Archive for November, 2010

Overloaded child/parent communications

I remember how as a small child in the fifties my family would go on Saturday to lunch at my grandma’s. It was quite a tiring walk across town (we had no car then) and it had occurred to me that as we had no telephone either, there was no way to cancel the get together if there was an unexpected need. But of course there wasn’t; life moved much more sedately then, and the meal would be waiting for us time after time. There was little need of frequent communication.

That was then. Now, we were having dinner at a restaurant with some friends when their cellphone rang. It was one of their kids with some minor query. After a while, their cellphone rang again.  It was another of their kids with some minor query. After a while, their cellphone rang yet again.  It was the third of their kids with some minor query.

Of course, parents do like to be in touch with their kids, but this made me wonder: what impact do cellphones have on the child/parent link? These days practically every child, and every parent, carries these little wonders of radio communications. In the past, when landlines ruled, a parent might ring home once during an evening out, to check with the babysitter. Today, communications flow far more frequently, in this case interrupting the parents’ evening rather than the child’s. Such constant communication would have been neither possible nor necessary until quite recently.

So what do you think - is this a change for the better or for the worse?

The Offense system of Email Overload

I was delivering my Information Overload Jump Start workshop to a manager forum and we were discussing the reasons they were sending all those unnecessary messages to each other, when one of the participants made a perceptive comment: “We use”, she said, “the Offense System of addressing email!”

What she meant, she elaborated, was that when in doubt you simply copied anyone in the organization who might be offended if you left them out. And since this is the path of caution, you bet they were sending to everybody and his brother – simply to be on the safe side! Consider what this meant:

  • Those few who needed the message got it normally.
  • Those few who didn’t need the message but would be offended got it, thereby becoming less productive (but full, perhaps, of a satisfying warm feeling of being loved).
  • The rest, those who didn’t need the message and would in fact not have been offended, became less productive and did not even feel the love.
  • The sender, having caused so much harm to their coworkers’ productivity, would still be happy in the expectation that no one would get cross with them.

There is an alternative system that I might advocate instead: I might call it “The Necessity system“. In this system, you send the message only to those few who have a real necessity to read it; the proverbial “Need to know”. Everybody else is allowed to do their job undisturbed.

And what do you do about the few non-recipients who might, in fact, take offense? You handle them – you explain to them, politely but firmly, that none of you is getting paid to waste the stockholders’ money by reducing productivity. Or, if one of the complaints is justified, you apologize and send that person the message…

So – which system does your organization use?

Wayda go, Ford! Stop driver distractions!

Driving and <anything other than driving> don’t mix well, as I recently pointed out. Unfortunately, the number of <things other than driving> that you can do in a car grows fast as new technologies turn our cars into mobile electronic appliances with ever more computing, communications and multimedia capabilities. The more screens, computers, GPS systems and cellular communications on board, the less will the driver keep his or her eyes on the road!

It is encouraging, then, to read that Ford has responded to this issue and will introduce, in selected 2011 models, features specifically intended to prevent distraction. The new MyFord Touch system has a large “Do Not Disturb” button, which will block incoming phone calls and text-message alerts while the vehicle is moving. Incoming calls, we are told, will be diverted to your cell phone’s voicemail, but you can still make voice-activated outbound calls.

Furthermore, the system will lock out – disable – some features  while the vehicle is in motion, even without driver command. These include pairing a Bluetooth phone, browsing the web, playing videos and editing photos. Anything that requires typing on the keypad is prohibited while the car is moving.

You don’t say! Drivers won’t be allowed to edit photos while driving?! How cruel!…

Climate control made easy

I was at the World Usability Day 2010 conference, held in a beautiful auditorium in the Open University at Raanana (more on what I lectured about in coming posts), and I made a discovery that I just have to share with you: Hot air rises; cold air falls!

Of course I knew this; I’d graduated in Physics, after all. But I failed to make the connection at first. I  was sitting there near the front of the hall and slowly freezing from the air conditioning, until pubic protest made the powers that be turn off the A/C. Later they turned it back on. More freezing.

Then, during the break, I was talking to one of the organizers and mentioned this issue and she said “well, if we turn it off the people in the top rows get too hot“. And then it hit me: the auditorium had a slanting floor, with the back rows much closer to the vaulted ceiling than those near the stage; I could adjust my surrounding temperature by moving to a higher row where I’d be comfortable. Like the trees on a mountain range, that each live at the altitude that suits it…

How to politely respond to a cellphone in a meeting?

Now that we live in a reality where we’re interrupted by a cellphone call a few times every hour, it is inevitable that people ring us even while we’re in an important business meeting. The question becomes, then, how do we react to the ring while remaining polite?

This was not a problem back in that ancient era – say, 25 years ago – when business people had something called an office, which had a door, and a secretary that could be asked not to transfer calls. But today we meet in coffee shops as often as in walled rooms, and secretaries are a rare breed. We need to decide what to do about interfering calls – which, of course, may involve important business in themselves.

There are many strategies to choose from:

  1. We can turn the phone off.
  2. We can leave it on but switch it to its Silent (“vibrate”) profile; then we can take a peek at the caller ID when we sense it coming to life and ignore the call unless it’s vital.
  3. We can let it ring audibly, taking a peek at the caller’s ID and hitting “reject” unless it’s vital.
  4. We can take one or two calls early in our meeting, and then turn it off or make it Silent.
  5. We can answer select calls, apologizing to the person we’re meeting with “Pardon, but this is important”, or “this is X, excuse me but I must take it” (where X is the wife, the kid’s kindergarten teacher, or the president of the United States – whoever we deem is unquestionably deserving in the other’s eyes).
  6. We can answer every single call, without so much as an apology.

So which strategy is best from an etiquette perspective? There is no one right answer. Sure, ideally you’d take option 1; after all, the caller will then leave a voice mail or Text you. But in the real world we juggle so many responsibilities that we may have a valid need to be reachable in case of a real emergency. The last option on the list is utterly rude, however many people adopt it. This leaves the middle four, which all combine a degree of screening with use of various degrees of silencing.

To my mind, what really matters is the perception of the person you’re with. Take option 4: the act of firmly turning the phone off after it rang a few calls says “Oh, this is really too much; my conversation with you is more important to me than these other people that are calling me“. In a sense it transmits a friendlier message than just coming to the meeting with the phone already off. Similarly, answering only calls from your wife (or the president) – and making sure to point out the caller – makes the other guy feel that maybe he’s not as dear to you as your spouse, but he’s is still above everyone else. It feels good.

I guess what this goes to is differentiation: you don’t answer the infernal device indiscriminately – you make it clear to the other person that some calls must come through, but only the really important ones you can’t defer; the rest you visibly reject because you have respect for your real life conversation and its participants.

As has been often remarked… it’s the thought that counts!