Thursday 24 June 2010

Is social media a threat to team loyalty?

This week's news included an improbable link between the Afghan conflict and The World Cup in South Africa. The connecting stories were about the US Military Commander Gen Stanley McCrystal's interview with Rolling Stone magazine and ex-England skipper John Terry's comments at the World Cup daily news conference.
Both were unhappy with the direction coming down from "Top Command" and both sought to tackle it through the media.
In an article in the New York Times http://tinyurl.com/2ueglkd  it describes how General McChrystal and his aides spoke critically of nearly every member of the president’s national security team. In summary they wrote: Over all, the magazine article depicted General McChrystal at the head of a small circle of aides engaged in almost locker-room trash talk as they discussed foreign policy, the French, their allegiance to each other and their own concerns about course of the war.
In reply President Obama was quoted as saying "I think it’s clear that the article in which he and his team appeared showed poor judgment.”
The John Terry "rebellion" similarly appeared to involve an inner group and their dis-satisfaction over team formation and player selection. Inevitably it prompted hyped reporting with quotes like The Sun's  "England's World Cup camp was in meltdown!"  When responding Fabio Capello said ‘My door is open always and if you want to speak with me, you can speak with me. I think he’s more disappointed some players because when you speak you have to speak privately, not with you (the media). This is the big mistake, this is a very big mistake. It is not a revolution, it is one mistake from one player.

I have to admit to a traditionalist view on this issue. Being of an era of large national salesforces with several tiers of line-management...we learned to follow the flag and deal with "dissent." Evaluation of tactics was expected...and feedback was expected back up the line. And the system worked.
But today we live in a world of open comunication...largely because of the internet....and in particular the impact of social media.  The openess that inspired the web pioneers has been carried on by Facebook, Twitter etc. Today we are enabled and encouraged to speak up and influence situations upwards.
Those of us involved in Internal Communications were quick to see social media as the answer to the perenial problem of employee engagement. To me its original attraction was in its "proletarian" ownership. People wanted to opt in to what was their "news channel"  It had similar anarchic attitudes as graffiti and underground radio.
But in using it "the establishment" needs to be wary of a couple of isses.
  1. To keep its opt in appeal Social media must retain that "proletarian" attitude. And that doesn't mean seeing the HR Director in a Chey Guevarra tee shirt and saying "innit" every 2 minutes!!
  2. Also...we must not forget the importance of line-communication. People work for people.   If top down communication is going the social route then "line-management" communication must as a minimum match it for content and speed. Otherwise disaffected leaders may genuinely feel that open communication means "open season" to say what you like about the boss!
My "old ways" worked because downline communication was flawless and so it was commensurately rewarded with good feedback...and loyalty.
And leaders who instinctively put themselves in the firing line!

 
For more thoughts and tips on persuasive communication visit http://www.persuadability.co.uk/ and browse the Resource Centre.  PQG3YRNTY5VA

Friday 18 June 2010

"Stay away from my Personal Belief System!!!"

I got into a row on a Linkedin discussion group recently!
To be honest I was probably gatecrashing a private party and shouldn't have been there. It was a professional group's discussion on nominations for Internal Communicator of the Year, and I chipped in with:
"I am being serious and I do admit to being a fan. Is there anybody better than Jose Mourinho when it comes to influencing minds and outcomes with just a few words?"

It drew an immediate, curt and damning response from one member. When another member then indicated some support for Jose our friend ramped up his condemnation. I did think that comparison with a certain fascist dictator was extreme...but probably more intended to discredit our opinions rather than Jose's suitability for nomination!
I wanted to go back with a really clever and cutting response...but that would have taken too long. So it was a couple of days later when I finally thought...No, I can't let Jose be hung out like that...so I replied:
"Anonymous– I must respond. Jose’s team wholeheartedly believed in his plan and shared his vision. His competitors ultimately lost belief arguably due to his rhetoric and body language - watch him on the touchline intimidating Aaron Robben.
Short of humility? There’s no doubt of that...and I can understand how this will lessen his wider appeal. But maybe not so in his world of football…which is why Real Madrid just appointed him. "
I have to admit I did admire my very well reasoned response. But I guess it only needed one slip up...and in my case it was the word intimidating...and my friend was back in minutes waving his red card at me.
Or "resting his case" as he put it...I don't think he went in for football metaphors!
But it was also getting personal. Now the testosterone was kicking in. More than reason with him... I just wanted to get even.
Which of course is what so often happens when we get into an exchange of opinions. And the reason this happens is because our opinions are based upon a "very personal"  belief system. A set of deeply held beliefs and values that started to form when we first became aware of the world around us. That were strengthened by the behaviour and lessons of the people around us like my gran with her "there is always somebody worse off! lesson on life. And were ultimately reinforced and cemented by our own subsequent experiences of life.

Not surprisingly these beliefs and values are not for shifting. So when somebody offers opinions that attack our values...even unintentionally or indirectly...our  instinctive reaction is to attack them!
Which is why when you are trying to persuade somebody around to your point of view...to offer opinions without regard for their beliefs and values can be a pathway to a row! Especially if the subject is football!
So I m pleased that I showed maturity and didn't go back for the last word with my friend on Linkedin.
No I'm happy to let the Wall Street Journal have that with an extract from an article they published on lessons that can be learned from football managers  http://tinyurl.com/3792vb5 Under a headline The way Mourinho manages, the quote I liked was: "Mourinho may come to be seen as a rare example of a model manager: Someone from the world of sports whose methods could profitably be emulated by business managers and executives everywhere." 
I'm just wondering whether I should post that link on Linkedin?

For more posts and articles on persuasion visit http://persuadability.co.uk/ and browse the Resource Centre.

Friday 11 June 2010

Techno-dependent communication health warning

I work with some real techno lovers or maybe that should be "techno-luvvies" who seem to get off on owning the latest this or that ...plus of course loads of apps!

And when it comes to contact and comunication they are entirely techno-dependent.
They text when a 30 second walk would have allowed a face to face chat.
They can't have a business conversation without showing off their pivot table skills in Excel.
They choose the naffest audio-tones to signal incoming emails....and cannot resist immediately opening them ...to your constant irritation!
Up until now irritation has been the extent of it...but after reading a recent article in the New York Times I'm more than a bit concerned for them.
Telling the story of a businessman who "lost" a $1.3 million deal email amidst a "deluge of data" in his inbox , and of the distracting effect his gadget dependancy has on his family life and relationships, the article describes how "he craves the stimulation he gets from his electronic gadgets." Telling the reader "This is your brain on computers. "
Apparently there is a primitive impulse at play here to respond to opportunities and threats. The resultant excitement causing a potentially addictive "dopamine squirt!"
More worrying is the evidence that as we handle more information and attempt to multi-task we actually struggle to keep focus and shut out irrelevant information. And that this "fractured thinking" continues after multi-tasking ends. 
A further angle on this issue came out in a recent article by Dr Mark Goulston in PsychologyToday where he talks about the fact that we are simply interacting with machines. And because it's a machine then we communicate with it with less concern for consequence. Bit like shouting at the TV!
Added to this he feels that the speed of the technology prompts us to fire a reply off quickly. And that this is encouraged by feelings of anxiety if we don't reply quickly... and of relief when we have replied.
Something I'm sure we can all relate to. Ever had an "oh ____!!" moment when you've hit [Send] to soon?
For myself. I'll admit to a sceptical and cynical view on techno-communication.
Sceptical because words without accompanying tone and visual expression can be interpreted in so many different ways. Cynical because the product developers have done such a brilliant job in managing a market that has everything to do with ownership and aspiration and not too much to do with functional needs.
Nonetheless, as the The Forrester's Technographics Benchmark Survey of 2008 pointed out  "Generation X 'ers (29 to 42 year olds) uses technology when it supports a "lifestyle need" whereas it is embedded into everything Generation Y 'ers (18 - 29) do!

So like it or not it is the preferred way for an increasing portion of the working population but it doesn't have to be the only way!
And for the messages that really needs to be clear and understood...take that 30 second walk down the corridor.

For great tips on persuasive communication visit http://www.persuadability.co.uk/ and browse the Resource Centre

Friday 4 June 2010

Do you want to speak like Barack Obama?

The recent Kraft Cadbury merger took me back to my early days in selling. Kraft gave me my first sales job. I loved it... and with rapid promotion quickly followed by a "fast tracking" secondment to Head Office I soon became a Kraftman.  I so much wanted to be like the "special ones." The guys who really had been fast tracked...to Chicago Head Office!  Instantly recognisable with their purposeful stride, short hair cuts... and affected mid-Atlantic language and accents. Often spoken in amusing blends of Bronx-London or Chicago-Scouse...the accent was always delivered with those exaggerated deep tones that Americans cultivate so well.

It was these guys that came to mind when I read an article in escience on work undertaken by Sarah Wolff and David Puts of the Department of Anthropology at Pennsylvania State University.
In a series of studies they examined the relationship between a deep masculine voice and male group dominance. And the practical conclusion from this particular research would seem to be. Yes...you are unlikely to power your way through a debate talking like Tiny Tim (remember him)...but trying to affect the bass tones of Bryn Terfel is not really going to make that much difference.
And the same can be said about affected language. The special ones loved all that...the jargonise...but we were amused rather than impressed...because it was so affected. And we found a satisfactory and satisfying way to deal with it that was based on the Honeywell Buzz word chart that was used back in the 70's to debunk computer jargon.
Here's how it works. When hit with jargon.... respond with a statement or question that randomly selects a word across each of these columns:
          Customer               Sensitive               Analysis
          Value                     Monetized             Campaign 
          Socially                  Reversed              Strategy 
          Real-time               Empowered          Model 
          Transparency        Centric                  Concept 
          Diversity                Integrated            Supposition
          Metrics                  Optimized             Mindset 
          Collateral               Aligned                 Threat 
          Supply                    Leveraged            Opportunity 
          Demand                 Segmented            Protocol 
          Organically            Embedded             Paradigm

 For example "we've approached this as a demand leveraged opportunity!"  "whilst working hard to satisfy a socially embedded protocol!"  Or.
"That's impressive but there are several organically aligned threats in that assumption aren't there!"
Then just shut up and watch the faces.
Cruel maybe...but a worthwhile lesson that effective not affected communication is what we want and that means being yourself and keeping it simple


For more tips and advice on persuasive comunication visit http://www.persuadability.co.uk/ and browse the Resource Centre