First published nationally in the Business Journal Newspapers, September 2021

In the movie, Finding Forrester, Sean Connery plays an aging writer who mentors a high school prodigy. When the mentor discovers that the young man is dating a fellow student, he tells him, “The key to a woman’s heart is an unexpected gift at an unexpected time.” The next scene has the young lady opening a gift from her boyfriend and saying, “This is so unexpected!” The mentor’s advice actually aligns well with research on how to manage distributed teams.

A distributed team is one that works in different geographic locations; not officed all in the same building. The delicate nature of human communication—with its reliance on visual and auditory cues—makes leading and influencing distributed teams a unique challenge. Without the benefit of face-to-face communication, distributed teams are at higher risk of turn-over, poor innovative thinking, and lack of engagement. If there is one thing the pandemic has created, it is a massive shift toward a distributed team model; with some companies planning to make distance working a permanent part of their culture. But, to do so without planning on how to manage communication in this new environment can spell disaster.

Research has discovered that, to keep distributed teams connected, communication with team members must have two important elements. The communication must be frequent, and random. The human brain craves communication, but it must be genuine. And genuine communication is not planned, it happens when it happens. When communication is both frequent and random, it is a signal to the receiver that the other person cares. If you only hear from someone every now and then, or it only occurs at scheduled times, it doesn’t appear there is much care involved. Like the advice to the young suitor, if you want to show you care, your actions must be unexpected event at an unexpected time.

Most leaders would say, “Frequent and random doesn’t work in a business setting.” That is true. How do you surprise someone in the world of Zoom? Efficiency means you schedule a meeting so you can check in with everyone, and then get back to work. That certainly is efficient, but measure the time saved against the time wasted trying to fill positions that are vacated because your staff felt disengaged from the company. Or measure the effectiveness of tightly scheduled communication against lost productivity and poor creativity; all of which occurs when staff feels disconnected.

So, how do you engage in frequent, random communication when people don’t work in the same space. Ironically, you plan it. There is an old saying, Creativity is borne of structure. Leaders must plan random connections, without staff knowing that it was planned. To keep distributed teams engaged, leaders must recognize the importance of going beyond the information provided during communication, but whether the meeting did its job in connecting the workforce. The questions leaders should ask when planning engagement is, “How can I surprise my staff. And how often should I do it?” Regularly scheduled meetings are fine. Routine is necessary to provide a calming structure for the brain. But frequent and random connections are needed to keep the person connected to the group.

I had a couple of staff members who had been doing exceptional work for the company. When I told my co-director that I wanted to recognize them at a meeting, she said, “No. Send them each a surprise gift as a thank you.” She even directed that the gifts be specific to the person, based on their personal interests (reading, cosmetics, fishing, etc.). Because the gifts came as a surprise (random), the employees acted like they had just won the lottery. Communication doesn’t need to include a gift to engage your staff. If the communication is a surprise, and happens often enough, the communication is a gift in and of itself; especially if you talk about something other than work for a change.

Good leaders must plan to surprise their staff, and the surprises must occur more than once a year. So, the old sage’s advice can work for business could be changed to, “The key to a staff member’s heart is an unexpected gift at an unexpected time.”

Stevie Ray is a keynote speaker and trainer, bringing his program, “The Roadmap to Influence” to organizations nationwide. He can be reached at 952-500-9230 or stevie@stevierays.org.

First published nationwide in the Business Journal Newspapers, August 2021

Earlier this year, my wife and I needed to replace our dual wall oven because the old one decided to run 100 degrees off the temperature we selected. We like to support local businesses, so we bought from a family-owned company in our area. Getting a new oven is like getting a new car, you take every precaution not to spill anything on or in it, but you eventually forget to put a sheet pan under the lasagna dish and end up with a gooey mess at the bottom.

We set the upper oven to self-clean (you can’t do both ovens at once), and headed to the living room. Twenty minutes later we heard a loud noise like shattering glass. My wife said, “That sounded like the oven door glass breaking.” Sure enough, the glass had shattered into a thousand pieces. We called the store, and they said they would order new glass panels and get them installed. A day later, my wife said, “You know, our oven could have been made from a whole batch of bad glass. We should check the lower oven.” Once again, she was right, and the now the lower oven was filled with shattered glass.

The problem is not that we got an oven with defective glass doors. A reasonable consumer knows that defects will arise, and it is not the retailer’s fault. It is annoying, but as long as the manufacturer and the retailer fix the problem, that is the best anyone can do. The problem came with communication from the retailer. For each stage of the process—reporting the issue, determining a resolution, setting repair dates, and follow-up—we had to contact the store instead of the store contacting us. Days would go by without us knowing whether a replacement part had been ordered, knowing when to expect delivery, or when the repair would be made. When a technician did arrive, he said the wrong part had been ordered, and it they would have to start over. He promised to let us know when to expect the replacement part (for the replacement part), but days went by with no word. Again, we had to initiate communication with the store.

For the final e-mail, I did an internet search and found the president of the company. I included him in the e-mail to the store manager and the repair department, describing the break-down communication within his company. We eventually heard from a customer service rep, who apologized and said they were working to find a resolution. She promised to call back with any new information. It has been a few days, with still no word. I checked online reviews of this company and every complaint echoed the same sentiment; a lack of communication. On the review website, the company responded to each complaint with “We are so sorry…”

Customer-Initiated Communication

If the customer has to track you down to get the information they need, you have already failed. Most customers understand that things break and that issues will take time to resolve. They just don’t want to feel like they have been forgotten. Even if there is nothing to report, check in and let them know that you are still working on it.

Apologies Are Worthless

The old adage, it is easier to be forgiven than to be given permission is a lie. Family members appreciate apologies, customers do not. There are a number of great research articles on this phenomenon, check them out. And, if you find that your staff is having to apologize repeatedly for the same problem, the issues lies with management.

Who Does the Customer Hear From?

If I send a complaint to Amazon, I don’t expect a call from Jeff Bezos. But the customer only hears from a nameless, faceless, customer service rep, don’t expect to gain a loyal customer. I included the president of this retailer on the final e-mail for two reasons, 1) as a fellow business owner, I wanted him to know about an issue in his operation, 2) I wanted to see if he would step up or hide behind his staff. He chose the latter. The bigger the problem is, the higher up the ladder the customer expects to hear from.

Initiate the conversation so you can control it, and don’t let your staff be your shield.

Stevie Ray is a nationally recognized corporate speaker and trainer, helping companies improve communication skills, customer service, leadership, and team management.  He can be reached at www.stevierays.org or stevie@stevierays.org.

I have been a loyal customer of a few businesses over the years, and it is not because they charge less for their products or services, or because they do a better job than the competition. It is because they make me smarter. I contacted one recently, a heating contractor, about a furnace in one of my properties. The property is over twenty years old, and any furnace that is over two decades old is on its last legs. How do I know this? Because I Googled it. When I searched the internet, the first page stated an average of 16-20 years. And, like 92% of users of the internet, I didn’t look past the first page. Why bother? Everyone knows that the top of the first page is the most accurate. Except it is not. In fact, even the most trusted sources of information on the internet can be highly flawed. And the average user does not often know the difference. That is where you and your staff come in.

Research has shown that customers remain loyal to companies that are considered a trusted source of information. Researchers have confirmed that being considered an expert in your field within your marketplace is one of the best tools of marketing. But the key word is known. The customer doesn’t really care how much you know, they care about how much your knowledge can serve them. You cannot keep your knowledge to yourself.

Take the furnace company I referenced earlier. When I called about my elderly furnace, they could have just set up an appointment to sell me a new one, but I would have eventually discovered their trickery. Not only would they have lost me as a customer, but they would have lost everyone I could reach on social media and beyond (I have been known to hire a skywriter to voice my displeasure). Instead, the rep said, “I know the internet says your furnace might die, but I have seen furnaces that were 25 years old and still cooking. No need to panic. I have you in the system, so when the unit does go out, we can get you a new one in no time.” My trust in the company grew because, not only did they help me avoid spending money, but they gave me information which made me a smarter customer. Now, there is no way I will go to any other company.

I spoke to another company about a new oven my wife and I just bought (yeah, it’s been a year of failing appliances). When I spoke to the rep, I told her that the temperature in the oven was uneven. It would start out higher than the thermostat setting, and then drop lower. She was a pleasant rep, but she made two errors. First, she said I needed to leave the thermometer in the oven for about 30 minutes because it can take a while for the read to be correct. Second, should the temperature still be off, she kindly offered to e-mail me instructions on how to recalibrate the temperature settings.

After more research, I discovered that all ovens, even new ones, fluctuate during the first half hour of heating because they are adjusting to heating elements turning on and off. After 30 minutes, the temperature in the oven evens out. Had she told me that, she would have had a much calmer customer, and one that would trust her more in the future. She gave me one bit of information, but didn’t fully educate me on the issue.

The second error came when she offered to e-mail me instructions on recalibrating the oven. I said, “No thanks. I am sure there is a YouTube video that shows how to do it.” She agreed, and that was that. She should have said, “You are probably right, but let me send you the e-mail anyway. You never know if the information you are getting is correct, and I want to save you the time of searching for it.” The truth is, my YouTube search turned up no results.

In every contact, make sure that your company is the source of information for your customer. Information makes for a happy customer, and a loyal one.

Stevie Ray is a nationally recognized corporate speaker and trainer, helping companies improve communication skills, customer service, leadership, and team management.  He can be reached at www.stevierays.org or stevie@stevierays.org.

By Stevie Ray

First published in the Business Journal Newspapers

December, 2020

“I am so sorry. We have been experiencing an extremely high volume of business.” Those were the first words I heard from a mortgage company I am using to refinance properties that I own. I had contacted them in early October, seeking to take advantage of dropping interest rates. It was now December, with no closing in sight. This meant I would pay another month of the original mortgage, costing me a lot of money. I sent an email to my broker, detailing how much capital their mistake had cost me. He kicked the matter up to his boss, who assigned someone else to resolve the issue. This person apologized, offered an excuse for the delay, and promised to finish the refinance quickly. After another missed deadline, I contacted my original broker again. This time I said that, since their company caused the delay, they should discount their fee to accommodate for my loss. He agreed. I am still waiting for a closing date.

Jump now to a take-out noodle restaurant. My wife and I ordered online for pick-up at the store. When we get home, my wife’s dish was not what she ordered. She called the restaurant, and the young man said, “Oh yeah. Sorry, we’ve been really busy. Your order is right here if you want to come and pick it up.” She drove back to the restaurant, where they handed her the correct order. Nothing else.

What do a mortgage company, a noodle shop, and most businesses, have in common? A keen focus on attracting new customers, and a poor job of keeping them. Millions of dollars are wasted on advertising to get customers in the door because front-line staff are not trained in how to keep them.

When Gordon Bethune took over Continental Airlines in the early ‘90s, the company was the worst in the airline industry. Two trips to bankruptcy court, a revolving door of CEOs, lagging sales, and appalling passenger satisfaction ratings meant he was in for a long, hard job getting the company back on track (yes, I used a train metaphor for an airline). Within one year, the company was not only profitable, but rated as the top in the airline industry.

Bethune made some smart business decisions, such as cancelling unprofitable routes, but the change he made that caused the greatest impact (and got the greatest push-back from his peers), was to trust the front-line staff to handle customer service issues, and to give them the power to do whatever it took to please the customer. If a passenger had a bad experience, whoever had contact with that person—flight attendant, gate attendant, ticket clerk—not only had permission to make things right, but they also had the tools to do so—whether it was an upgrade to first class, a free meal, or free airline miles. Other business leaders told Bethune that front-line staff could not be trusted to handle delicate customer service issues, and “they would give away the farm.” To the contrary, staff at Continental respected the need for the company to make a profit. In fact, they discovered that most upset passengers were satisfied with a free ice cream cone from the food court. Just like a free rice-cereal treat from the noodle ship would have been enough for my wife. Tiny costs can reap huge payoffs.

When I speak with front-line staff at workshops or conferences about customer service issues they say, “It’s not our fault,” and “What are we supposed to do about it?” These attitudes point to a failing of training, as well as management. The fix involves simple rules.

Rule 1: Whoever deals with a customer must be empowered to fix the problem.

Rule 2: Never give the customer a reason or excuse for your failure.

Rule 3: Never let a mistake go by without offering something to make up for it. Create a list of possible amends for staff to refer to when needed.

Rule 4: If the customer must tell you how to make things right, you have failed at your job, and you should not expect to see that customer again.

Trust your front-line staff to solve customer problems. Otherwise, you will spend a lot more money to find new patrons.

Stevie Ray is a nationally recognized corporate speaker and trainer, helping companies improve communication skills, customer service, leadership, and team management.  He can be reached at www.stevierays.org or stevie@stevierays.org.

“What is it you want your people to do better?” I pose this question to every client as I prepare for a workshop. This time, I was speaking to, Hank, an executive at 3M. He was driving an initiative to improve innovative thinking and shorten the time between idea and implementation. Hank didn’t hesitate to answer, “Focus! In order to work together and create new ideas, we have to get all of our minds centered on an issue, but I can’t get them to stop looking at their blasted laptops or phones. Everyone is so distracted, we can’t get anything done.” When I first started hearing about this problem from clients a number of years ago, the solution seemed easy; just make a rule that all digital devices must be turned off during meetings. But, even with such rules in place, the ability to focus among modern humans has diminished to the point where our mental productivity is tragically hampered.

Too many people have fooled themselves into thinking that they can multi-task and still be effective; effective listeners, effective thinkers, and effective problem solvers. The truth is, multi-tasking is a myth; and neuroscience proves it. The part of the brain that conducts our high-level thinkin’—the cerebral cortex—is a sequential organism. It can only handle one task at a time. Yes, it can switch from one thought to another quickly, depending on the individual, but it cannot effectively hold two thoughts at once. To attempt to do so is a self-defeating exercise. And, in order to be at our mental best, we need complete focus. We need what the Japanese call kime (“kee-may”), or focus. As in many Asian disciplines, the ability to focus on a single task is paramount. The tuning out of all distractions allows for mastery of one’s discipline. An old martial arts saying is, “He who chases two rabbits, gets no dinner.” The lesson is often illustrated in the following story.

Kiyohisa, a martial arts master in Japan, once took one of his students to attend a Noh Theatre performance. Noh is a form of classical musical drama that began in 14^th century Japan. As in many Asian disciplines, Noh has masters and apprentices. Since Kiyohisa was a master in his discipline, he was eager to see Hideto, a well-known master of Noh Theatre, employ his craft. During the performance, while Kiyohisa’s young student was entertained by the play, Kiyohisa kept his eyes rivetted on Hideto. He marveled at the intensity of Hideto’s performance. When the performance ended, the young student asked his master what he thought of the play. Kiyohisa responded, “It was excellent. Hideto had superb kime; he only lost it once. I believe he was distracted by a gentleman in the front row.” Since Kiyohisa was well known, he and his student were invited backstage to meet Hideto. Kiyohisa said, “Your performance was a pleasure to watch!” Hideto responded, “I was mostly satisfied with it as well. I only broke kime once. I was distracted by a man in the front row. I must work to keep better focus next time.” Being students of different arts did not change how each valued focus, and its importance in mastery.

It is easy to see how a lack of focus can be dangerous in disciplines that may cause injury. Even a single second of distraction can be hazardous. But, the dangers of a lack of focus extend beyond getting punched during a sparring match. Examine those who are the best at what they do, and you will discover that they all share a common approach; to do their best work, they create environments in which all distractions are removed. From artists and writers, to accountants and mechanics; focus marks the difference between average and excellent. Dalton Trumbo, one of the most celebrated writers in US history, would lock himself in the bathroom and sit in a tub of water while writing. Some considered his demand for absolute solitude selfish or eccentric, but those people didn’t write Roman Holiday or Spartacus.

My profession, improvisation, also values focus. One of the classic Eight Rules of Improvisation is Listen, Watch, and Concentrate. This rule demands that all members of a team pay as much attention to the action as they would want on their own behalf. This may sound like a simple rule, but it goes beyond just telling people to pay attention to what is going on. Working together effectively isn’t simply a matter of taking turns, it is realizing that the other person cannot do his or her best work without the complete focus of the team. Anyone knows this who has given a presentation to a roomful of people who are mentally elsewhere. Theatre professionals are taught, If you break focus during a performance, every other actor onstage is forced to break focus until you get back into character.

Sadly, Americans’ ability to focus is getting worse by the day. I watch meetings where people glance at their phones every other minute. Some people have laptops open and are scanning multiple pages at once during a presentation. The onslaught of social media has fooled our brains into thinking we are receiving input, when all we are really getting is neural stimulation. And the need for constant stimulation has destroyed our ability to focus on a single conversation, line or thought, or workplace issue, for more than a few minutes. As a result, we check texts and e-mail at times when our focus should be elsewhere. We justify our lack of focus by telling ourselves that we must remain connected so as not to miss important calls. Yes, some clients need to hear from us right away, but the majority of time spent scanning screens and clicking phones is not only unnecessary, it is counter-productive. You know how you blame other drivers for dangerous habits on the road, when you pull the same stunts? People do the same with distractions. They hate it when people don’t pay attention when they are speaking at a meeting, but allow themselves those same distractions by labeling them necessary.

How hard is it to keep focus? In the course of writing this column, I switched to the e-mail screen four times, silenced a cell phone calendar alert, ran to the living room to see what the dogs were barking at, and called a company member to discuss an upcoming workshop. (Physician, heal thyself.) To my credit, however, when I am speaking with a client, I physically turn away from the computer. I sometimes go so far as to close my eyes so there are no visual distractions that could break my kime.

The next time you think you can multi-task, remind yourself that your brain can’t do it any better than the other 7.7 billion brains on the planet. And, your lack of focus hurts more than just you, it forces everyone else out of character. Chase one rabbit, and you’ll get dinner.

Stevie Ray is a nationally recognized corporate speaker and trainer, helping companies improve communication skills, customer service, leadership, and team management.  He can be reached at www.stevierays.org or stevie@stevierays.org.

If I am in the right mood, listening to easy-listening jazz is fine. If I have been on hold for fifty-seven minutes waiting for customer service, easy-listening isn’t easy to listen to. It struck me that, when I first called Big Behemoth Communications to help my aging parents switch their internet and cable service, my call was answered tout de suite (or, as we Americans mispronounce it, “toot sweet”). That was because I was buying their service. Now, however, I was calling to report a problem, and the response was trés lent (no, I don’t speak French). But the problem with the call wasn’t the speed of response, it was the response itself.

When I first called Big Behemoth, they were anxious to get my parents to agree to a two-year service plan; so much so that they offered a free computer tablet if we signed up that day. The agreement was signed, the equipment was installed, and my parents were back to watching Shark Tank and e-mailing the grandkids. A few days later, they received an e-mail that stated that, in order to receive the free tablet, they had to go the Big Behemoth website and enter a ten-digit account number. Their account number was only nine digits. I was positive that a quick phone call would solve the problem, but I was quickly informed that, in order to receive the free tablet, we needed to add cell phone service to the package. When I explained that I was told that the service we purchased included the tablet, the guy said, “I am in sales, not customer service.” I was quickly forwarded to customer service.

I explained the problem to the young lady in customer service and she said she was very sorry about the mix-up. (Ever notice that you don’t feel any better after a customer service rep apologizes for the inconvenience. It is because you would rather they used the time spent apologizing to fix the problem.) She informed me that the free-tablet program had concluded months earlier, and that the first salesperson I worked with should have never promised the gift. I informed her that it wasn’t my concern as to the dates of their promotion; I was told something by a representative of their organization, and they either needed to honor the agreement or make some kind of compensation. “I’m sorry sir,” she said. “There is nothing more we can do.” I said, “You know, if you buy a car and give the dealership a check, you expect to either get the car, or to get your money back. You are telling me that I am not getting either.” “I’m sorry sir,” she said. “There is nothing more we can do.” I informed her that the company’s revenue for 2017 topped $160 billion. That’s billion, with a “B.” They can get a deal on a computer tablet for around $100.

When I asked to speak to her supervisor, she said that she was the manager, and there was no one else I could talk to. I assured her that, unless she owned Big Behemoth Communications, she did indeed have someone above her. After an extended back-and-forth over whether there was indeed someone who signed her checks, and who might care about honoring the company’s offer, I was transferred to the Customer Experience Department. I didn’t ask about the difference between the customer service and customer experience departments, I was just happy to speak to someone else.

When the customer experience rep heard my story, she was appalled. She promised to get to the bottom of it. She was going to review the tapes of all my phone calls with them. Remember those “this call may be recorded for training and quality assurance purposes” messages you hear? Maybe, for once, those tapes would come in handy. I was told to wait ten working days for a response. That was over a month ago.

I didn’t tell you this story to get a “woe is you” response. If you haven’t had a phone call like this yourself, you live in Antarctica. I relate the story because of one statement throughout the interactions that stuck with me; when the employee said, “I am in sales, not customer service.” I have hundreds of business leaders tell their staff, “No matter what you do for the company, we are all in the business of customer service,” but I almost never hear the leader say, “You are each empowered to take whatever steps necessary to solve the problem.” What good is it to admonish staff to all consider themselves customer service professionals if the only thing they can do is shuffle the customer to someone else?

Successful companies train their employees to treat the rule book as a guide, not a set of handcuffs. Well trained employees are taught to be creative, not reactive; to use their brains, not the policy book. And, if employees are trusted to safeguard the assets of the company, they know to start with sensible solutions that won’t break the bank, but will still please the customer. In every instance where employees refuse to budge from the rules, you can trace the problem back to a situation where they landed in hot water for thinking and acting for themselves. In the end, the problem can usually be traced to bad leadership. It starts with taking a long look at exactly what each employee can do to solve a problem without relying on the customer experience department. Frankly, if a customer needs to speak to the Customer Experience Department, it’s too late.

Stevie Ray is a nationally recognized corporate speaker and trainer, helping companies improve communication skills, customer service, leadership, and team management.  He can be reached at www.stevierays.org or stevie@stevierays.org.

I was participating in a workshop with the late Paul Sills many years ago. You don’t likely know his name, but Sills is one of the founders of The Second City in Chicago. Second City is known for sketch and improvisational comedy, and is the birthplace of such stars as Bill Murray, Gilda Radner, and Dan Aykroyd. Improvisation is a skill that is becoming widely recognized as an important tool for communication in the business world, and I was eager to learn from one of the masters. Sills was known for being a bit cranky (I am being kind, here), so our group of sixteen improv professionals from around the country were prepared to be taken down a peg or two at his hand.

During one exercise, two participants were engaged in a conversation in which they had to resolve an issue, but they could not talk directly about the issue. As the rest of us observed the exercise, we thought they were doing a good job, but halfway into the exercise Sills stood up and walked up to one of the men and said, “Are you aware of the fact that we can see you?” This took us aback. We were so focused on the challenge of the exercise that we forgot that the underlying goal of any communication is to capture and hold the attention of the audience/listener. Sills had another pair try the exercise, reminding them that, in order to hold an audience’s attention, they had to move around. Halfway through this attempt, during which neither person moved more than a few times, Sills lost his patience. He stood up and yelled, “Move. Move. Look at ballet dancers, they never run out of goddam moves!” It sometimes took a minute to figure out what Sills meant, but it somehow made sense.

What does this have to do with business? A lot. All communication—whether it is two people sitting across a desk, a pitch in a small meeting room, or a major presentation in a conference ballroom—demands movement on the part of the presenter. The reason physical movement is necessary boils down to basic neurology. The visual cortex of the human brain evolved long before the auditory cortex; it is much larger and more efficient at gathering and evaluating input. Essentially, the brain is wired to see much better than it is to hear. If you only stand and speak, you are relying on the lesser efficient part of the listener’s brain to do the work. And the more work you ask the brain to perform, the quicker it will shut down.

To illustrate this point for my corporate clients, I play a game that I encourage you to try. I stand in front of the group and tell them that I will attempt to deliver a message. For the first attempt, I will not move at all. I will keep my hands at my sides and use only words. I ask the group to raise their hands when they first start to feel they are losing focus; that it is hard to listen to me speak. When I speak without physical movement, it only takes 15-20 seconds before their hands go up. And I am not talking about a few mentally restless audience members; with few exceptions, every hand in the room goes up at the same time. Human brains are pretty much wired the same.

Then I try a second attempt, but I add gestures. For instance, when I refer to something important, I make an accompanying gesture. If I refer to eye contact, I gesture slightly to my eyes. If I refer to the idea of two-person communication, I make a gesture that connotes back-and-back movement. By adding gestures to the presentation, I am able to deliver the same message and keep the audience’s attention. The surprising thing is, I use the exact same wording in both attempts. The only difference is, in the second attempt, I access the part of the brain that is more efficient; the visual cortex.

It is important to note that gestures demand a specific requirement; they must be a visual representation of the idea, not just random movements. Random movements are not gestures. We have all seen people who just move their hands around when they talk. This movement is not a gesture because it does not refer to a specific idea. Random movement is unconscious, and distracting. Random movement quickly becomes annoying for the listener to watch.

When working with executives to improve their presentation skills, I often add gestures to their script. If they are referring to an issue that has global implications, we will note that a wide gesture of some kind is needed. It doesn’t matter which gesture you use, as long as it visually represents the idea. In fact, I encourage people to avoid using the same gesture for a given concept too often; doing so can dull your skills. And you don’t use the same size gesture in every situation. Naturally, you wouldn’t make the same sweeping movement at a dinner table that you would in front of an audience of 500 people. Also, gestures should be used only for important ideas throughout a presentation. Too much gesturing is just as bad as too little.

If you observe people having day-to-day conversations, you will see that gestures are a natural function of communication. So, why is it that people stand stock still like mannequins during a formal presentation? Many reasons. One is nervousness. Humans don’t learn communication skills in a presentation environment. We learn to communicate in close-knit family and social situations. Standing in front of group isn’t natural for people, so it takes practice to bring your genuine self to an un-genuine environment. Another reason is gender. Because the communication system in the female brain is spread through the entire brain system, whereas the male brain has more of a central communication core, women tend to use their hands more when they speak. This isn’t a good or a bad thing, it is just one of the many differences between the sexes. Finally, our natural social mentality causes a mirroring between speaker and audience. Humans tend to blend into their social group, matching vocal dialect, physicality, and such. Since no one else in the room is gesturing during the presentation, it puts pressure on the speaker to do likewise. However, given the impact that movement and gestures have on peoples’ ability to listen and retain a message, the benefits of becoming adept at movement certainly outweigh the fears that must be overcome. Remember, we can see you.

A major obstacle in using gestures lies in voice-to-voice communication; on the telephone. If you want to access the same benefits of using gestures when people can’t see you, look at the video that accompanies this column on the Business Journal website.

Stevie Ray is a nationally recognized corporate speaker and trainer, helping companies improve communication skills, customer service, leadership, and team management.  He can be reached at www.stevierays.org or stevie@stevierays.org.

It is 1918. It is three years into World War I. The armies of France, the United Kingdom, Russia, the United States, and ten other countries are battling the Central Powers; led by the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire. The four-year battle was known as a war of attrition, owing to the central strategy of both sides of the conflict; outlast the enemy by making your opponents use more resources than they can afford to lose. Each side knew the number of soldiers they could enlist and train per year. Strategies were based on whether a tactic would exhaust the enemy’s weapons, ammunition, and manpower beyond their ability to replenish. The war became one of digging trenches and conducting head-on assaults on enemy positions.

World War I used what is known as the Assault Doctrine. Twelve-man rifle squads were divided into a squad leader, two scouts, a four-man fire section, and a five-man maneuver-and-assault section. This strategy allowed for locating the enemy, flanking him, and attacking under the safety of cover fire. Given that all combatants of the war were closely matched in warfare technology, however, a soldier’s only real chance for survival was to be drafted late into the war.

It is 1944. The Second World War has another year before a conflict that killed 85 million people and devastated 30 countries will end. At the beginning of WWII, the Assault Doctrine from the previous war was put into place. But, whereas WWI was fought across open fields, WWII was fought town to town, through thick hedgerows, and in ever-changing terrain. In World War I, a platoon leader could effectively guide his men to their greatest effect. In WWI, however, when a platoon was engaged in a firefight, the platoon leader found it nearly impossible to control the actions of his soldiers. WWII was also the first time an air force was used with decisive outcomes. It was also the first war to involved armored divisions and tanks to support ground troops. It wasn’t until the old tactics of WWI were abandoned that victory was achieved.

The Korean War, also known as The Forgotten War, lasted from 1950-1953. In Korean, virtually none of the military strategies developed in WWII could be brought to bear. The same held true of almost every military strategy in the wars to follow; Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia. Leaders at the Pentagon claim that the greatest hindrance to victory is that America is always refighting the last war; using tactics that were effective only in a previous environment. And America is not the only country to face this challenge. It is only when military and political leaders have taken a step back and changed the rules and reinvented themselves, that victory was possible.

Presidential elections have also succeeded or failed based on a party’s ability to recognize if they were refighting the last war. Nixon wasn’t nearly as adept as Kennedy at using television to his advantage. Regardless of your politics, you have to admit that Kennedy had a face for TV, while Nixon had a face for radio. Kennedy certainly wasn’t the first president to appear on TV (that distinction belongs to Franklin Roosevelt), but Kennedy was the first to master the medium. Obama is considered the first president to master social media to gain political advantage. Trump and Twitter? Enough said. It always seems that presidential elections follow the same, predictable path until someone decides that they aren’t going to fight the current battle using tactics from the previous war.

Of course, the outcome of wars or political battles is far more complicated that the tactics I have listed, but it is surprising how often the answer to “why did we win?” or “why did we lose?” boils down to one simple element; the other side didn’t rely on yesterday’s strategies. But, even after the lessons learned over hundreds of years, trying a new strategy seems outside the capabilities or will of most of us. With all that is at stake in a war or a political fight, you can bet that any time someone suggested a strategy that was a bit out there, there were plenty of people who panicked; who said, “But the old way worked just fine.” It is precisely because there is so much as stake that old methods must be put under scrutiny. Mistake in war cost lives, mistakes in business cost livelihoods, so no strategy deserves blind trust. To follow old strategies simply because they are familiar is not only foolish, it is costly.

I personally experienced this mindset when I was asked to conduct a workshop for political strategists in Washington, DC. Because I teach communication skills, presentation, and the art of persuasion, it seemed a perfect match for those in public life. The workshop was a great success, with participants leaving saying that the new techniques I introduced were refreshing, as well as in line with the needs of their profession. My sales manager, who had arranged the workshop, scheduled many follow-up meetings; excited at the prospect of a calendar full of booking. When he called me the following week, I expected to hear great news. When I asked how the meetings went, he said, “Everyone loved you, but no one will hire you.” He explained, “They all said the same thing. They said your ideas are spot-on, but they are too new; too out of the ordinary. I was told by every attendee, ‘You will never go broke in DC by telling a candidate to wear the blue suit, white shirt, and matching tie.’ These people are more concerned about keeping their jobs than doing a better job.”

I wasn’t terribly disappointed, I wasn’t thrilled about DC anyway. What did disappoint me was the realization that the very people who should be the most interested in learning new ways of doing things are the most resistant to change. I suppose I was a bit naïve to expect otherwise, but we can all dream, can’t we? It is a wise business leader who examines the tactics of today and asks, “Am I refighting the last war?”

Stevie Ray is a nationally recognized corporate speaker and trainer, helping companies improve communication skills, customer service, leadership, and team management.  He can be reached at www.stevierays.org or stevie@stevierays.org.

During a recent workshop, I was having a lively discussion with managers from various companies about how they navigate the emotional states of their employees. It is no secret that managers can play the role of therapist as often as they play the role of boss. In the old days, managers used to assume that employees left their personal issues out of the picture and just did their jobs. The truth is, it is impossible for people to be productive unless their heart is in the work. Sure, you can push through for a while, but if your emotional state is in the dumps, the outcome will be marginal and uninspired. So understanding how emotions affect decision making, cooperation, innovative thinking, and cognitive function is good information for any professional.

It was a nice coincidence that I had just finished reading a book on the subject. I volunteer recording books on tape for the blind, which means I am exposed to many books I would not otherwise read. And, since I select only from the non-fiction options, very often the books I record turn out to be great tools for a business owner such as myself. The most recent book was How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain. The author, Lisa Feldman Barrett, discussed research that suggests that people don’t react emotionally as we once assumed. Without getting too deep into details, most emotions are not the result of the brain reacting to a situation. Instead, the brain predicts which emotion will be appropriate for the situation, and then corrects its emotional state based on input that follows. The trouble with this process is, once the brain makes its emotional prediction, it is hard for it to change course based on new input. Essentially, once we are angry, we stay angry even if we discover there is no reason to be.

Because our brains can so easily go down the wrong emotional path, and it is so difficult to course-correct once they do, Barrett advises people to increase their emotional granularity. Emotional granularity is the ability to make distinctions between different emotional states. Since different emotions can have different causes, knowing exactly which emotion you are experiencing can help you avoid being an emotional puppet on a string. So, instead of just “being mad,” are you frustrated (caused by repeated failure to achieve a goal)? Disappointed (caused by a positive experience being denied)? Resentful (belief that someone else is the cause of your problem)? Or angry (caused by a value of yours not being respected). All these emotional states are unpleasant, but they are not at all the same, and each needs a different approach to find a resolution. By the same token, there is a difference between feeling elated, joyful, relieved, or giddy. These are all pleasant emotions, but caused by different experiences.

Note that I used the words pleasant and unpleasant instead of positive and negative when referring to the emotions above. If you consider emotions positive or negative, you limit your ability to manage a situation. While some emotional states might feel unpleasant, they are still part of the Ying-Yang balancing act of the brain. All emotions, pleasant and unpleasant, are necessary to a functioning brain. An emotional only has a negative impact if it is too prolonged, or causes a person to engage in unhealthy behavior. Managers who are uncomfortable dealing with unpleasant emotions are more likely to try to suppress them in others. This often leads to the other person feeling even worse, and not connecting well with that manager in the future.

So what does all this have to do with business? A lot. The more research that is conducted on the brain, especially in the field of decision making, the more we realize that humans make almost every decision based on emotion. This fact has been known, and employed by, sales professionals for hundreds of years. And the marketing industry follows the axiom, people buy with emotion and justify with fact. But emotional states guide much more of the brain’s processing that just buying a car or choosing a movie to watch. Emotions affect teamwork, customer satisfaction, manager-employee relationships, and employee retention. A brain’s emotional state affects its executive function (decision making, planning, and negotiating), and creative thinking. Understanding how the brain constructs emotions as a result of its perception of the world is crucial to managing people, not just selling to them.

Customers report higher satisfaction when a service rep “really seems to understand my problem.” This can’t happen if a service rep lumps every disgruntled customer into the Upset column. If I call a company help line and hear, “We’re so sorry for the inconvenience,” I don’t feel heard, I feel patronized. Sometimes I am inconvenienced, other times I feel frustrated, or frightened, or disappointed. If the language of the person serving me reflected that they really knew how I felt, my loyalty to that company would grow. Beyond customer service, when people feel that others really understand them, they work better together and remain part of a team longer.

If managers and business leaders developed a higher degree of emotional granularity in their own lives, they would have a better command over situations and employees. As with any situation, you can’t develop a good resolution until you have accurately defined it. And getting to the heart of someone’s emotional state helps avoid offering the wrong solution. In the future, when you feel an emotion, put a specific label on it. Go beyond happy and sad. Increase your emotional granularity (you might want to use Thesaurus.com) and expand your emotional horizons.

Instead of fearing unpleasant emotional states at work, fearing emotions all together, or lumping good and bad emotions into one big lump; accurately identifying emotions, and getting to the real cause, is a great first step to using the emotional brain we all have to work better together.

Stevie Ray is a nationally recognized corporate speaker and trainer, helping companies improve communication skills, customer service, leadership, and team management.  He can be reached at www.stevierays.org or stevie@stevierays.org.

Jeanine approached me with an interesting question after a workshop I conducted about professional networking. “I am always really interested in what other people have to say about themselves,” she said, “but I never know when it is okay to interrupt them to ask a question. For instance, if someone is talking about her family, I want to ask about the kids, but they haven’t stopped talking yet. I don’t want to be rude by interrupting, but I don’t want to forget my question, either.” I appreciated Jeanine’s question, not just because maintaining a good flow of conversation is crucial to professional networking, but also because she was being consciously aware of her behavior while networking; and weighing its impact on the outcome of the interaction. This is a far cry from some people I have observed, who bowl through conversations with no more thought about what comes out of their mouths than a five-year-old.

“Conversation,” I said, “especially in a professional setting, is like a game of catch.” When two kids toss a ball back and forth, there is an unwritten rule. Only throw the ball when the other kid is ready to catch it. And you only get the ball back when he is ready to throw it. While playing catch, the most important goal is to keep the ball from hitting the ground. If one kid throws the ball too far, it flies past the other kid and the game has to stop. The worst thing is having a game of catch that builds up a nice rhythm, only to have it come to a halt while one kid has to run to pick up the ball. The same is true of conversation. We have all been networking, and everything seems to be going fine when, thud, the ball hits the ground. Because networking conversations carry greater implications, dropping the ball is even more stressful for everyone involved.

I told Jeanine, “Before you interrupt someone, ask yourself if having the ball is worth taking it out of someone else’s hands.” Interrupting is the same as running over and yanking the ball out of another kids hands. The reason you didn’t have the ball in the first place is because they weren’t ready to throw it to you. Whatever reason you have for wanting the ball is never as important as the other person’s reason for wanting it.

I was at a networking event and asked a guy how he ended up in his current profession. His education began as a music major in college, which was a far cry from the consulting work he did for a living. I was curious about which musical instrument he studied, but he was still talking. And the point of his story was not about the instrument he studied, but about the circuitous route he took throughout his career. If I had interrupted to ask about his instrument of choice, I would have yanked the ball right out of his hands. I would have gotten the answer to my question, but ruined the game. So I waited, keeping my question in the back of my mind, but also realizing that, if we never got around to my question, it wouldn’t have mattered anyway. After I listened until the end of his story, I was not only able to circle back to my question about his musical training, but because I truly listened, I was able to dig even more into his professional career.

“Beyond that,” I told Jeanine, “don’t overthink the conversation.” Given the delicate dance that is professional networking, you don’t want to err on either side of the coin. Being too cautious makes you appear unsure or nervous; we don’t trust tentative people to handle tough jobs. On the other hand, some people think that throwing caution to the wind makes them appear bold, but being careless during conversation can be perceived as reckless; and no one trusts a big mouth.

As Jeanine and I talked, Harvey listened and finally commented, “But some people never shut up. If you didn’t interrupt, you wouldn’t get a word in edgewise.” I said, “Networking is about building trust in as short a period of time as possible. When people talk, they trust the person who truly listens. Listening to other people talk never builds as much trust as being allowed to speak uninterrupted. If you want this person as a client, it doesn’t matter if you get a word in edgewise; if only matters that they want to see you again, and work with you.” I told Harvey about a client I had who spoke in such a way that it was clear she had a lot to say; and wanted a willing ear. I made a conscious effort to keep my mouth shut and my ears open. I kept thinking, “If she throws me the ball, I’m ready, but I’m not taking it out of her hands.” I ended speaking much less than I normally do during a conversation (just ask my wife), and my client ended up saying, “I’ve got some great ideas of how to use your services for my company. Can I have your business card?” To me, that is a great ending to a smooth game of catch.

Stevie Ray is a nationally recognized corporate speaker and trainer, helping companies improve communication skills, customer service, leadership, and team management.  He can be reached at www.stevierays.org or stevie@stevierays.org.

Is it me, or has there been a stronger-than-usual reaction to the recent actions in Washington D.C.? Before you toss this newspaper, stop the video, or cancel whatever medium this is reaching you, don’t worry; this is not going to be like the rush of angry social media posts that have been keeping you from viewing photos of people’s children all dressed up for prom, or videos of their dog eating the baby’s food while the child laughs hysterically. But a recent survey did discover that the average worker today spends an average of two hours reading political posts on social media during the work day. Kind of makes you nostalgic for the days when people just wasted fifteen minutes hanging around the water cooler, doesn’t it?

No, I’m not going to weigh in with my thoughts on the current administration. I made an agreement with my wife not to publish anything that would result in angry mobs with torches and pitchforks gathering outside our castle. And these days, no matter which side of the debate you’re on, you can count on even the mildest opinion resulting in a feud that rivals Kylie Jenner and Blac Chyna (but seriously, did you see what Kylie posted about her? OMG!).

The division between left and right, totally engaged and completely uninterested, or slightly annoyed and obsessively furious has never been greater. There are even reports of divorces occurring because couples couldn’t reconcile the fact that their partner pulled the wrong lever in the voting booth. The implications of the current political climate, however, do run deeper than people not getting their work done because they are too busy seeing how many people Like their posts. It doesn’t matter to a business leader if an employee Unfriends someone on Facebook, but it does matter if they do it at work. How is a team supposed to work side by side to get a project done when half the team thinks the other half is either evil incarnate, or spineless snowflakes? If the cornerstone of a productive team is trust (as evidenced by about a bazillion studies), how can trust survive the realization that the person you formerly thought of as a great guy you now consider to be unethical, uneducated, narrow-minded, unreasonable, or a “sore loser.”

The answer, of course, is leadership. (Cue the Roman-style trumpets.) But this situation calls for leadership of a very specific kind, and it might not be the kind that you grew up with. One of the hallmark attitudes of the Traditionalist Generation (born roughly between 1900-1945), is the mantra, You don’t have to like your job, you just have to have one. The need to find employment, when employment was impossible to find, also led to, You don’t have to like your co-workers, you just have to work with them. Certainly, the threat to one’s livelihood would be incentive enough to quell any personal disagreements. But we no longer live in a keep your head down and do your job world, and leaders cannot simply tell employees to keep their nose to the grindstone. This approach is not only unrealistic, it is ultimately self-defeating.

One company I worked with has actually instituted a rule that no conversation in the workplace may include the topics of politics, religion, ethnicity, or even sports. Sports? “Dude, the Hope University volleyball team totally stepped over the foul line on that spike.” “That’s it. Meet me in the parking lot with your gloves on!” The no talking about sensitive issues at work rule might seem like a reasonable approach. If an issue isn’t likely to ever find a peaceful resolution, why bring it up? I am sure many families across America employed that strategy at Thanksgiving. The problem is, not talking about an issue doesn’t make it go away. You might not have said to your brother, “Please pass the mashed potatoes, you racist pig!” but you can’t hide the sentiment. Leaders who try to quash disagreement by prohibiting conversation create an environment of avoidance and resentment. On the list of qualities of productive teams, avoidance and resentment rank below apathy and irresponsibility. Essentially, taking away the right, and the responsibility, to talk about tough issues with team members is like saying, “You kids can’t play well in the sandbox. So, rather than teaching you how to play well, we’re taking the sandbox away.” Kids without a sandbox rarely blame the parent who took it away; they blame the other kid in the sandbox.

Good leaders are so because they protect team members, even if from each other. This is not a time to hide from the tough issues of the day, it is time to get in front of it. The first step is to put it out there. Don’t pretend that it only affects people outside of work. If it hasn’t been brought up yet, be the person to bring it up. The next step is to lay out expectations. Employees need to know that no matter how they voted, or if they voted, or how they feel about the issues at hand, these are our expectations when you step through our doors. Employees need to know that you don’t want them to just put their heads down and work, you want them to talk to each other. People don’t have to agree, but they have to disagree the right way. And, as their leader, you are there to protect everyone in the company. Because, in the end, things in the world will always change, but people still have to work side by side.

You can’t get through a day lately without hearing, “I’m glad I am not a kid growing up in today’s world. I couldn’t handle all the cell phone cameras, videos, and social media broadcasting every stupid mistake I made.” These comments are almost always accompanied by a reminiscence of earlier times when life was simpler. A time when people were supposedly allowed to be themselves without the entire world knowing their business. A time when children were to be seen and not heard, instead of now, when kids post a photograph of their meal so all their friends can know just what they had for lunch. And a time when a handshake was as binding as any contract.

These sentiments all center around one common theme, we treated each other better back then. People seemed to say “please” and “thank you” more, they opened doors for each other, and seemed generally more civil. Personally, I grew up being taught to open doors for others (men as well as women), and to speak with courtesy. I grew up long before the pressures of instant media. My house had a single land line with one phone in the kitchen and one in the basement; both rotary dial. The strength in my fingers came from learning to type on a manual typewriter in 7^th grade. And our house was the first on the block to get one of those new-fangled kitchen wonders; the microwave oven (for the first three months, we stood five feet away when it was on, just in case).

I did not learn civility, however, because of the absence of Big Brother’s eyes-everywhere presence. You see, in my day we had something that would put social media to shame. We had an institution more instant than cell phone video; the neighbors. No matter what my siblings or I did while terrorizing the few blocks surrounding our house, it got back to mom and dad; often before we even got home. Many dinnertime conversations included “Mrs. Tarnow said she saw you kids playing at that house that is under construction. You know the one. The one we said to stay away from.” We kids could place watch guards at every corner, but we never saw Mrs. Tarnow; somehow she always saw us. And if it wasn’t Mrs. Tarnow, it would be Mr. DeFrang, Mrs. Higgins, the Frieds, or some neighbor we didn’t even know existed.

So, the truth is, those of us of a certain age did grow up in an era where our every mistake was broadcast. And it wasn’t broadcast to a world of faceless strangers, it was circulated to people who actually knew you. People who saw you only days after you were born when the neighbors would all come over to “see the new baby.” They heard about your every antic over coffee and doughnuts. And the reason the neighbors ratted on you to your parents was that they wanted to see you reach adulthood intact. And, of course, what is a neighborhood without a little gossip?

So, what does this have to do with running a company? Maybe nothing, maybe a lot. Why do employees do things that are bad for the company? Why do some managers treat staff the way they do? Why do we see business leaders at the peak of their careers one day and being indicted for fraud the next? People have a lot of fancy answers to these questions, but I think the answer is simple; anonymity. Quite simply, it is easier to hurt people you don’t know.

There was a TV show some time ago in which a married couple received a gift from a mysterious stranger. Inside the box was a metal cube with a red button on top. A note was attached that read, “Every time you push the red button you will receive $10,000 in cash. The money will show up at your doorstep, but you will not know who delivered it. However, every time you push the button somewhere in the world an innocent person will die. You will never know who the person is, and they will not be anyone you know or care about. You can keep the box as long as you like and push the button as often as you want with no consequences. Every time you do, you will receive $10,000 and someone, somewhere, will die.”

Of course, the couple was aghast. No way would they cause the death of an innocent person, no matter how much they stood to gain. For the first few weeks, they were diligent. They hid the button away where they couldn’t see it, and they never spoke of it. Then one day, an emergency arouse. (Something along the lines of a life-and-death medical emergency). Convincing themselves that it was necessary, and that they would only do it once, they pushed the button. They got the money, the emergency was averted, and soon everything was back to normal. They never heard news about the death. As you might guess, the story progresses; with each new “emergency” being a little less dire, but still worthy of pushing the button. By the end of the story, the couple was pushing the button every day, sometimes because they just wanted extra cash for shopping.

Most religions and spiritual philosophies encourage followers to “act always as if God were watching.” People in therapy for anti-social behavior are told to imagine that any harmful thoughts they might have are being broadcast to everyone around them. These beliefs are an attempt to combat the one thing that allows us to harm our neighbor, the anonymity that allows people to do bad things. Knowing someone isn’t the only reason we choose to do the right thing, but I can be an important reason. We don’t hurt, harass, cheat, or demean a friend. What if your workplace was like my old neighborhood? Not in the “Mrs. Tarnow is always watching you” kind of way, but in the “we are all neighbors” kind of way. In the end, I act the way I do, not because somebody with a cellphone camera might be watching, but because, in a real sense, Mrs. Tarnow is always watching.

Stevie Ray is a nationally recognized corporate speaker and trainer, helping companies improve communication skills, customer service, leadership, and team management.  He can be reached at www.stevierays.org or stevie@stevierays.org.

The brain can be a negative thing. There are all kinds of evolutionary reasons for this, but chief among them is that avoiding bad rather than seeking good has kept humans alive on a planet filled with threats such as dangerous animals, nasty neighbors, and convenience store sandwiches. How this negative tendency affects the workplace depends on which part of the brain you choose to dial up when responding to situations; the reactive brain or the thinking brain. This distinction is especially important for leaders because a reactive leader acts like a critic—negative, whereas a thinking leader acts like a coach—positive. Before you dismiss this by thinking “I am a great coach because I give my employees knowledge and support,” let’s take a closer look at how you might react to situations without knowing it.

Here is a clear illustration on the difference between critic and coach; between someone who uses the reactive/negative brain versus the thinking/positive brain. Have an employee stand up in a room. Place a bowl on the floor behind the person. Give the employee a handful of pennies. The goal is for the employee to toss a penny over his head and try to hit the bowl, without turning around to look at it. Your job is to direct the employee toward a successful outcome. This game is  a metaphor for every task you give an employee, and the outcome depends on whether you act like a coach or a critic.

A critic begins with “Your job is to hit the bowl. Go” The employee tosses a coin and misses. The boss says, “You didn’t hit the bowl. Did I make the assignment clear? Do you know where the bowl is located? Do you have all the pennies you need? Great. Now hit the bowl.” Another coin is tossed, and it lands on the floor. The critic/manager says, “You missed again. I thought the goal was clear. You have a bowl. You have plenty of pennies. You should have everything you need to hit your target, now go!” This continues until all the pennies are gone and no one is happy. Laugh if you want, but a lot of managers treat employees this way without knowing it. They make statements that only point out what is wrong, what is missing, or what is inadequate.

Now play the game with a coach. A coach says, “Alright, we’re going to work together to make sure we hit the target. What do you need from me to help you? Where should I stand? What kind of direction works best for you? Let’s try the first coin and see what kind of adjustments need to be made.” After the first miss, “Great! If you toss the next one a little to the left and with a little more power, I think you will have it.” After each miss, there are more corrections, until a coin finally makes it in the bowl.

I have used this game as an illustration of coach vs. critic at many workshops and some managers respond, “The second way takes way too much time. I don’t have time to molly-coddle my employees through every project.” The reality is it takes less time to be a coach than to be a critic. To be sure, coaching takes more work up front. There is usually more discussion and more clarification. Being a critic may take less time during each meeting because the boss simply says “yes” or “no” and that’s it, but this approach ultimately wastes more time because you will need a lot more meetings to get things right.

Everyday comments are either critical, “This report doesn’t have all the necessary facts!” or coaching, “So far, so good. All we need to do is add more supporting facts to back up our position.” Both approaches will eventually result in the same outcome—the boss getting what he or she wants, but one builds a better relationship and a stronger, more educated employee for the future. The tough part is, coaching requires using the highest centers of the brain. Criticizing is an instant reaction; no thought is needed. Coaching requires knowing the employee and just what is needed to get him or her to the next level of development. Criticizing only looks at what is wrong. Coaching examines what is needed to make it right. Simply put, being a coach takes more smarts.

I made reference to this in an earlier column about effective teams. It has been discovered that a crucial quality for a good team is psychological safety. A team that provides a safety net for its members develops more innovative ideas, solves problems faster, and has higher retention. Some managers don’t like this construct. One reader e-mailed me after reading the column about psychological safety and ranted about how I was promoting weakness and lack of accountability (in fact, teams that display psychological safety report a greater feeling of accountability to fellow members and to the outcome of the project).

In a similar vein, there are people who feel coaching is weak, and criticizing is strong. It is true, coaching has the appearance of being softer because it doesn’t seem to carry the weight of authority that critics have. However, the psychological outcomes are quite opposite. Whereas a critic instills fear, a coach inspires a feeling of obligation on the part of the mentee. With a coach, the employee feels obligated to reciprocate the positive direction and teaching; creating a good fear, of not wanting to disappoint the coach. For a coach, employees will walk through fire. For a critic? They won’t even grab a bucket of water.

Stevie Ray is a nationally recognized corporate speaker and trainer, helping companies improve communication skills, customer service, leadership, and team management.  He can be reached at www.stevierays.org or stevie@stevierays.org.

Trick Your Brain Into Success
by
Stevie Ray

People who are about to face a stressful situation will often get advice from others. Some advice is solicited, some not; some helpful, some not. Luckily, brain research has begun to catch up with old Aunt Edna’s sage wisdom and it has provided some useful tidbits when facing a mental or social challenge.
For instance, we have all heard the old adage that, when you are about to deliver a speech and you are hit with stage fright, just imagine the audience in their underwear. I don’t know who first thought of this trick, but not only is it completely ineffective, but it borders on creepy. More importantly, it actually takes the brain in the opposite direction of being able to deliver a great speech.
The trick to overcoming stress and ensuring a successful outcome is to activate the parts of the brain needed in order to meet the challenge. Imagining an audience in their Underoos distracts the brain from the task at hand and inhibits the kind of thinking needed to present well. Instead, just before taking the stage you should imagine with as much detail the last time you gave a really successful presentation. If you take the time to recall the situation in rich detail—the image of the stage, the smell of backstage, the warmth of the room, the sounds of the audience—your brain will engage positive memory activities, helping you stay mentally sharp. Also, remembering positive situations from the past causes the brain to assume that the best is about to happen again; greatly increasing your chances of success.
Distraction is a great technique for overcoming negative or obsessive thoughts, but that is about as far as the technique will take you. For true positive control over your thoughts, you must make a conscious effort to link happy outcomes from the past to lay the foundation for positive outcomes in the future.

This is going to sound a bit cranky, but I trust it will be taken in the spirit intended. I am tired of hearing leadership and team work lessons from the military, sports, or from people who have survived horrible disasters. The most notable example was when the business world latched onto Ernest Shakleton’s Arctic Expedition in the early 1900s. When his ship was crushed by shifting ice, Shakleton led his men to safety by surviving over a year in the Arctic. Make no mistake, this story is one of great heroism and self-sacrifice, but I challenge any manager to translate the lessons of Shakleton’s voyage to the daily task of keeping a working group motivated and productive.
The same holds true for lessons from the military. Again, make no mistake that I hold our men and women in the armed forces in the highest regard, but teamwork in the field is quite different than teamwork in the office. In the military, and for Shakleton, teamwork has one goal; stay alive. The laser focus of survival, of keeping every team member at your side and breathing, allows one to forget petty disagreements and personality clashes. That is neither the kind of workplace we should strive for, nor one that would produce lasting results.
Sports analogies are also worthless in the workplace. All you hear is how “teamwork helped them to victory.” Duh. We understand that if one basketball team has five players on the court and the other has one, the team will probably win. But the world of sports is not creative, it is authoritarian. The coach creates the plays, the players each have one part to play. Any company or organization that followed this plan would not last long.
First of all, fear—whether for one’s survival or one’s job—creates a stress that only allows the brain to focus on one thing, eliminating the fear. This kind of stress cannot be endured for long, which is why managers have learned not to use the threat of firing as a motivating tool. Also, stress does not enhance creativity, it kills it. Those under extreme stress are always encouraged by leaders to “rely on your training.” This advice is effective for the military and for sports, where individualism is harmful to the team. For a working group, however, this atmosphere would quickly suffocate the company.
No one in a military unit would dream of harming a teammate, just as everyone on Shakleton’s team knew that their survival depended on the survival of everyone. In sports, the loss of a valuable teammate is obvious. That attitude, however, is not as easily maintained in day-to-day working environments. In some cases, the loss of a teammate can actually be beneficial to someone looking for an opportunity.
So now you’re asking, “So what? Why the tirade?” Simple. As leaders we must stop wasting our time by looking for simple analogies—military, sports, survival—to teach how us to lead. We have to dig deeper and work harder. We have to read, research, and challenge; not simply accept advice from people who hold a title. We must truly understand how people are motivated, not just what makes them want to survive.