HOW DO YOU SPEND YOUR DAY?

It’s been the subject of many SNL skits as well as Second City-like improvs.

Universal groans are heard when the topic comes up.

Parodies and typologies published in The Wall Street Journal and BloombergBusinessweek (among others) take the different personalities of meeting participants to task, whether their aim is sabotageor boredom relief.

It’s clear:  Nobody, but nobody likes a work meeting.  Ask researchers from the London School of Economics to Epson; most respondents have voted with their clicker:  At least 50 percent of all business get-togethers are wasted.

But we’re like John Wanamaker, head of the late eponymous Philadelphia department store, who cried about his advertising:  “I just don’t know which half works.”

Solutions are many, both serious and fun.  “Set a clear agenda” usually tops the list.  Another:  “Schedule a start and an end time – and stick to it.”  Others use a combination of carrot and stick to keep meetings on track, on time, on goal.

There are three remedies that, truth be told, work harder than any other tactic to drive results at group gatherings:

1. Use a VERY loud alarm clock, set to stop disruptions and to end meetings.
2. Don’t use chairs.  [You’ll be surprised how efficient your meetings become when folks are forced to stand.]
3. Finally, track the number of meeting hours against individual, group, and business priorities.  See how well you can connect outcomes to time. 

Watch what happens when you start to measure:    We’ll bet you and your colleagues will be spending your work time just a bit differently. 

PRINT IS THE NEW BLACK

I’m an offline junkie.

There, I’ve said it.  Do I feel better because I admitted it?

Sorta.  Oh, I – and my colleagues – have all the requisite e-tools, from iPad, Nook, and smart phones galore to the latest in ergonomic desk-etry.  And the curiosity to match, whether it’s technology or content that catches our eye.

Yet there’s something seductive about the package that print offers.  No, we’ve not been pumped by the magazine industry’s ads in trade publications about the Power of Print.  “The top 25 magazines reach a wider audience than the top 25 prime-time TV shows.”  Or:  “Readers spend an average of 43 minutes per issue.”

Facts, to be honest, don’t persuade.  What does turn our heads – and fingers – are the touch and feel of a Print piece in hand, the tactile sensation of flipping pages, for real, not with a clicker. 

That kind of connection matters inside companies.  When a print piece is delivered straight into cubicles and mailboxes and desks of employees around the world, recipients take note.  They pause.  Curl up.  Get comfortable and enjoy the read (unless it’s written in language so non-compelling and so peppered with isms from corporate/technical lands).  And we’ve been witness to that wonderful event. 

Now for the pushback.

1.  “Print costs too much.”  How about trying downloadable pdfs and jpegs for employees to print on the local photocopier? 
2. “We’ve got to be green aware.”  Let us ask this question:  How many emails and attachments do you think employees print, despite the plea to conserve the environment?

The objections continue. 

We will too:  Ever met a re-engineered business process taught solely online, minus visual handouts?  Or a new benefits program without charts and take-aways?  How many  times have you lost track of a Web site or video or ad you want to refer to? 

There is a place for everything, and everything in its place.  Every medium deserves our undivided attention, for all the right reasons.

TRUTH OR ... CONSEQUENCES

In past lives, many of my former colleagues and I* would have leaped at the chance when asked to validate a series of statements, chapters, or books.

Not any more, especially after Election 2012.  Bloggers and punsters, editors and opiners alike rushed to quick judgment about which party/candidate told the truth and which, fabricated.  “Right or not” became a cause célèbre as factcheck.orgs of all shapes and sizes weighed in.  Blue or red truth? trumpeted the headlines.  Both political parties blared Fiction! … and pointed fingers.  Posturing?  Yes, for many.  Yet many voters, in the millions, were simply seeking credulity and authenticity.

Regardless of the outcome, the facts didn’t matter.  Because facts, in and by themselves, were ­ not the prime determinant of the election.  A further surprise:  What did make a difference, psychological researchers insist, is the very complicated science of behaviors.  One study reveals that the more knowledgeable voters, those armed with the most facts, show more bias than those who knew less.  Another shows that people assume news is true (or not) simply based on which TV or radio station, newspaper or magazine, Web site or blogger reported it.

Why?  It has everything to do with emotions, the reasons we search for verification.  If I’m afraid or concerned or insecure, it’s doubly hard for me to wrap my mind around the facts. The truth matters less if I’m simply not prepared to accept it.  Cognitive dissonance, in part:  We ignore facts and science when they conflict with our practices (smoking, for instance).

At this point, the consequences from non-truths might not matter, depending on the specific cause and effect.  What this signals, initially, is that, as communicators and marketers, as designers and brand strategists, we all need to become a bit less fact-obsessed and a lot more emotion-driven as we set about to change minds and behaviors.

*Say it’s so:  My career began as an MSLS-wielding librarian.

AT OUR BEST: PERFORMING 101

There are certain times of the year that we’re delighted to be consultant-entrepreneurs.

The holidays, for one.  No, not because we miss the seasonal party [though we do get together with friends and clients].  Nor for the year-end bonuses and celebrations.

The reason we’re glad to be an LLC?  The much-loved, much-discussed (and yes, much-detested) performance review.

Today, companies claim they’ve solved the issues:  Employees demotivated, work disrupted, and difficult conversations either not implemented or executed poorly.  An all-too-infrequent focus on personal results and chemistry.  Little ongoing feedback.  Work relationships that, simply, don’t work.  And so on.

The solutions range from new software-in-the-cloud packages to performance review re-positioning.  For the former, software provider salesforce.com (among others) touts its social networking foundation, its combination of virtual and real rewards, and its ongoing tied-to-project employee goal-setting.  In re-positioning efforts, businesses of all shapes and sizes, in a variety of industries, completely do away with formal reviews (about 1 percent of those reporting, says the Corporate Executive Board) and/or institute year-round processes, i.e., not limited to specific months in the year.

Great ideas, one and all.  Yet what these and other solutions fail to consider is the relationship between manager and staff.  If there’s a lack of trust for the manager, for one, we know of few employees who will risk a job to tell the diplomatic truth.  Or if there are few chances for open communication, again, only a few will raise their hands and request time to talk.  Even anonymous peer-to-peer evaluations and 360° feedback can falter when candor is not appreciated. 

Driving high performance is, at its core, a contract between manager and employee; that’s the level at which work is accomplished.  It’s a form of communication, beginning way before onboarding, at the time of interviewing and, then, hiring.  When that trust and fundamental honesty are cemented, performance reviews become a matter of record, documents that exist to confirm that work is either being done well, not so well, not at all.  It’s the conversations that make the difference.

We know this is radical.  At the same time, communicators (and their allies, from HR to design) can have a major impact on driving performance, all in coaching for open dialogue.  How are we doing?