Booher BanterBusiness Communication Consultant

How much is too much?  How little is too little?  Information, that is.  Leaders are struggling to know what to pass on to their employees and what to hold close to the vest, as the old saying goes.  

T&D Journal recently reported on a study conducted by AchieveGlobal titled “Leading in Tough Times” that 52 percent of leaders say their frequency of communication about the economy has increased.  Thirty-eight percent report no change in the frequency, and nine percent have decreased communication.   

Two striking things stand out about this study:  1)  Of the 250 respondents on this survey, only 24 percent were vice presidents or senior executives.  Fully 46 percent of the respondents had only the title of “manager.”  That, in and of itself, may mean they lacked the appropriate information to pass on–and that their direct reports perceived what they heard as wishful thinking.  2) It may mean that these managers lacked skill in communicating.

Another intriquing fact (one that tends to underscore my earlier points) is that these leaders themselves did not judge themselves successful at instilling confidence in their employees.  Only 20 percent of these leaders thought that their communication was successful in answering questions and easing fears about job security and company stability.

One big issue noted:  Senior executives didn’t necessarily share information with middle managers and frontline supervisors who faced employees on a day-to-day basis.  Ah, the credibility issue when they answered questions, maybe?

So we’re back to the old adage I often preach:  The worse the news, the more effort that should go into communicating it.  Credibility is at stake.

Read the full article on page 20 of the June 2009 T+D magazine.

Share and Enjoy

Posted at 12:06pm in Communication—Interpersonal | Permalink | Add Comment » |

Attention members of the training industry!

Come visit me at the 2009 SHRM Annual Conference & Exposition – New Orleans, Louisiana, June 28 – July 1, 2009!

I’ll be speaking on Monday, June 29 and Tuesday, June 30 (4:00-5:15 p.m. both days).

I hope to see some of you in New Orleans!

Share and Enjoy

Posted at 9:17pm in General Communication | Permalink | Add Comment » |

With help from Twitter and YouTube, the youth of Iran struck a cord for freedom and took on the ayatollahs.   With phone lines cut and foreign journalists banished, protestors captured the words from their own signs, “Where’s my vote?” and uploaded them to the Internet.  They trusted friends, family, and colleagues to spread the word to the outside world about their struggle.

That’s week-old news.  But Peggy Noonan in her Wall Street Journal column this weekend (June 22) raises two interesting questions:   How would modern technology have changed the past, say, the Revolution, during the Terror?  What if word of the extreme violence and guillotines 1790-95 have “twittered” out?  Would that have affected the French support and the world’s support for the Revolution? 

The bigger and more intriquing question she raises is this:  How will modern technology affect the future?  Is it the enemy of tyranny?  And how will leaders of other countries around the world be able to “look the other way” when human rights are being violated in other countries and pretend they do not know about it?

And not to be too flippant about such a gravely serious situations, Noonan makes one suggestion:  If you intend to invent important new technology to be used in such noble and historical causes, don’t give it babyish names like Twitter, Google, Facebook, MySpace, Digg. 

She has a point. Those names served their companies well in infancy—drawing a crowd to a fun and novel idea.   Now that they have more noble and serious business applications, maybe they’ve outgrown their names.  (Okay, before all you marketing gurus come after me, I assure you that I know the value of a catchy company name and all that changing one entails.  Just food for thought here for those entrepreneurs in start-up mode.)

Check out Noonan’s complete article for a thoughtful discussion of whether U.S. leaders should or should not speak out on what’s happening in Iran.

Share and Enjoy

Posted at 2:18pm in Social Media Communication | Permalink | Add Comment » |

“Everybody’s house smells different,” Grant, my nine-year-old visitor said to me last Saturday.  “Logan’s house smells one way.  Brian’s house smells one way.  Yours smells a little bad today.”

Nothing like kids for candid feedback.  My husband had been repotting plants in the garage and had tracked fertilizer in through the patio area and utility room.  With the windows and doors closed, well, let’s just say Grant was right.  I immediately turned off the air conditioning system and opened a few windows for the rest of the day.

Ah, were it so easy to correct other flaws and habits.

But it might just be.

If we were aware of them.

Sure, many of us participate in 360° feedback processes in our organizations.  But those generally focus on complex issues involving our leadership style, management abilities, project management skills, interpersonal relationships, and so forth.

With so many tracks to cover in such broad areas, sometimes we fail to get feedback on the little things that people notice every day—things that annoy, confuse, or amuse people—simple things that we could easily and quickly correct.

So here’s my suggestion for feedback about your communication style and substance:  Ask a trusted colleague to give you candid feedback to some tough, specific questions.  (In fact, write them down so the colleague can give each some thought before answering.  Notice, too, that the questions are phrased so that the colleague can respond tactfully as he or she thinks “most people” see the situation.)

• Do I have any signature phrases, gestures, or tics?
• Is my facial expression more often pleasant/relaxed or angry/tense?
• Do I routinely “over answer” questions?
• Do you think my body language increases or diminishes my credibility when I speak?
• Do you think others see me as a positive or negative person because of my comments in group meetings?
• Do I organize my voice mails concisely?
• Do I organize my emails clearly?

Thank your colleague for their opinion and gift of candor.  Then decide if there’s anything you’d like to change to meet your personal goals.

Share and Enjoy

Posted at 3:09pm in Communication—Interpersonal, General Communication | Permalink | Add Comment » |

“You’re so critical,” one husband said to his wife after a long silence as they drove home from the party.  

Taken back, his wife asked, “What do you mean?”

“Well, I was just thinking that you’re so critical to our entire family.  I don’t know how the kids, or my parents, or any of us could get along without you.”

This conversation comes from Cracking the Communication Code, an excellent book by Dr. Emerson Eggerich on how couples can figure out what each is asking for with the words they use.

I remember a similar “discovery” discussion between my daughter and me several years ago.  It went something like this:

Lisa:  Why do you always refer to me as a child psychologist when you introduce me or write about me in one of your books?

Me:  What do you mean?

Lisa:  My master’s degree is called “Childhood Specialist.”

Me:   Well, I guess that’s why—I never remember the official title.  You have a psychology degree and you specialize in children.  Childhood Specialist is so vague—that could refer to a kindergarten teacher or a daycare worker or a babysitter.  I’m proud of you and want everybody to know you’re a well-educated psychologist.

Lisa:  Oh.  (She looked a little sheepish.)  I guess I should’ve asked a long time ago.

I can’t help wondering how many colleagues and neighbors would stay out of court if one or the other would ask—and listen—to the real meaning of the words and their context before interpreting the message.

How many business partnerships would continue peacefully rather than fracture if one or the other person would clarify exactly what the other wanted out of the deal rather than assume objectives and intent based on hastily spoken words, emails, or letters?  How many politicians would still be in office if given a chance to explain their meaning for a statement before the press grabbed it and garbled it?

Make “assume positive intent” a motto in your communication approach.  When the words seem contradictory, upsetting, confusing, or offensive, assume the other person has goodwill toward you.  Probe, listen, clarify, and ask for or provide information before drawing conclusions.  A relationship may depend on it.

Share and Enjoy

Posted at 11:20am in Communication—Interpersonal, General Communication | Permalink | Add Comment » |