Talking Things Further

false economy

While the BBC is trying desperately hard to keep up with the times, TIME Magazine writes, BBC3’s 33 year old head Danny Cohen counters the argumentation used to close his operation down: “Closing BBC 3 would be false economy. Channels don’t cost money – content does.”

Well said.

It made me think of the power-distance pyramid which explains how older generations make decisions over younger ones, completely ignoring where the true expertise lies. How can the typewriter generation, populated with people who hold their position and budget by virtue of age, make a decision over the internet generation, who know the medium intimately by virtue of experience?

smokers knew most

During the various change management programs we run for our clients, we often audit internal communications. How, where and when do employees get informed best, but more importantly; where do they exchange information?

It won't suprise many readers that informal conversations usually come back as being most effective and appreciated. Especially about operational procedures and changes...Oh, let's be fair, especially about management. And colleagues. Preferably during breaks with a cup of mojo, java, liquid asphalt, whatever term of endearment you have for your daily fix. Statistics tell us that 12 cups a day is standard coffee drinking procedure for those employees best informed. Yet there's one specific group that's even better informed than the coffee drinkers: the smokers of course.

But with all the increasing regulations that ban smoking, companies are seriously at risk of hindering their information flow, of alienating their best informed colleagues, of losing their pulse. Because you can already see the changes in behaviour. People grouping in the street in front of their office, come rain or shine. And people still trying within their office - at their increasing peril I might add. With the many ways they try to keep on smoking, they are also putting themselves out of reach....

Yet while smoking may be addictive, so is information. What will the employee's priority fix of the future be: coffee, a cigarette, corporate gossip? There was a time you could enjoy all-in-one. Well, no more. How does management reach out to those it's putting out of reach? And what will we as communications consultants recommend to bring both closer together again?

a road less taken

I am so very relieved, that every once in a while a report comes out, that has really refreshing observations and conclusions. Lots of reports are the outcome of a committee that should never have been called for, if you ask me. Let's not forget:

"you can search all your parks and your cities, you'll nowhere find statues for committees."

The reports, or articles, I'm always on the lookout for, concern the trials & tribulations of professional travelers. I'm a frequent traveler myself, my miles level certainly confirms that, and ofcourse both the efficiency and comfort interest me - certainly if they can be improved. I would think every professional traveler supports any new development that saves time, lessens interruptions, improves the food and expands the seat.

I have read of two reports lately where the analysis really took a new look at a problem as percieved by professional travelers:

One is about how we board an airplane. The most applied methods you may recognize: those who pay most go first (as if you want to spend as much time as you can in an airplane), then families with small children (as they need most time to settle in) and then the rest (which is therefore often called cattle class). What this research also found was the system of zones, where basically first the front (business class) and then from the back working forward the plane is filled. All you travelers know this. Now the novelty of this report; the most efficient and quickest way to board an airplane is from window to aisle. So regardless of row, the window seats go first, then followed by middle and aisle seats. Same airplane, same destination - just another way of looking at it.

The second is about how do we use our roads - or rather how we don't. Holland, with 16 million citizens and the size of, well it's small okay, is probably one of the most densely populated countries in the world. Believe it or not, we don't have to have traffic jams. According to this research I found, we only use 1.2% of our roads, rails and waterways effectively, and then mostly during rush hour. There are more than enough possibilities for more intensive use, if we are smart enough to change our habits, like living closer to work and to use available technology, like teleworking. But all our government (any coalition of the last few decades) ever considers is adding more asphalt to existing roads that are already hardly used.

Habits are hard to change, I know this. Even if reason and common sense inspire you otherwise. It's very hard to travel a road less taken, but its very refreshing too; the road's already there and the destination probably remains the same. So how much really do we need to change?

anonymous applications

I'm following a discussion about the thought of having people apply for a job without disclosing one's personal identity. The whole idea comes from trying to find ways for our immigrant population to get easier access to the labor market. It makes me wonder where the burden lies, with the employer, or the employee, to get over this hurdle.

In my profession, where creativity and having a feel for the ways of the world single you out, anonimity is actually a disqualifyer. Consultants need to have personality, as that has proven to be a main reason for clients to choose to work with you. Where you're from, where you've been and what you've seen are all immensely relevant. Is that only true for the right brained people of this world?

Could it really be true that people who so indispensably serve society with manual labor, because that is the majority we're talking about here, have a better chance if they're to remain unidentified until their first interview? I'm disagreeing, but may need to acknowledge it to be true. Must be another one of those battles over prejudice.

We've been trying to add a senior professional to our team, and we used a recruiter to help select such a rare breed of person. We received tens of resumes, and all had most excellent credentials on paper, but it turned out once we met them, I labeled them, unkindly I'll confess, as 'flatliners': people with good credentials, but no pulse. Suitable backgrounds and career paths, but on a personal level nothing to talk about. So much for all those professional qualifications. The point is, you need to meet people to make that call; a life on paper with your name on top, be it John Doe or Abd el Wahed or Mikki Piinkikola, really means very little.

Why is it so hard to accept the wonderful adage of 'sharing similarities and celebrating differences'. Companies hire people, often based on policies, but people work with people. And whether as an employer you put them behind a desk or a factory line, you'll want to surround yourself with people that interest you, hopefully because they're distinctive. And to be distinctive, you need to be in the room.

a paper trail, by email?

I remember precisely who gave this to me, but I don't know where it came from. I also know who I sent it to for inspiration, but I don't know where it's traveled. Meanwhile, it has come back to me from numerous angles. I think it's only befitting to share this in a blog, and to invite anyone to copy paste it into their correspondence.

P Please consider the environment before printing e-mail

a proper silence

Nancy Gibbs of Time Magazine opens her article in this week's issue with "A war over words yields heavy casualties when the subject is war itself". I won't be analysing the war; suffice it to say I believe in liberating a people from a dictator, I don't believe in imposed democracies.

I'd rather concentrate on the weight of words and how opinion makers and politicians create convenient truths. In that same article, American soldier Jessica Lynch is quoted saying "The truth is always more heroic than the hype". I find that such a powerful statement because she reminds us all of the importance of that elusive context, and thus putting all the burden on the choice of words when you talk about the war. That's a big responsibility for everyone who feels they need to publicly share their opinion.

I come from a country where it is said we have 16 million coaches. We do actually, because once our national football team plays, you'll not find a single citizen that won't have an opinion on how the appointed coach should do his job. And the coach is rarely right. Not until he finally makes us world champion anyway. But I am wavering.

What really bites in Nancy Gibbs' piece, is that she reminds us yet again that so many people are wagging the dog. For those of you who haven't seen the movie with the same name; before elections, a spin-doctor and a Hollywood producer join efforts to "fabricate" a war in order to cover-up a presidential sex scandal. One of their tactics is to pitch the denial of a rumour to media. This war isn't fabricated - or one could even argue about that. But this war is certainly marketed by those who have an interest in becoming the next president of The United States. This is their democratic right. I would only hope the next president knows the difference between the right to speak and the duty to listen. You have two ears and one mouth - use them in proportion.

It reminds me of a fraternity in Amsterdam that had to dissolve because it could no longer attract new members; it had reached its expiry date. Over time, their reason to bond, what defined their common interest had lost its meaning. But they wouldn't part ways without some ceremony. They called for their last meeting, and all remaining members got together into a room and under the supervision of their leader they didn't utter a word. Until one member was so overwhelmed, he calmly got up, looked at his president and asked: "Sir, can we please be silent about something else?"

the discomfort of convenience

You may know the saying “the more time you save, the less you have”. A good way to wrap your head around that contradiction is to introduce yourself to the convenience products in Sky Mall, an in-flight mail-order catalogue you’ll see on most flights to the US. In its pages you will find an invitation to bring order and comfort in your life.

It all starts with the storage systems for storage areas. With your “Heavy Lift Garage Elevator” you can sweep your floor of all whimsical tools, trinkets and toys that you bought over the years, but only ever used once, right? Congratulations, your garage is now restored back to its intended use. Time to celebrate all that reclaimed space with your first “Single Parking Stop Mat” (wouldn’t want to hit anything that’s no longer there) and a no-more-dings-from-bumping-things “Park ‘N Place Stoplight” (wouldn’t want to risk missing the mat you just bought).

Pat yourself on the back some more. You have just given yourself the feeling of “I have so much money, I can buy myself rich”. You deserve a rest. And you deserve a rest in style. Why not get yourself a “Voice Command Universal Remote Control” – wouldn’t want to miss any piece of hardware you have on standby – and park yourself on “The Superior Comfort Bed Lounger And Knee Pillow” – wouldn’t want just your bed to do the trick. Don’t forget to position “The Pet Staircase” close to your place of comfort – wouldn’t want to withhold your favorite feline friend the same bliss you just secured for yourself.

The catalogue is over 200 pages thick. Over-convenience has never been more accessible. And you can save lots of time so you can relax more. But you can also stop and think for a second how much energy it costs to produce things that aren't just stupid - they keep you stupid. But please, take your time.

Relax in comfort.

on facts and stories

I'm reading a book of a dutch now former correspondent who covered the middle east for five years. joris luyendijk is an arabist by education and a reporter by accident. In his book 'they resemble people' he looks back and seeks understanding for not only what he experienced, but more for how he reported on the region.

After five years he was still confused. which facts make for a good story? When he started out he joked to his friends: 'if the army's motto is see the world, meet interesting people and kill them, mine will be see the world, meet interesting people and report about them'. He wonders, time and time again why no one wants to hear what they don't know, and why editors only want repeated what they think they know. when you see a child on a garbage dump it's almost comfortable to confirm your prejudice on poverty.

But if you step up to the boy you'll hear a tale of pride, because he can carry his own, and would rather make money than sit in a cramped classroom where his teacher beats him and as a semi analfabetic can't keep up anyway. I'm sure his point his similar to what I see in my work helping multinationals exercise global communications and activate social responsibility.

There's enough research available that makes it clear that one standard doesn't always fit all. nor does one fact.

Daniel Pink in his 'a whole new mind' goes into the value of facts in today's information age. he says: 'today's facts are ubiquitous, nearly free and available at the speed of light...when facts become so widely available and instantly accesible, each one becomes less valuable. what begins to matter more is the ability to place these facts in context and to deliver them with emotional impact'.

How true.