Bird's Eye View

When to Apologize

It upsets me to see that after her inexcusable outburst at the US Open in response to an umpire's call that was not in her favor, Serena Williams found herself unable to truly apologize.  She chose to talk about "putting it behind her" and that it was "time to move on."

Where did we lose "I'm sorry?"  Why are those two words so difficult for some people to say?  It's as if they choke on the very words when they get close to saying "I'm sorry" and instead take a detour to talk about circumstances that made things difficult and all the pressure they were under and--sometimes--that they are ashamed.  But the magic I'm sorry words just don't get past their lips, stuck somewhere in their throat.

When is the last time you apologized?  I mean the real "I'm sorry" kind of apology.  And not the one that is followed swiftly with words that destroy the power of the "I'm sorry."  Those are words generally introduced by the connective word "...but."  As in, "I'm sorry for my behavior last night...but I was exhausted and didn't know what I was saying."  As in, "I'm sorry for making you feel unappreciated...but I've been under a lot of pressure at work and have not been thinking clearly."

You know how it sounds.  It's as if you gave a gift with one hand and took it away with the other.  Better no apology at all then this "now you see it, now you don't" excuse for one.

Is there anyone in your life--at work, at home, among your friends--to whom you owe an unadulterated apology?  If they are in town, set up a coffee date and do what's right.  If they live elsewhere, might be a good time to pick up the phone and make that call.

I cannot forget making such a call.  It was about eight years ago, to a friend that I'd treated badly, in my estimation.  Took so much courage to make that call.  And when I said it, she laughed and said she had always felt she owed me an apology.  Her memory of the events was different from mine.  Either way, we had lost precious time we would have preferred to spend enjoying each other's friendship rather than dreading the time when we would speak again.  Taught me a good lesson.  Pick up the phone.

On the other hand, the person may sit in silence and let you know what a jerk you are for having taken so long to say I'm sorry.  Doesn't matter.  You've done it.  So you can hang up feeling that is finished business.  I guarantee you'll be glad you did it, no matter what kind of response you get.

Does your company apologize when things are done badly?  Or does it take the meally-mouth approach as in "We're sorry your last experience with our company did not meet our usual standard of excellent service.  Please know that we value your business...yada yada"?  To me, that's not "I'm sorry."  That's an apology written by a lawyer. 

Just say "I'm sorry."  Take responsibility.  Be accountable.  You'll be glad you did.

What's Your Conversational Strategy?

Each of us has a learned behavior of engaging in conversation.  You may see yourself as the Listener type, eager to be sure you catch what others say.  Or you may consider yourself more an "Initiator" of conversation: you choose the topic and others generally follow along.  Or you may be the "Waiter."  The waiter stays silent until he/she knows what others think, and then decides what to say, depending on whether it appears more appropriate to agree or to disagree.  Waiters are not authentic; they focus on the impression that will be made on others ("Will they like me?"  "Will they fear me" "Will they be impressed?") rather than on what is their true opinion. 

      

 

There are many more types and each of us generally has several in our personal conversational repertoire, depending on the occasion.  We may be much more cautious about what we say in certain groups rather than others.

Other than paying attention to protocol and good manners, which should always be followed (no more Joe Wilson's please), I believe you should speak up when you have something to say, so long as it is authentic and true.  And so long as it reflects that you have actually listened thoughtfully to what others have to say.  In most cases, you can be assumed you have been invited into the conversation because you have something to say.  Indeed, many of us feel that everyone in a conversation has a duty to "sing for his supper," meaning if you are there, it is your responsibility to add to the conversation rather than simply suck up others' contributions without adding your own.

I feel strongly about this.  Why?  Because great conversations are the result of cross pollination of several ideas, from which innovative ways of looking at issues and opportunities can arise.  If you keep your thoughts to yourself, you are cheating the group out of your contribution. 

So rather than pat yourself on the back for being dutifully silent, you may want to look at silence in a new way: that it is often selfishly focused on taking from others rather than on interacting with them.

If this strikes home for you, consider how you can train yourself to jump in with your views, rather than wait until you know the general outcome of the conversation, or being guaranteed as "right.".  If overcoming reluctance to jump in is not ever a difficulty for you, consider how you may encourage others who stay on the sidelines into engaging actively in the conversations.  Could make a big difference in your work, I imagine.

9/11 Conversation?

Our team here at Wf360 observed four minutes of silence today: one at 8:46 when the first Twin Tower was hit; one at 9:03 for the second attack; one at 9:59 when the first tower fell; and the last at 10:29 when the second one crumbled, taking a degree of the innocence of the United States with it.

 

Sometimes it's better not to talk.

Joe Wilson: Poster Boy for Incivility

Well, Joe Wilson just couldn't contain himself during President Obama's speech on health care to the joint session of congress.  Blurting out "You lie!" during the speech, in response to Obama's claim that his proposed health care plan would not cover illegal aliens (Obama was correct), he showed himself to be the perhaps unwitting example of all things bad about the past several months of town halls that degenerated into shouting matches.  In most cases, the shouters were uninformed, noisy, louts.

So what's the lesson here for those of us who care about conversation?  Several of them:  

1) Always listen carefully 

2) Have your facts straight if you choose to voice disagreement

3) Consider politeness as a first step toward resolution.

In your work and in your family conversations, does Joe Wilson kind of behavior show itself?  Is it condoned?  What can be done to prevent it?  What could bring about civil discourse that just maybe could lead to innovative solutions of gnarly problems?

One ironic note:  I'm told that Joe Wilson's Democratic opponent in South Carolina has already accepted donations from the good people of his state who want to throw out Wilson.

Slow Communication

This morning, my friend Laurie Coots, Chief Marketing Officer of TBWA\Worldwide, sent me a piece by John Freeman in the Wall Street Journal.

Entitled "Not so Fast--Sending and receiving at breakneck speed can make life queasy; a manifesto for slow communication," Freeman's article has stopped me in my tracks.  The same way I was made uncomfortable by In Pursuit of Elegance: Why the Best Ideas Have Something Missing by Matthew May, which I posted about earlier this month. 

Maybe Freeman's article serves as a stark reminder that I'm already shirking the responsibilities I'd taken on since reading May's book: I made clear resolutions to pare down the things I am involved in, eliminating the inessential, the base, the time-consuming but wasteful projects, in order to focus on what really matters.

I'd already slipped back into my old habits.  But Freeman has caught me up short.

Freeman's focus is on the dark side of our ability, thanks to technology, to communicate speedily with people--lots of people--around the world at breakneck speed.  He points out the loss that can occur when we are so focused on communicating with, literally, the world that we lose sight of what is at hand, around the corner, down the block, across the table, face to face.

When he talks of the importance of being aware of the physical world around us, he really hits home for me.  When he says "A butcher can tell you which cuts of meat are the freshest; an online grocer may not.  That same butcher, if he is good, might not just remember your preferences--which an online retailer can do frighteningly well--but ask you how your mother has been doing, whether you caught the latest football game.  These interactions remind us that we are more than consumers; they remind us that we are part of the world in a way no amount of online shopping ever will."

I suggest you read Freeman's manifesto if this hits home for you, too. 

I'll tell you what.  It inspired me to sit down and write Laurie a note of thanks.  On real paper, with a pen.  I've stamped the envelope and will mail it to her this afternoon. 

Back To School

Day after Labor Day.  Time to get your game face on.  It's that back to school itch, when we're all eager to get moving, get things happening, get on with it.

So the question is, just what is the "it" we want to make happen now?  What conversations are you having that are inspiring you to do more, to make a difference?

If you're not having such conversations, then I'd say you need a new group with whom to kibbitz.  If we are influenced by the people with whom we hang out (and we know we are.  Did you happen to see the study done recently of how much we're influenced to eat less or more, depending on who else is at the table and how much they are eating?) then you may want to assess your gang--socially and at work--and take a good look at whether they are influencing you to take the risks necessary to go to the next step, to get uncomfortable so you can move ahead...or helping you feel happily complacent where you are, satisfied with the status quo.

If it's the latter, then you need to change the conversation!  You might start by introducing topics that bump it up a notch with your current group.  If they resist the prodding to step up towards growth, then you may need to think about getting a new group.  Perhaps you've outgrown the conversation.  And if you can't change that, then change your venue, change your pals.

This is that kind of time.  When the very idea of starting over with a new sphere of influencers, seems daunting, think of it as the first day at a new school.  You're eager--and apprehensive--to see what's in store for you and what you can learn.  In other words, it's uncomfortable.

That's just as it should be.  Game on!

Buying Friends on Facebook and Twitter

Have you ever been at a corporate event where the CEO is talking to an audience of people you are convinced are only there because they have to be?...it's part of their job to show up and cheer on their leader?  Or how about those town halls that politicians hold, handpicking invitees they can count on to carry positive placards?  The events all seem staged.  Because they are.

That's the same box of phoniness into which I throw the latest news that you can buy Facebook and Twitter friends and fans.  Never mind that they may have never heard of you...until they were approached by the folks at uSocial, an Australian firm, which makes its money aggregating people who are paid to pose as your followers. 

C'mon, folks.  This isn't "community," for heaven's sake.  These are blatant efforts to create faux friends, pretend communities of fans, ersatz followers.

Perhaps it's brilliant, if it's true that human beings respond positively when they see "everyone else" doing something that they may then decide is something they should do, too.  Marketing folks may have found a home run tactic here.

Somehow, though, it doesn't appeal to me.  I want to know that if you're my friend, it's because you, well, like me.  And think enough of me and/or what I'm doing that you want to support me in the effort.  I like authentic conversation.  So I want authentic friends...and fans.

Who's Talking? Who's Shouting? Who's Listening?

I don't consider the current national blather confab over health care a debate.  I was a proud member of my high school debate team and we took delight in getting to--sometimes winning--the state tournament finals.  And I coached a high school debate team some years after graduating from college.  And they did win their state tournament.  So I know the rules of debate and trust me, they aren't being applied to this mess taking place in our so-called town hall meetings.

The rules of debating are designed to let each side have its opportunity to speak--and be listened to.  In fact, one of the most important skills one learns as a debater is that of listening.  Because if you don't carefully listen to the other side's argument, you can't get points in the "rebuttal" session, which requires that you take whatever points the other side has made, carefully set them forth and then (if you're good) effectively deflect them, show where they are wrong, and why your argument is superior.   It's often in the rebuttal process that the debate is won or lost.

One of the most effective practices in my high school debate education was the requirement that each of us on the team had to be prepared to argue either side of the debate.  We had to prepare arguments for both sides, not knowing to which side we would be appointed until just before the debate took place.  What a terrific experience to be forced to get inside both sides of a topic--and become convincing of your position regardless of which side you were on.  What it meant was that you found yourself realizing what was particularly strong (and also what was weak) about your own case, and vice versa.  Sometimes it even changed people's minds as to how they personally felt about the resolution being discussed.  

Such debate skills are lifelong learning skills.  If I had my way, it would be mandatory that we teach kids debating skills, as early as junior high.

Never have we needed those skills more.  And never has our civic discourse been so bereft of any semblance of structured debate.  Do you hear anyone listening when you view the health care town halls that have been captured on video? 

What about the internet?  At least you can't hear the screaming when you read blog posts.  But the proliferation of blogs, representing every possible aspect of the health care topic, makes the process of trying to educate one's self on a topic overwhelming.  Perhaps as we all get more practiced in using the internet, protocols will be established that will make true discussion more possible.

What about your workplace?  Does healthy debate take place there?  Do people enjoy verbal wrestling, attempting to find a mutually agreeable solution?  If not, how could you help instill that practice at your company?

Twittering With Glee

No doubt I am going to be proven so wrong about the soon-to-launch television series "Glee" and "Fringe" and the newly announced FOX strategy to open up the opportunity for twitter conversations between the shows' casts and crews and the growing fan base for the shows.  See yesterday's blog for my rant about how silly I thought it all is.

I'm reminded so often, though, that what I may think makes sense does not necessarily reflect the thinking of the world, let alone my fellow Americans.

So let's look again at this strategy for getting the "Glee" series to launch with an already established fan base.  Actually, the twittering bit is only a single aspect of a carefully charted, multi-level marketing and promotion strategy.  The cast and crew of the show have been on a summer tour of places like the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota (ye gods, have you ever been there? American consumerism at its worst, says I, but again I am reminded that lots and lots of other folks think it is a destination for an entire family vacation).  They were mobbed by awaiting fans. 

How did they already become fans of "Glee" when the series has not yet launched? All part of the strategy.  The first episode of "Glee" has already been shown in sort of sneak preview fashion, no less than four times, one of which was directly following FOX's wildly popular "American Idol" time slot. 

So call me crazy.  The cast of "Glee" is reported to be understandably excited about the exposure the show--and they--are getting thanks to FOX's putting so much marketing muscle behind this effort to entertain.

Will you be watching when "Glee" finally launches for real?

Should You Be Twittering Over Fox?

The media is full of chatter about FOX's announcement that it is teaming up with Twitter to create special lines of communication--basically tweets--between fans of two hit FOX shows ("Glee" and "Fringe") and members of the shows' casts and crews. 

If I were a fan of Glee and Fringe, maybe I'd see this as an important step forward in global communications.  But I've got my hands full as a major fan of "Mad Men" and "24" and "Damages" and get involved in any more television.  Period.  And as much as I love watching all three of these truly amazing series, I have no interest in twittering with Kiefer Sutherland, "24's" big star, or Glenn Close, the complex and brilliant lawyer of "Damages."

C'mon, folks.  Really?  I've always enjoyed going to the theatre on those special occasions where there is a chance to talk with the Director and/or actors after the show.  It's thrilling to hear from those who put a show together to hear their motivation, how they constructed the story line and characterization strategy.  In short, it's fascinating to go "behind the scenes" of the creative process when given the chance.  

But somehow twittering with these folks (and is it during the show, while I'm watching it?) doesn't sound like the same thing.  It sounds more like celeb-watching activity, which leaves me cold.

Yes, I know.  Just watch.  This will probably be a screamingly smart strategy and every show will follow suit. 

But count me out.  It sounds like superficial star-chat in the extreme.