customers increasingly bypass conversations with those directly involved or with those who can resolve matters and, instead, take their grievances online, posting, tweeting, and otherwise transmitting their complaints to the world. In the process, the complaints are becoming less constructive, reading more like open-mic performance pieces in which consumers—often assuming dramatic license—omit context, embellished details, and exaggerate responses not only to give audiences a compelling story of woe but, equally important, to grab or maintain the spotlight, distinguish themselves from other critics, and increase the number “likes” and followers for their own comments.

Such are the consequence of online reviews negating the need for criticism grounded in thoughtful analysis, according to journalist and blogger Tom Vanderbilt. In his article “Star Wars: Online Review Culture is Dotted with Black Holes of Bad Taste” (The Wilson Quarterly, Spring 2013), Vanderbilt reports that “a good deal of the reviewing energy… is precisely an effort to establish one’s bona fides.” Yet equally problematic, Vanderbilt observes, is that “many reviewers seem to turn toward petty despotism,” moving grievances toward retribution for things that may have little to do with the product or service itself but, rather, the consumer’s emotional reaction.

In all fairness, there are values to airing objections online. For example, online forums magnify the word-of-mouth effect and bring greater awareness to problems that may affect other customers, thereby making it harder for companies to downplay or dismiss customer concerns. As such, consumers are getting faster responses and resolutions as companies scramble to protect their reputation in front of larger audiences. But does the ease with which we can grouse about every dislike, disagreement, delay, inconvenience, or faux pas on the one hand, coupled with the promise of gratuitous self-promotion on the other hand, encourage us to be less tolerant, less patient, and less forgiving of even the smallest slip ups and errors? And if so, can even well-meaning businesses and service providers do right by their customers when every unintentional gaffes has the potential to become part of the permanent collective memory online?

These questions are not to suggest that we remain content with or quiet about faulty products, bad service, or other breaches of provider–consumer contracts. Rather, they are an invitation to consider ways we might reasonably encourage better products and services for ourselves and others. The strategies below encourage such efforts.

• Have a goal. Effective communication starts with identifying the reason for the exchange, and while the purpose of a “complaint” may seem self evident, countless unsuccessful complaints can be traced to consumers who are unclear in what they ultimately want.

Robin Kowalski, Professor at Clemson University, describes two categories of complaints: instrumental and expressive. Instrumental complaints are persuasive messages in that they explain problems to evoke a particular action, say to resolve a situation or to bring about change to prevent something from happening in the future. Asking to remove an item from a bill, replace or exchange a defective product, redo a particular job, address an overcharge, request credit for damaged property, and waive a service fee are all examples of instrumental complaints.

Any proposed action or resolution, however, should be fair—something that’s becoming less common in the age of entitlement. For instance, demanding that a restaurant comp the entire meal because the server didn’t bring one of the nine appetizers the table ordered is unreasonable; asking the server to remove the item from the bill would be fair. Requesting both the replacement of and full credit for a damaged product is unmerited; asking the company to cover shipping and handling expenses for returning the damaged item and for shipping a replacement by next-day air is fair.

Expressive complaints, in contrast, are informative messages in that they report situations, concerns, or problems to convey dissatisfaction, usually as an emotional release, an icebreaker or bonding experience (for example, complaining about the weather or about waiting in a line), to one-up someone (for example, responding to a complaint about deadlines by offering one’s own list of deadlines) or, in some cases, to demonstrate expertise (for example, complaining that a particular wine is “not quite right” for the meal). Although an expressive complaint might prompt others to address the matter, resolution is not the primary goal of an expressive complaint; acknowledging or sympathizing with the grieved party is often sufficient.

Because instrumental and expressive complaints may require different details to reach their respective goals, you should decide what you want to accomplish with the complaint. Doing so can help you gauge what information to include and what tone will be most effective for achieving your goal.

• Go to the source. When a product or service is not as expected, it is often easier to complain to family members, friends, others in line, or strangers on the Internet than to address the person responsible, or those who can most easily resolve the situation. Such audiences may be appropriate for expressive complaints, but if you seek more than empathy, you need to alert the liable party that there is a problem.

Some people advise going directly “to the top” to lodge a complaint, but it’s often possible, and usually more efficient, to get the desired results by starting with those most immediately connected to the events in question. After all, the higher up you go, the more removed company representatives may be from the situation, requiring more time to identify what has happened so as to bring closure to the incident. Still, you should be willing and prepared to take your concerns to those higher up the ladder if those you address initially are unable, or unwilling, to help resolve the situation.

• Start and remain neutral and respectful throughout the exchange. One of the most important factors for resolving complaints both successfully and efficiently rests in the tone people have when raising their concern. Although you are entitled to the product or service for which you paid, payment does include a license to belittle, berate, or insult others—even when things do not work out is intended. Mistakes happen, and not all mistakes are a willful slight, so keep company representatives your ally. To that end, rather than preparing for a confrontation, approach the other party with a concern that you need help addressing. Semantics, perhaps, but shifting the language can alter the frame of reference and keep conversations dispassionate and focused on solving the problem.

If the individual with whom you talking is unable to help, ask if it might be better to speak with another person, manager, or division about your concern; such requests, however, should not suggest incompetence but, rather, a way to identify who may have the authority to resolve the matter efficiently.

Throughout your exchange, keep the focus on finding the solution, action, or recompense that would make you whole, resisting the urge to threaten companies with your business, even indirectly. The primary goal of any instrumental complaint should be to resolve the situation in a way that’s fair for both parties on the grounds that fixing a mistake, addressing a concern, solving a problem, and so on are responsible ways to do business. If, then, the only way you can get a person or company to respond is by threatening to take your business elsewhere, threatening to give bad referrals, or threatening to go viral with your complaint, you may need to rethink whether it’s a person or company you’d want to continue doing business with even if it were to resolve your concerns.

By remaining calm and respectful throughout the discussion you will increase your chances of getting a resolution that’s mutually satisfactory.

• Offer facts, rather than adjectives. Companies want to do right by their customers, but they may need context to understand what isn’t working, and the most effective way to give that information is with answers to conventional reporter questions: who, what, where, when, how, and why? Along the way, you should be prepared to offer dates, times, store numbers, employee names, order or invoice numbers, product names, and SKU numbers, as well as photocopies of any written estimates, orders, receipts, invoices, shipping records, photographs, and so on to help others see the situation as you do in a state of rational calm.

“Rational calm” is crucial, for efficient, fair resolution is often predicated upon the grieved party’s ability to project the image of someone who is both credible and reasonable. Emotional reactions, even justifiable ones, are often considered melodramatic and manipulative and, thus, dismissed as untrustworthy; they are also difficult to distinguish from expressive complaints, whereby someone may be simply venting frustration. Consider, for example, the following complaints:

“Your servers are the rudest!! They totally ignored me and when I asked for help, they were very dismissive, setting the tone for what ultimately became the most awful evening we’ve ever had.”

Or

“I have never experienced such miserable customer service, which only added insult to injury in light of your cheaply made, outrageously priced product. And, despite calling several times to complain, we…”

Although legitimate concerns may be couched in these sentences, these adjective-infused complaints can suggest over-reactionary, hard-to-please customers. Moreover, while emotive-based criticisms may ground expressive complaints, they offer little assistance to companies genuinely wanting to resolve their patron’s concerns, or to prevent similar situations from happening in the future. After all, managers would be hard-pressed to tell employees “stop being rude,” “don’t be dismissive,” “give better customer service,” or “make better products” and guarantee that the problems these customers encountered have been addressed accurately or satisfactorily.

So, rather than assume readers will know what happened in a given context to understand what you find objectionable, give details that can help readers know what, if anything, they need to address.

 “Upon entering your restaurant at 7:25pm, I had to wait over 10 minutes for someone to appear at the host station to say that my party had arrived for its 7:30pm reservation. When a restaurant staff member appeared, I asked to whom I should give my name; he said he’d take it and put a check by my name on the reservation list, but then started to walk away without saying how long it would be before my party could be seated. I asked if he could give a timeframe, but he shrugged, said “I dunno” before walking into the kitchen…”

Or

“On May 15, 201X, I ordered 15 1-1/4″ white PVC cross connectors (SKU: FC114X) from your website for $39.15 (Order # 19864) and received the package on May 19. When examining the pieces prior to installation, however, I noticed that seven of the items had chips on one or more of the tapered ends, and two additional connectors were cracked, prompting me to call your office to see how I could exchange the defective products. Despite calling the customer service number posted on your website for the past four days, I have only gotten your voicemail and, to date, no one has returned any of my messages…

Such details make it easier for managers to identify where communication broke down, what actions to address, and how they can mend relationships with customers. As importantly, the neutrality of the presentation, grounded in objective details any bystander could corroborate, establishes the customer’s credibility and, by extension, makes the matter more urgent to address. Certainly businesses should respond to all of their customers in a timely manner, but recognizing that most people will discredit hostile rants, the neutral, fact-based complaints will prompt a response if solely for the fact that individuals who are willing to write dispassionate responses are usually those who will seek out other, increasingly important venues to air unanswered grievances and do so in a way that commands authority.

• Stay on topic. Complaints have a tendency to bring up other criticism, regardless of whether the topics may seem connected. If your concern involves several smaller discrete interactions and problems, say, multiple conversations with different sales representatives resulting in various details about the product you were purchasing and its price, you should focus your complaint on the main concern—inconsistent information resulting in a price discrepancy—and cite the individual conversations as examples of where and how you received conflicting information. If, however, your motive in bringing up other problems is simply to exaggerate incompetency, resist, because “Oh, and by the way…” non sequitur criticism can both distract readers from your main concern and undermine your credibility.

• Be willing to go on record personally. Consumers expecting organizations to take their concerns seriously should be willing to attach their names to their complaints. Although confidentiality and, in some cases, anonymity is important in whistle blowing cases or in other instances where retribution is possible, remaining anonymous simply to make contemptuous remarks is viewed as cowardly. Comments do not have to be pleasant, but they should be plausible and defensible, so if you find that a business’s product or service deserves a harsh review, ground your comments in facts and be willing to attach your name to your complaint to indicate that you stand by your observations. Doing both will make it harder for an organization, and others, to dismiss the criticism.

Customers who find a product or service that is less than expected have a responsibility to point out their concerns, but they also have a responsibility to offer comments in the most constructive manner, giving companies a chance to respond on a level ground. In doing so customers help companies understand what products, services, and practices will be supported, and which will not.

Working toward Areté…
How do you resolve the complaints you have, or those you receive, in ways that respect all parties? Record your suggestions and experiences in the space below.

Share Button

Voicemails that Speak Volumes

Posted on by
2

AnsweringMachineBy Caroline M. Cole

The omnipresent smartphone is making tweets, texts and, when necessary, emails favorite modes of conveying information, requiring less oral communication on the go. In fact, many people say they no longer check voicemail, or listen to messages in full; they either tap “return call,” send a text, or find other channels to see what the person wanted. Yet despite claims that voicemail is obsolete, it’s still in play for some generations, industries, and offices.

Recognizing that the messages we create as well as those we leave can affect the impression we make on others, this discussion examines ways to build and enhance our reputation through voicemail.

Outgoing Messages
Outgoing messages are what callers may hear when someone does not answer the phone, and while fewer people have answering machines nowadays, they may still have a phone service that allows callers to leave a message.

Some people never change their system’s default message, so callers hear something like: “No one is available to take your call. Please leave a message after the tone.” Though perhaps overly mechanical, this message gets the job done. Brief and to the point, it indicates that no one is available and gives the caller an option to leave a message to move any subsequent conversations forward. Depending on the forum and recipient of the calls, such messages also offer a measure of safety for people who live alone or for those who may feel vulnerable to unknown callers compared, say, to voicemails that convey more information through a message’s content, tone, or gender of speaker. Nevertheless, default messages can make it unclear whether the caller has, in fact, dialed the correct number, thus some callers may be hesitant to disclose too many details—including their name, phone number, or reason for calling—in case they misdialed.

For those wanting to clarify who will receive the message, some voicemail systems offer the option to insert a name into the default message: “You have reached the voicemail of <insert name>. Please leave a message after the tone.” As with the default version, these messages do the job and go one step further by verifying whether the caller has reached the correct number. The downside may be the impression left by such messages, primarily due to the artificial pause that typically prefaces the person’s name, as well as the sudden shift in the message’s tone, register, and pitch when a human inserts a name into an otherwise digitalized message.

On the flip side are voicemails that convey the recipient’s personality—perhaps too much personality. Consider, for example, calling a number and a hearing a message like:

“Hi. I’m screening calls to avoid people I don’t like. If I don’t call you back, you know why”. <Beep>

“Voicemail. Talk. Now.” <Beep>

“I’m not here. You know what to do…”. <Beep>

“Hello? (long pause) Hello? (long pause) Is anyone there? (long pause) Hel-lo? (long pause) Oh, right. You’re supposed to leave a message.”<Beep>

“You have reached the <surname> residence. This is Trixie the dog. Clearly I can’t take a message, so call back later.” <Beep>

“Hey, it’s me. If you’re a friend, leave a message. If you are soliciting money, selling goods, or otherwise in need of something, #%*@!” <Beep>

While family, friends, and acquaintances may have context to treat such messages as tongue-in-cheek, others may not. And though some people claim they don’t care how unknown callers responds to their voicemail since “they’re mostly solicitors anyway,” these individuals may care if it were a recruiter or headhunter, a loan officer following up on an application, a doctor’s office, a prospective client, or someone else getting a first or different impression from their voicemail.

The overriding questions for all effective communication are: What is the purpose, and who is the audience? Because voicemail aim to help the caller and recipient connect in the absence of one of the parties, the following consideration can enhance the communication in this and subsequent forums.

• Identify the recipient(s) of the call and whether a message is possible. Voicemails should recognize and streamline the caller’s effort to make a particular connection, so outgoing messages should verify who is receiving the call and invite the person to leave a message if the system accepts recordings. Thus, a basic voicemail message might be:

“You have reached <insert name>. I am unable to take your call at this time but, if you leave a message, I will return your call.”

Although hearing content similar to that of an automated message, callers who hear an outgoing message in the recipient’s voice can feel more connection with and affinity for the person on the other end, even those whom they have never met. If, then, you want or need to convey warmth and receptivity as part of your image, using an outgoing message recorded in your own voice is one way to do so. From this basic version, you can decide to offer more, or different details, depending on other characteristics you may want to promote.

Some individuals, for example, add conventional (or unconventional) conversational openings, such as:

“Hi. You’ve reached…”

“Hello.…”

“Greetings! You’ve…”

Or, they may vary their message’s closing:

“…I will return your call. Thanks.”

“…See ya’!”

“…Ciao.”

“… Have a wonderful day!”

There is no right or wrong, but each variation will increasingly affect the caller’s interpretation; therefore, when crafting a voicemail, remain attentive to those who might be calling your number and the impression you want to leave upon them should you be unable to take the call immediately.

Whatever choices you make, however, you should offer a “voice” that’s consistent with those you project in other forums. If, for instance, if you would never say “Howdy!” or “T-T-F-N!,” you might reconsider whether to include such references in your voicemail.

• Consider safety. Individuals should be cautious about the outgoing messages they create for landline-affiliated voicemail systems. For example, messages should not say “no one is at home to take your call… .” Similarly, families should be cautious about providing individual names—especially those of children—which give callers the number of residents in a household, or otherwise provide information that could compromise safety in other forums.

• Indicate message record time, if limits exist. While callers should be attentive to how long they talk on a voicemail, depending on the context, even mindful callers can be cut off mid-discussion, prompting awkward call-backs in an attempt to fill in details. Therefore, if your incoming messages stop recording after a designated time frame, alert callers to that fact so they can adjust their message. For example:

“If you would like to leave a message, you will have 30 seconds to do so after the tone, and I will return your call as soon as possible. Thank you.”

• Redirect, if necessary. There may be times you are unavailable for a few hours, a few days, or even a week or more. In such contexts, you might alert callers to such absences and, if possible, redirect them to someone who can help them in a more timely manner. For example:

 “ This is <insert name>. Today is < date >, and I will be in and out of meetings all day, but if you leave a message I will return your call as soon as possible.”

“ This is <insert name>. I am currently out of the office until <date>. If you need assistance, please call < name >, < title > at < number>.”

“This is <insert name, title>. If you have questions about your order, please leave a message after the tone and I will return your call. If you need technical support, please call <insert name> at <number>.”

Such messages let callers know that you value their time and are trying to get them the information they may need in the most efficient manner, even in your absence.

By the same token, resist bringing callers into increasingly elaborate phone trees that promise to direct callers to the most appropriate person only to abandon them in an endless loop of press-related commands or leave them indefinitely on hold with an occasional a message thanking them for their patience and professing how important their call is.

• Speak slowly and enunciate. In the absence of body language, facial expressions, and other conversational cues that can help face-to-face conversations or real-time phone conversations, callers give more attention and weight to the sound, pitch, tone, and pace of an outgoing message—especially when calling someone they may not know. Yet even acquaintances can struggle to understand quickly spoken, garbled words and sentences. Therefore, speak at a slower pace than you might in a face-to-face conversation and enunciate words that may not transmit as easily in sound recordings. In doing so, you help callers verify that they have reached the correct number and guide them in doing what can be of service to you both.

• Minimize background noise. Music, other conversation and so on make it harder for callers to hear names and further instructions, if any. Moreover, the type of noise on a voicemail can affect the caller’s impressions. Therefore, when recording your outgoing messages, make sure you are in space where your voice is the primary, if not the only sound in the message.

Although these considerations focus primarily on crafting an outgoing message, many of them likewise apply to leaving a voicemail message.

Incoming messages
Assuming the caller hears a voicemail for the party he or she aims to reach, the caller should leave a message that allows the other person to take the next step, if any is required. How much information the caller should leave on a voicemail, however, depends on the context.

Voicemails are often interim communication, meaning that they should be understandable in an abridged, potentially decontextualized form, or they should serve as a placeholder for further conversation. As such, you should remain attentive to what you need to say and how long you need to talk on a voicemail; if you need more than a minute to contextualize or explain information, it may be more strategic to leave a brief message asking the person to return your call as time permits.

Leaving messages like, “Please call me back,” or “Call me ASAP,” however, are equally problematic. Giving context—even a topic—will help the person know whether to be in a more private forum or one where they may need to access files or other information during the call. For example:

“This is <name> from <office> calling for <person>. We have reviewed the numbers you gave us and would like to talk more about your options. Please call me at 415-987-1234 so we can arrange a time to meet; if I am unavailable, you can call my assistant, <name>, at 415-987-1235 to schedule a time that works for you. Thank you.”

“This is <name>, <title>, calling from <organization> in regards to your order, invoice #7648X. Because we have questions about the options you requested, we need to verify your order before shipping. I’ve put a note in your file about the information we must confirm, so please call our sales division at 1-800-555-1234, Mondays through Saturdays, 7:00am–7pm (EST) with your invoice number so we can ship the materials with the appropriate configurations. Thanks.”

“This is <name>, returning your call. I will be in my office until 5 PM tonight, Friday, October 2, and will be back in the office on Monday, October 5, starting at 8 AM. Thank you.”

Regardless of your message’s purpose, you should always identify yourself at the beginning of the call (that is, give your name and, if calling from a business, your company’s name) and briefly note the reason for your call in the most neutral manner. After all, voicemails can be retrieved by other parties, or played back for wider audiences than you might intend.

You should also speak slowly into the mouthpiece, enunciating words and repeating key information as necessary. For example, you might repeat and, in some cases, spell out your name. You might also repeat your callback number, perhaps exaggerating pauses between each chunk of numbers. For example:

“…Again, my name is Charles Douley, that’s D, as in ‘dog,’ O-U-L-E-Y, and my phone number is: area code 3-1-2 (pause) 5-5-5 (pause) 7-1-7-1.”

To further enhance the clarity of their message, callers might consider the possibility of needing to leave a voicemail message before calling. The time it takes a voicemail message to play out may be sufficient for some callers to plan their own message; others need more time. By preparing a 1–2 sentence summary of your call’s purpose, just in case you get voicemail, you can ensure the most concise, articulate message.

Finally, voicemail should never be a substitute for difficult, face-to-face conversations.

Voicemails have become increasingly common for avoiding particular discussions: declining offers, canceling meetings, quitting, laying off someone, and even reporting someone’s death. Although potentially easier for the caller, receiving such news on a voicemail undermines the human connection people expect or need at such moments. Therefore, rather than use voicemail to deliver sensitive or difficult news, leave a message indicating you’d like to talk further in real-time, even if a face-to-face conversation is not possible.

Although people argue that voicemail is dying, it remains a viable forum for connecting in some contexts, and the messages people hear on either end of the phone speak volumes, shaping subsequent conversations. By being conscientious of and purposeful in your outgoing and incoming voicemail messages, you add to the forums in which you create and reinforce your reputation.

Working toward Areté…
Share your comments and observations about voicemail messages—as both a crafter of or listener to such messages—in the space below.

Share Button

Start Preparing for Your Performance Review Today

Posted on by
3

By Caroline M. Cole

Many employees think about raises, bonuses, and promotions throughout the year, but few think about the ways they might build or make their case for merit-based compensation until they receive a formal notice of evaluation, and it’s no surprise. Performance reviews should provide one more opportunity for employees to examine the work they’ve been doing, identify areas of success, discern areas for improvement, establish short- and long-term goals, and discuss strategies for reaching those goals successfully. Unfortunately, employees and supervisors alike argue that most reviews are poorly executed, overly subjective, arbitrary, and political-weighted assessments that demoralize even top-tier employees. Consequently, most employees wait until their review cycle to consider where they’ve been spending their time, scramble to recall and gather evidence that demonstrate the contributions they’ve made since their last evaluation, and then find themselves dejected by results their own supervisors may be unable to explain satisfactorily. It is a system rife with problems.Preparing for Your Performance Review

One problem is that details become fuzzy and nuances get lost as additional responsibilities, experiences, and combinations of engagement displace memories of earlier projects and interactions. As a result, employees may be able to recall only the big, flashy moments and assume others can or will fill in the details.

Another problem is the “perception vs. reality” phenomenon. What we perceive and what is reality are often inconsistent, even in the calmest moments. For example, if you were to ask people in a line how long they had been waiting, you might find a range of answers shaped by what they are doing as they wait, what tasks they may need to do after leaving the line, what those around them may be doing or saying, the service they may see those at the front of the line wanting or getting, and so on. Chances are, however, none of the individuals could accurately identify how long he or she had been waiting without looking at a watch or a clock. If, then, our interpretations of innocuous, objective, and verifiable information like time can be skewed, how much more so might our perceptions be affected in high-stake contexts working with less tangible, potentially bias information, like performance reviews?

The perception vs. reality problem takes on additional concerns when we add discussions of performance and competence, the foundation of most evaluations. Performance is a person’s ability to do something—such as an employee’s ability to perform the technical skills, tasks, and procedures called out in a job description. Competence is an evaluation of that performance; that is, the extent to which someone does a task poorly, satisfactorily, or exceptionally. Clearly performance and competence are connected, but the ways they’re often connected in performance reviews can be problematic, primarily because performance alone is not an indication of competence, and not all competence is measured accurately by a given performance.

Consider, for example, someone who may not know or understand fundamental elements of a given industry, system, or project might nevertheless complete various tasks, perhaps through trail-and-error, persistence, or luck. Similarly, a person who is well-versed in a profession may struggle to perform a particular task for any number of reasons, including incomplete or inaccurate information, resource availability, time constraints, or simultaneous responsibilities.

Unfortunately, employees increasingly see their jobs as a series of tasks they are to perform which, upon completion, merits recognition, conflating performance with competence: I perform; therefore, I must add value. Meanwhile, supervisors increasingly see their own value tied to the competence of the employees they oversee, conflating competence with performance: My employees helps me look good (or not); therefore, they must be high (or low) performers. In such a context, it’s understandable why performance reviews are criticized, for an employee’s actual performance becomes secondary to perceptions of that performance by the various stakeholders.

Performance reviews are, ultimately, narratives of value presented to senior decision-makers. By viewing evaluations as such, you can be more purposeful, thoughtful, and strategic today so as to ensure a better story for your review down the road. The following discussion explains how to move in that direction.

• Record the responsibilities you have at work. The more time someone spends in a position, or doing particular work, the more likely they are to flatten descriptions of what they do, assuming a task, title, or forum says it all: they plan events, they design buildings, they teach, they’re a store manager, they work in a bank, they design software, they run a lab, they’re an engineer, and so on. What gets less attention, however, is how, why, and to what extent they may do these things given the context, purpose, audiences, and resources available. Also shortchanged is the impact their work may have—the very elements that determine their value to and for others.

The first step, then, for creating your narrative of value is documenting what you do, for whom, how, and why. For example, if you “plan events,” consider the tasks that might be involved in such an enterprise: researching and reserving a venue, soliciting and confirming speakers, establishing an itinerary, developing a program, sending out invitations, lining up a caterer, managing RSVPs, advertising, and so on.

As you identify the tasks encompassed in larger responsibilities, aim to be as specific and concrete as possible to help others understand all that’s involved in your work; your objective, here, is to make the “stuff” you do tangible, rather than assume that people in another division, another department, or even another office will know or be able to infer what you did, as you did it. Along the way, include information on where and how your efforts made a difference to your team, your organization, particular clients, and the industry at large. For example, details that might appear in a record of responsibilities for “planning an event” include:

Researched and reserved a venue to accommodate 250–300 tech managers and division leaders from around the country participating in a two-day software development and training conference; solicited and confirmed two industry leaders in system administration to provide keynotes, as well as 12 facilitators to run training sessions on industry practices, facility management, product implementation, mobility functionality, reporting hierarchies, and maintenance; scheduled itinerary to accommodate 3–4 simultaneous events for each time slot throughout the conference; developed an online, interactive pre-conference discussion forum, which attracted 90–100 unique visitors each day since its launch; tracked conference registrations and payments to arrange catering for buffets, plated sit-down meals, and breakout sessions; solicited vendors and corporate sponsors….

By creating a record of the work you do, you lay a foundation for demonstrating where and how you are creating value for others.

• Find or request a copy of your job description, and compare it to the list of responsibilities you created. Once you record your responsibilities, get a copy of your job description and review the tasks linked to your position. In doing so, you may find that some tasks that appear in the job description are obsolete, or you might find tasks you forgot to mention in the list of responsibilities you started. You may also find responsibilities you should be doing but are not; such tasks may be important to begin or to ask about to make sure they are not held against you during an evaluation.

• Write your own performance review. Comparing the responsibilities you listed against your job description, draft a sample performance review explaining the work you have done and that which you continue to do; where and how you have succeeded in those efforts; and areas that may raise questions, concerns, and even criticism.

Finding a fair, balanced tone for this write up is critical, even at this stage because, if you are to create a narrative of value that others also would be willing to accept, you must identify genuine strengths and limits in your work. Therefore, resist the urge to insert a string of adjectives that inflate or otherwise present you as exceptionally brilliant. Similarly, resist skewing evidence by drawing upon examples primarily or exclusively from your most recent or most successful projects, suggesting these details are emblematic of all of your work. Rather, aim to represent the entire year as matter-of-factly as possible: work and projects that helped the organization reach or move closer to its goals, projects that didn’t go as planned, things you should have done differently, and so on.

To help in this endeavor, think like a manager, instead of an employee angling for more money, more responsibility, or more visibility simply because you worked long hours, tried hard, or did what’s expected to get the work done. After all, few managers think it’s their responsibility to pay for an employee’s learning curve; they want and expect to see results that, ultimately, help them look good. Therefore, focus your draft on where and how your performance helped save time, money, or other resources; increased sales, profits, visibility; closed deals; brought in more or better clients; and so forth. However, also be sure to include where your efforts fell short of management and company expectations in those areas.

By anticipating things that may come up in a formal review—especially negative information—you can look for ways to build upon or address those areas in the weeks and months ahead.

• Arrange a time to meet with supervisors and others to discuss your work. Although your organization may have set times to review your work, this meeting aims to identify how you can strengthen or redirect your efforts in strategic ways to bring more value to those who have a stake in your performance: your clients, your supervisor, your team, and the larger organization. Guiding this discussion will be the list of tasks you created, the copy of your job description, and the information you called out in the sample performance review you wrote.

You might begin with places you have met target goals, verifying their completion and asking your supervisor if there may have been better, more efficient ways to achieve those goals. In doing so, you move beyond the assumption that merely completing the task is a sign of competence; you might also identify more strategic methods to meet later, comparable objectives in ways that others recognize and value. You could then turn to areas you may not have been performing as expected, asking for assistance in how you could have approached or done the work differently, or how you might better prioritize your efforts going forward. Such information might help you rectify and improve situations that could have repercussions in a formal review.

You might close out the discussion by asking about other expectations people may have for someone in your position, or for you specifically, that you should be (more) attentive to as you move forward in your projects.

Depending on the topics you want or need to discuss, the timing these meetings can be key. Because asking for feedback a few weeks before a formal review can seem like a desperate effort to “fix” things in light of a less favorable review on the horizon, aim to schedule these discussions months before the formal review season. Doing so can make supervisors more amendable to giving substantive feedback, especially if your ability to create or increase value would help them look better in the process. Moreover, you would have more time to incorporate any changes you may need to make.

Off-cycle feedback requests also can provide additional sources for comments. For example, supervisors in other departments or divisions and even coworkers may be able to highlight areas that could enhance your short- and long-term performance. Furthermore, depending on whether companies employ a 360-degree review system, you might find that discussions outside of the review season provide more accurate and authentic evaluations. After all, coworkers may be less inclined to offer quid pro quo comments when their own performance isn’t also under review. You might also sidestep the hyperbolic evaluation syndrome, whereby employees offer across-the-board exceptional reviews of their peers just to offset any resistance or hostility they may feel from management during review cycles.

• Demonstrate sincerity in asking for and listening to feedback. Some managers and coworkers may be reluctant to offer direct, explicit, and detailed feedback on where employees may not be performing as expected, for any number of reasons. If, however, you are to learn what others think about the work you do and the competence you project, you need honest feedback, and to get that, you must be genuinely interested in what others have to say, even if their comments are less favorable than you’d prefer.

Therefore, when others agree to talk with you about your performance, clarify upfront that you are trying to identify areas others think you can and should be doing more, better, differently, and so on. Then, while they are talking, resist the urge to lobby, argue, challenge, confront, or defend yourself, for such responses will inevitably move the discussion into vague, safer territory. By remaining open and approachable, even when comments seem harsh or unfair, you can better understand the specific actions, behavior, or attitudes that may directly or indirectly affect the way senior decision-makers could evaluate your performance in higher-stake contexts.

If you find yourself disagreeing with some of the feedback, rather than debating its validity, ask if the person could provide one or two examples that would help you understand the criticism in context (e.g., Could you point to a recent case where these traits emerged, hindering progress toward target goals?). Or, ask questions to infer what others would consider more valuable behaviors (e.g., What would you recommend to help me improve in this area?) You might also consider linking your request to goals you have in moving forward in the organization (e.g., In the next year or two, I would like to be leading projects. How can I move in that direction in the coming months?).

By understanding the perceptions others have about the work you’re doing, or how you’re doing it, you will be in a better position to move forward in ways that evoke better responses.

• Be aware of coded language. Sometimes overly general observations are code words and phrases that mask fundamental issues. For instance, saying that someone needs to “improve communication,” “initiate more projects,” “demonstrate better teamwork,” “increase leadership,” “delegate more” or “be more visible” are phrases that can justify unfavorable reviews, but in ways that are squishy enough to avoid confrontation or charges of bias.

Granted, not everyone uses such phrases as a cover up; some people use them simply because they’re imitating what others say or write in reviews, and sometimes these phrases accurately reflect what an employee must do.

Code or not, such references indicate that some people are not fully satisfied with your work, so you should focus on where and how your efforts may not be matching others’ views. To that end, you might ask supervisors for how you could define or demonstrate these goals in your position or in particular projects (e.g., Could you offer examples of how I might improve my teamwork abilities in some of the projects we are working on today?). You might also ask for guidance in using time and resources more effectively (e.g., Could you help me identify tasks that would be appropriate to delegate, and those I should continue to oversee myself? Could you offer suggestions on how I could gain visibility in forums where those who assign projects could assess my leadership capabilities?).

Of course these conversations may reveal that some difficulties are less about ways you could improve than with office politics, but that information is also valuable. So, if you can identify ways to develop or demonstrate skills valued by senior management, you will be in a better position to know what changes could build others’ confidence in your abilities.

• Develop a Plan of Action. Using the information from your conversations with supervisors and coworkers, identify specific ways to address the concerns others have about your performance and incorporate those actions into your work daily. You should also identify how you will know when or if you have succeeded in addressing those concerns.

Some possibilities may emerge from your discussions; others you may need to infer. If you’re still having difficulties, draft some options and then ask your supervisor to help narrow or prioritize the possibilities so you can be of greatest service to the team or larger organization. By developing a Plan of Action, you can become more conscientious and purposeful in improving your performance, your competence, and others’ perception of both.

• Keep track of your progress, modifying behavior as necessary. As you move forward in your work, record what you’re doing to move in directions valued by the company. Then, every few weeks, review your records to see if you’re on track for meeting the goals you’ve set in your Plan of Action. You might find that some tasks need to be added, deleted, or shifted in their priority; you might also find more strategic ways to accomplish certain tasks, enhancing the contributions you’re able to make.

Ideally, employees get regular coaching and feedback from managers, rather than a once-a-year commentary on their performance, but if your office culture does not provide such context, you can create forums in which there is more dialogue about things you are doing well and ways you can be improving to reach goals within the organization. In doing so, you can find a way to present a consistent, cohesive, company-driven narrative of value for why you deserve more money, more responsibility, and more recognition.

Working toward Areté…
Download the “Start Preparing for Your Performance Review Today” .pdf and commit to taking one or two step toward preparing for your performance review today. What will it be? Record your thoughts in the space below.

Share Button

Addicted to Devices, and the Messages We Transmit

Posted on by
2

By Caroline M. Cole

Appearing in the 1965 Time-Life publication Early Man, a Rudolph Zallinger illustration depicts 15 figures walking from left to right, ordered to suggest the evolutionary path of ape-like beings to Homo sapiens. The March of Progress, as it has come to be known, has been condensed, silhouetted, and spoofed countless times since its appearance, and recent depictions have introduced figures on the far right that hunch over computers and handheld devices. And it’s no wonder. Walking down the street, sitting on trains and buses, dining in restaurants or at the family table, people of all ages are focused on smartphones, PDAs, tablets, and other portable electronics. Even when we are not talking on the phone or actively pecking away on the go, we are often plugged in with earbuds and headsets, blocking out the world around us. We are addicted to our devices.Addicted to Devices

Technology itself is not the problem. Rather, it’s when and how we choose to use it, affecting what we communicate to others—and not simply to those on the other end of our device.

Consider, for example, the impression we get when we encounter strangers talking on the phone while waiting in line at a register, sitting in a library, using the restroom, dining at a nearby table, standing in an elevator, or in other small spaces in which we cannot escape the conversation. Or when we see people checking email or sending texts during a board meeting, class discussion, interview, concert or movie, social gathering, religious service, or funeral. Or when we hear music, podcasts, television shows, movies, YouTube videos, and game soundtracks emitting from or in the absence of a user’s headset. Or when we’re walking behind or driving near someone who is talking, texting, or otherwise focused on a device, unaware of those simply trying to pass or sustain the flow of traffic without colliding.

Each of these moments communicate something about the device user’s sense of self and views of appropriate behavior, as well as a mindfulness of and concern for others. Yet while such actions from a stranger might evoke a snap judgment or result in an unflattering first impression, even those we know are communicating values and priorities when they are with us, but talking to someone else on the phone, checking email during a conversation, scrolling through messages or regularly looking at a device’s screen in anticipation of a text or call that’s presumably more important than the present interaction, pausing mid-discussion or losing conversation threads each time their device registers activity, twitching at the sound of a gadget’s vibration and becoming increasingly irritable with any delay at being able to check what wants their attention, or simply refusing to put a device away or turn off its ring tone or full-volume alert to minimize distractions and disruptions during another event, pursuit, or exchange.

As social media expert Anthony DeRosa observed, “mobile connectedness has eroded fundamental human courtesies,” yet what is more telling is that people are no longer apologizing for what society once considered rude behavior. Instead, they hold it up as the new norm, and those who complain are dismissed as Luddites or worse.

To be fair, some industries and professions require employees to be on-call even when away from the office; computers, PDAs and smart phones are increasingly common on vacations, just in case someone from the office needs something. But what are we telling others (and ourselves) when every experience, observation, and thought must be instantly texted, tweeted, posted, linked, streamed, or otherwise shared with our immediate network or the larger world? What are we conveying when we feel the need to look busy or remain plugged in and accessible 24/7—regardless of what else we are doing, or whom we are with? What are we communicating by living in a perpetual state of FOMS (Fear Of Missing Something) that’s intimately tied to ringtones, buzzes, and vibrations, preventing us from being fully available and tuned into the present moment?

The word communication literally means “to make common,” and portable electronic devices have become invaluable tools for making resources, knowledge and even people more accessible, more familiar, more “common” than before. Yet communication has a richer history and deeper significance that seems increasingly distant and, at times, impossible given the ways technology is moving.

Entering the English Language in the fourteenth century through the Anglo-Norman communicacioun and the Middle French communicacion, the word communication is connected to the Latin verb commūnicarē, which means “to share, divide out; to impart, inform; to join, unite, participate in.” In this context, we see that communication requires more than simply making something available; it requires an exchange—a give and take—prompting references to communication being a two-way street. But going back further in communication’s etymology, we find that the key root is the verb mūnus/mūnārē (which means to bestow on, or to present as with a gift, duty, tribute, kindness, or service), linking the word communication to the same word that has given us:

munificent (Latin, munificus = bountiful: mūnus = gift, bounty and fucio = to make, to enrich)

commune (Latin, commū´n = to make common to others with oneself; to hold intimate; to build; to fortify; strengthen).

Such references suggest that “communication” held greater intimacy for and significance to participants than a simple give-and-take, for at its core was an affinity with, respect for, and commitment to the well-being and enrichment of the other person.

Smartphones, PDA, and tablets and other electronic devices are ubiquitous, making it easier to interact with those we know, and those we don’t, but with all of these options, something is clearly missing. We are in a world that offers more ways to communicate with people than any previous generation, and yet doctors report more cases of isolation, loneliness, depression, and suicide than ever before. In such a networked and connected world, why do so many people feel that no one is listening?

Studies are starting to show why. Consider, for example, the research of Sherry Turkel, Professor at MIT and author of Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. Noting that “technology has become the architect of our intimacies,” Turkel argues that our relentless connection has created a new solitude: We give human qualities to inanimate objects; engage in fewer face-to-face discussions; privilege convenience and control over messy, but genuine human interaction; confuse texts, tweets, and posts with authentic communication; and seek validation from online communities of hundreds of “friends” we may never meet. In creating the illusion of companionship through constant connection, Turkel finds, we are feeling more disconnected, dissatisfied, and alienated which, ironically, increases our dependency on, frequency in, and urgency to use our devices.

Barbara Fredrickson, Professor at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill and author of Love 2.0: How Our Supreme Emotion Affects Everything We Feel, Think, Do and Become, also examines the effects electronic devices may have on our biological capacity to connect with others. Drawing upon her research of love as “micro-moments of positivity resonance,” Fredrickson notes that face-to-face interaction allows people’s gestures, biochemistries, and neural activity to synchronize with, mirror, and imprint on one another in ways that are fundamental for developing understanding, compassion, trust, empathy, and connection. Yet, like other biological capacities, such abilities atrophy with less use. Therefore, Fredrickson notes, as people increasingly turn to screen-mediate forums to interact with others, they will become less attuned to channels for co-imprinting, making it harder to “read” and understand people in ways that promote meaningful interpersonal connections.

Andrew K. Przybylski and Netta Weinstein of the University of Essex found that the mere presence of a device is enough to both hinder the ability to develop closeness and trust and reduce empathy and understanding people might otherwise feel toward their partner—especially when discussing topics in which at least one party is personally invested.

In such contexts, it is little wonder that people increasingly find real-time communication inefficient, inconvenient, and even burdensome. A 2012 Time Inc. study, for example, found that 54% of digital natives (people who grew up with mobile technology prefer) and 28% of non-digital natives (people who learned to use mobile technology as adults) prefer to communicate digitally rather than talk in person—to the point where they are using phone calls, tweets, emails, and text messages to communicate with someone else in the same household, rather than go into the next room.

What are we saying when we would rather interact with and through a device than with the people right next to us?

Digital devices have made our lives more efficient, more accessible, and more enjoyable. And in many ways, they have enhanced what we are able to say to the world. But, as Turkel notes, connectivity isn’t the same as connection. Communication is, at the core, an attention to the well-being and enrichment of others. Therefore, as we continue to evolve, change, and adapt to our environment, we must be cognizant of the messages we are broadcasting to others, even inadvertently.

In the Monday editions of The New York Times is a column entitled “Metropolitan Diary.” One contributor wrote that, although she loved listening to her iPod and giving life a soundtrack, she made a conscientious effort to remove her earphones whenever she was within 15 feet of another person, no matter who it was. Her reasoning: she wanted to feel more connected and open to the possibilities of communication, even if it were only on her end.

Imagine what could happen if more people took a moment to unplug, making space for additional ways to engage and connect with others. Imagine, for example, the message you would “hear” if someone gave you—bestowed upon you—his or her full, undivided attention, if only for a few minutes, letting you know that you were the only thing that mattered in that moment. Imagine the message you would transmit if, even briefly, you bestowed your full, undivided attention upon someone else: a partner, a child, a coworker, a student, a parent, a friend, a store clerk, a stranger asking for help. Imagine the messages a fully present, mindful participant wanting to build up and fortify others in the exchange could send out into the world.

Working toward Areté…
In a device-saturated world, what are your strategies for enhancing connections to and with others? Share your thoughts and strategies below.

Share Button

Using Signature Blocks to Reinforce Your Image

Posted on by
Reply

By Caroline M. Cole

What do Confucius, Abraham Lincoln, campaign slogans, Nikola Tesla, blockbuster movies, Winnie the Pooh, Nelson Mandela, Leonardo da Vinci, Maya Angelou, religious passages, and ASCII art have in common? They have all made appearances in an email signature block, leaving various impressions on the message’s recipient.

Signature blocks—and their abridged form, signature lines—provide details that help email recipients identify and, if necessary, contact the writer in the absence of conventional letterhead information. Although these blocks used to include little more than the writer’s name, email address, and phone number, they have grown into electronic bumper stickers, conveying values, philosophies, states of mind, allegiances, and the like. As individuals and organizations look for more forums to reflect their personality, promote their services, build their brand, and preempt legal action, signature blocks have grown increasingly elaborate, if not complicated.

People may give little notice to the lines tacked on the bottom of an email, but signature blocks are extensions of both the messages we send out into the world and of ourselves. Consequently, they deserve attention if only to ensure that they maintain and reinforce the image we want to project to others. The following discussion offers considerations for preparing or revising a signature block.

At times, people may have little say in the signature blocks attached to their messages. Email accounts linked to businesses or their network servers, for example, may use signature block templates with set information to suggest a unified, cohesive organization in spite of the myriad views and personalities that may be evident among its members. Industry guidelines, as well as national and international laws may also require specific information to appear in a signature block; some countries, for instance, require the company registration number, place of registration, and website operation to appear in all emails, limiting the choices companies and individual employees may have to represent themselves.

Personal email accounts may have more options for the signature block, but here, too, senders should make sure the information that does appear is consistent with others messages they aim to communicate about themselves to various target audiences.

Whether an email account is for business exchanges, personal use, or both, the first matter for deciding what to include in a signature block is how the message’s recipients could follow up with the writer. Hitting “reply” may be sufficient in most cases, but even this method has limitations, say, when a writer is transmitting the message through a mailing list or when recipients need to follow up at a later point or in manner other than email. Therefore, if readers can respond to or otherwise contact the writer, the signature block should identify the most efficient ways to do so in both immediate and subsequent contexts.

If, for example, email is the only option for interacting with you in a particular forum, you might have a signature line with only your name and email address. If deliveries, phone calls, faxes, and social media are options, your signature block may contain any or all of these details, depending upon on your audience(s).

Industry professionals, business associates, social acquaintances, family members, or any combination thereof can affect the contact information you might include, or exclude, in a given context. Yet knowing the ease with which electronic communication can be forwarded ad infinitum, you should keep in mind the information that could become available to secondary and tertiary audiences who might receive copies of your messages and, thus, your contact details.

Once you identify the target and potential audiences of your messages and the ways they may need to find you, you can develop a single, default signature block, or craft various signature blocks to create and sustain relationships with these audiences as needed. Below are traditional signature elements to help in this endeavor:

Signature Cut Line (a.k.a. sig dash, sig delineator, sig marker). To help software distinguish the email message from the signature block and, if necessary, mark or remove signature blocks for recipient purposes, some signature blocks are prefaced by a signature cut line, two hyphens followed by a space and a line break (for example “ – – ” or “ – – \n ”). This designation alerts various mail servers to eliminate duplicate references in email conversation threads, saving bandwidth and bypassing pages of stacked signature blocks at the end of message exchanges.

Many signature block creation tools insert this delineation automatically, but some programs do not. Moreover, those who create their own signature block may inadvertently remove this reference. Therefore, if your messages typically generate an exchange of more then two messages, you should verify the signature cut line’s existence, adding one if necessary.

Name. Although writers might sign off an email with a familiar name, nickname, initial, or nothing, the signature block can fill in the details. In a professional context, the name in your signature block should be your official, legal name—the one that appears on company documents—but you also could include references to your familiar name or offer pronunciation cues to help readers who may be unaware of your legal name or your name’s pronunciation. For example:

Elizabeth Downey-Geisler

Alejandro “Alex” Gonzales

Xian (shee-en) Zhu

Titles. Sometimes a title and position are same, as in the case of CEO, Director of Marketing, and Senior Recruiter. At other times, individuals may have professional degrees and certifications that are distinct from their job title, raising questions about what to include.

Some people argue that listing degrees can seem pretentious, but context can matter. In professional contexts, degree titles can identify training and credentials that might correlate with information in the exchange. For example:

Tyler Duval, MSW, LCSW
Family Therapist and Adoption Specialist

Marianne Roth, CPA, CFA
Senior Auditor

Samantha T. Roark, Ph.D./M.D.
Chief of Surgery

Peter Fairchild, Ph.D.
Dean of Undergraduate Education

These references can also help email recipients know how to address the writer in, say, a salutation (e.g., Dear Dr. Roark, Dear Dr. Fairchild, Dear Dean Fairchild). Still, listing educational degrees or certification initials in contexts unrelated to that professional training or in personal email accounts may prompt criticism. Therefore, you should consider the context of your email account and the forums in which your messages will circulate to determine whether titles or degrees would reinforce the image you want to promote in those arenas.

Addresses. The inclusion and exclusion of an address can also shape the image of an email’s sender. Some businesses, for example, might include only a website URL and email address, suggesting a vast enterprise that transcends borders. In contrast, bricks-and-mortar businesses (including those with a substantial online presence) might include a storefront or mailing address in its signature block to promote itself as a community-based organization with face-to-face customer service. Such choices may be at discretion of the email account holder, yet some countries and locations require companies to list particular addresses, such as place of registration. Therefore, you should confirm if any address information is required when setting up or revising signature blocks linked to a business. For security, you should omit personal addresses in your signature blocks.

Phone Number(s). Sometimes email signature blocks include a company’s primary phone number or the numbers of other company divisions (e.g., sales, tech support), sometimes they include the writer’s direct line or extension number, sometimes a cell phone number. If you include a phone number in your signature block, it should be a number that is most appropriate for recipients to reach you or the designated parties in a timely manner. If you include more than one phone number, identifying each number can help recipients know which number would be most appropriate in a given situation. Similarly, providing international calling codes can help clients around the world reach you more easily.

Fax number. Although less common nowadays, fax machines are still important in some industries and organizations. If fax distribution is a common mode of transmission in your professional or personal work, you might include it in the signature block to save target audiences time in having this information alongside your other contact details.

Company logos. Companies large and small are including .jpeg logos in email signature blocks to encourage brand recognition, and even individuals are adding avatars, images, and animated files to personalize their messages. Yet despite increasingly sophisticated technology, email recipients still encounter difficulties when logos, graphics, and animations are part of a signature file.

For example, some recipients say that, depending on the size and nature of the graphic, these images bloat files and slow transmission, while some complain that images activate their system’s spam filter and redirect important messages into accounts they never read. Some argue that logos clutter their attachment files, and some people grumble that the images never appear, leaving unloaded .imp and .jpeg tags. Unable to guarantee what recipients may see on their end, you should develop signature blocks that convey the detail you need to pass along even if images do not load when, or as, you intend.

Legal disclaimers, disclosures, and confidentiality clauses. People bemoan the legal disclaimers in emails, saying they’re often longer than the messages themselves. Some even debate whether these notices are enforceable in court. Regardless of personal preference, some legal-ese may be required. For example, in some companies or industries, emails must include the same disclaimers that other company documents provide to satisfy compliance guidelines. Legal disclosures are also common, alerting recipients that messages may be archived, monitored, auto-responder affiliated, or otherwise subject to various laws. Confidentiality clauses seem to evoke the greatest criticism since people must actually open the message in order to learn whether a confidential message was delivered to them inadvertently; still, these clauses may be required to conform with particular company or industry standards.

Given the proliferation of such notices, you should ask about or verify any mandatory legal content for the signature blocks you may be sending.

While these elements may be some of the most common features in signature blocks, companies and individuals are incorporating other elements to further personalize their emails and, in doing so, convey more information about themselves, for better and worse. These elements might include:

Websites and Social Media Accounts. Companies and individuals trying to advertise themselves as widely as possible are using signature blocks as one more forum for exposure, listing websites and blog URLs, LinkedIn profile addresses, Twitter and Facebook usernames, Skype numbers, social network widgets, and so on. But, as with other details, you should use your email account’s purpose and audience to gauge which, if any, of these references to include. After all, once a message goes out, it has a potential audience of millions, which could have favorable or negative repercussions depending on the particular accounts you list.

Quotes and slogans. Wanting to add personality to a conventionally lackluster medium, people are personalizing their email signature blocks with inspirational quotes, slogans, lines of verse, life observations, and so on. Some recipients appreciate additional insight into the sender’s views and values, but some readers may find such musings professionally or personally off-putting. Rather than accept a singular, definitive stance on whether to include or exclude quotations, mottos, and other catch phrases in a signature block, you should consider the recipients of your messages and the ways pontifications of any sort may enhance or hinder their interpretation and reception of the accompanying message and, perhaps, even yourself.

Green IT Statement. Statements that ask recipients to “Please consider the environment before printing” encourage readers to be mindful of eco-friendly practices. Depending on the organization or person sending the email—or the contexts in which messages with such references would circulate—these notations can reinforce larger brand values. As a result, email recipients that align with environmentally conscious messages may think more highly or favorably about the message’s sender; other recipients, however, may find such messages patronizing, undermining the writer–reader rapport. Again, considering the purpose and audience of your messages can help you decide when, or if, to include such references.

Promotional Teasers. Aiming to maximize announcement distribution, some companies and even some individuals are inserting a line or phrase about services, actions, or upcoming events into their signature blocks:

Increase customer orders. Visit www.company.com for details!

Vote “no” on Title XYZ November 4.

Win cash prizes by joining us on July 21…

Such announcements can articulate and spread the organization or sender’s values in cost-effective ways, but email recipients who are tired of being pitched in every forum, as well as readers who might not share these particular views may be turned off by such endorsements. Furthermore, attaching a sales pitch to every email can suggest every communication has an ulterior motive, undermining the effectiveness of the message and, depending on the context, the sender’s reputation.

Auto signatures. To promote their products, companies are increasingly making brand-related messages the default signature for the emails people send on their devices, tacking statements such as “Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S™ III, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone,” “Sent from my iPad/iPhone” or “Sent via Blackberry” to the bottom of every message—sometimes unbeknownst to the sender. Some people say these default messages are status symbols in the ways the red sole of a stiletto, the interlocking double Gs or C’s on a handbag, or the prancing horse on the hood of a car identify things about their owners. Others say they like these references because it makes it easier to use the “fat-fingers error” excuse for any typos or writing problems a message may have; however, technology—even devices with small keyboards—should never be the excuse for misused words or other elements that can hinder communication. Therefore, you might consider changing the default message to a signature line, or delete the signature element altogether.

Reviewing the signature blocks from different senders, organizations, industries and countries, you would see countless configurations and, by extension, endless ways email writers can present themselves to the world. Ideally the choices are consistent with the image email writers present to their target audiences in other contexts, yet some choices may be undermining the writer’s image, even inadvertently.

Because signature blocks can affect what recipients learn or assume about the email’s sender, you should email your self a “test” message with the signature option checked to see what, if anything, your message’s recipients might see and to gauge the impression it may be leaving. Using that information, you can then edit or create your signature block to reinforce your ideal image to the audiences and in the venues you aim to reach.

Working toward Arête…
For ideas in generating a brand-consistent signature block, download the “Using Signature Blocks to Reinforce Your Image” .pdf. Or share your observations about the ways email signature blocks can or should reinforce a person’s image in the space below.

Share Button

The Post-Interview Thank You: Moving Beyond Perfunctory and into Authenticity

Posted on by
1

By Caroline M. Cole

Although 85–90% of companies say that a post-interview thank you note could enhance an applicant’s standing, fewer than 50% of candidates actually send such documents after talking with company representatives, for various reasons. Some applicants argue that, as more and more companies make their decisions within hours of interviewing candidates, there simply isn’t time to follow up. Some ask why it would matter if the interview didn’t go well to begin with; shouldn’t applicants just cut their losses and spend time pursuing companies where they still have a chance? Others argue that thank you letters are quaint niceties that are incongruous in today’s high-tech, fast moving society, while some have never been taught that a thank you note would be appropriate in this context. Even candidates who recognize that a thank you letter can be advantageous may struggle to know what to say and, in the end, remain silent. But it’s not just applicants who may account for the decrease in post-interview thank you notes. Recruiters and hiring managers have also bemoaned these materials.Thank You Notes

The most common criticism is the mechanical and overly generic nature of these documents, as if applicants are sending a thank you simply to check one more task off their “to do” list for getting a job. Others think these letters can make a candidate seem desperate, while some say that poorly written or illegible thank you notes can be more damaging than doing nothing after the interview. Some companies add that letters and notes of appreciation may be a nice touch but, ultimately, they don’t carry much weight in their final decision; strong candidates that don’t send thank you notes will still get offers, and weak candidates will not—regardless of any post-interview thank you they submit.

Despite personal preferences on either side of the interview table, thank you letters can be invaluable both for recruiters wanting to gauge a candidate’s soft skills and for candidates looking for a position that matches their talents and abilities, if they know what to do. The following discussion explains how applicants might offer a meaningful, authentic follow-up to an interview.

Although many advise candidates to send companies a post-interview thank you simply to stand out from other applicants, such advice shifts a moment that calls for genuine appreciation into a job search gimmick. Applicants should resist sending hiring managers and recruiters a note just because it’s what a job applicant should do; rather, they should start from the position that this document is—and should remain—a means to express gratitude for someone taking time to discuss the organization in general and the position in particular.

Consider, for example, that the extent to which a candidate remains enthusiastic about a position or an organization is often tied to what happens during the interview, and company representatives play a significant role in that exchange. Granted, the people conducting an interviewing might be obligated to provide particular information regardless of the candidate they’re talking with; beyond those requirements, however, they often have a choice in what topics to entertain, what information to pass along, and how much detail to provide. As such, interviewers are instrumental for shaping what candidates learn about and, in the end, how they come to view the position and its context. It is this exchange—a discussion that helped clarify job responsibilities, elaborate on expectations, address candidate concerns, or simply increase the applicant’s interest in the position—that a post-interview thank you note aims to recognize.

By expressing appreciation for the opportunity to learn what may have otherwise been impossible, you demonstrate an awareness of the role others play in your understanding of company needs and concerns. In addition, by highlighting topics or details from the interview that you, too, value, you give companies more information on where and how you might be a fit for the position. A thank you letter that picks up on a particular project the recruiter mentioned, for example, would suggest different interests than one that calls out company values, particular job responsibilities, short- and long-term opportunities within the organization, company culture, and so on.

Sincerity and thoughtfulness are fundamental components of gratitude; therefore, thank you letters also can provide a forum for reinforcing an applicant’s interest in the position. For instance, if the information you obtained during the interview has increased your interest in the position, you could explain (or reaffirm) the way your experience could create value for the team, division, or larger organization by drawing upon information from the discussion. If, on the other hand, the interview brought to light reasons the position is no longer a good fit for you, you could use this opportunity to withdraw your application from further consideration, demonstrating both your self-awareness and your respect for the organization’s time.

Regardless of the particular content, post interview follow-ups should be one page or less. In other words, you should be sincere, and brief. The goal is to acknowledge what you have gained through this exchange and the individual(s) who helped in that endeavor, supplementing the image you’ve presented in your other application materials rather than introducing a completely different persona.

Collectively these guidelines can help applicants know whether they should send one letter to the primary recruiter or separate letters to each company representative with whom they have had a meaningful exchange. If sending separate letters, you could use similar opening and closing paragraphs, but the internal paragraph(s) should be recipient specific. Even in cases where you may have been interviewed by several people simultaneously (e.g., a panel interview), you should tailor each letter to address particular questions and concerns the individual panel member had during the larger group discussion. After all, people on search committees talk, and even employees brought into the process momentarily may share their observations about and communications with a candidate—including follow-up interactions. Thus, by writing letters that have been personalized to each individual, you move beyond the mechanical, generic thank you and sincerely acknowledge all parties for their unique contribution to your candidacy.

Other considerations for thank you notes include:

Timing. In general, a thank you should be sent within 24-hours of the interview. This timeframe does not suggest you need to overnight a letter to the company or, worse, hand a pre-written letter to the hiring manager or administrative staff member on your way out the door; the former can seem pretentious or desperate, while the latter can suggest automatic and impersonal. Even so, you want to make sure that your note seems to be a well-intended, thoughtful response to the discussion. As important, if you are wanting to reinforce your interest in the position, you want to ensure your letter arrives before the organization wraps up its search.

Email or Snail Mail Distribution. If the company is looking to close its search in the coming days, email may be most efficient, demonstrating an awareness that business in general and hiring decisions in particular are made quickly; it also shows your comfort and proficiency with one of the most ubiquitous workplace technologies. Similarly, email may be most appropriate if most of the company’s correspondence is electronic.

There are, however, potential downsides to sending thank you notes through e-mail. First, as people increasingly use email for professional and personal correspondence, it takes a concerted effort to adopt and sustain a professional register so the message does not seem cursory or flippant: “Hey, by the way, I was just sitting here checking my e-mail and thought I would drop you a note to say thanks.” Similarly, spam filters inadvertently may redirect the message into a mailbox the reader never opens. And even if the reader does receive and open the message, it may get minimal notice among hundreds of other messages also demanding attention.

Hard copy thank you letters and notes can be strategic. First, people associate letters with formality and, by extension, professionalism, so they can have more weight for some audiences—if only for the fact that writing a letter often requires a more conscientious effort than email. Furthermore, in a culture that sees fewer and fewer letters in a mailbox, those that do arrive tend to stand out. Letters also show a candidate’s ability to write conventional documents, which can be of value if employees need to craft letters, proposals, and other traditional materials on behalf of the larger organization. Finally, letters need to be filed so, unlike an electronic thank you that can sit in the recipient’s inbox indefinitely, hard copy documents usually make it into a candidate’s file, where it can be read by others reviewing applicant materials.

Still, like their email equivalent, hard copy notes of appreciation have limitations, the greatest of which is delivery lag time. There’s also the question of whether hard copy messages must be typed or if they could be handwritten. In general, typed letters are more formal and, for some, more professional; handwritten notes, on the other hand, may seem more personal, but they might reflect an organization’s image and values more accurately. Whichever you choose, you can enhance your message’s reception by following format conventions when sending typed letters and making sure your message is legible if sending handwritten notes.

Regardless of whether you send the note electronically or by mail, you should make sure to use conventional spelling, punctuation and grammar for greatest impact.

Many dismiss the power of a well-crafted thank you note, but applicants who have sent a post-interview thank you report favorable responses, and some of those applicants say they’ve been told that their follow up made the difference in their application’s standing. Companies that have taken a post-interview thank you into account explain why: Sometimes, they say, a thank you note reinforces their decision about a competitive applicant. Sometimes it demonstrates the candidate’s sustained interest and ability to follow through. Sometimes it sets two equally qualified candidates apart, and sometimes it reveals a professional and social polish the candidate could bring to other aspects of the job. Sometimes, however, it simply reinforces the candidate’s ability to recognize the contributions of others—and that in itself can be the sincerest display of gratitude.

Working toward Areté…
Share your thoughts and experiences with writing or receiving post-interview thank you notes in the space below.

Share Button