Professional Skills

Author Archive

I am a practical person.  Oh, no doubt I love discussing the theory and craft of professional development; dreaming great dreams is how we move forward.  But we live in the here and the now, and I’m happy to accept that theory doesn’t do very well at bringing home the bacon—at least not for most of us.

So after years of teaching grammar and writing, I’ve come up with three timeless, practical grammar rules for the business environment—yes, grammar rules with no exceptions:

Rule number one: When in doubt, rewrite it!

Oh, you know the grammar rule for whatever it is you are writing, but does your reader?  And if your reader doesn’t know the rule, how well is he or she likely to understand what you’re trying to communicate?  Ultimately, writing is about communicating as perfectly as possible what it is that you want to say.  Consider this example:

“When the Harley Roadster hit the 100 year-old oak tree, it was badly damaged.”

You may have it clear in your mind that the poor old oak was badly damaged—a grammar rule would back you on this—but logic would lead the reader to surmise otherwise.  When editing your document, always try to see the various ways someone can interpret what you’ve written.  If readers can misinterpret your writing, try again.  Rewrite it.

Here’s a better way to write the sentence above: “When the Harley Roadster hit the 100 year-old oak tree, the bike was badly damaged.”  By simply replacing the pronoun “it” with “the bike,” there’s now no doubt in the reader’s mind about what you meant to say.

Rule number two: The “boss rule”

Stop beating your head against the wall; in the end, what the boss says is what you should do.  If you can’t handle that, it’s time to get a job somewhere else.  And yes, this applies to writing style and grammar.  If you have a good relationship with your boss, go ahead and push back on her insistence that you eliminate the comma before the conjunction and in a list or series.  The shocking truth is that there are very few hard and fast grammar rules.  Grammar is as much about preference and style—current style—as it is about rules.

In every class I teach I hear the complaint, “You recommend we write it this way, but my boss insists that we write it a different way.”  Okay, write it that way!  Unless there’s a grammar rule—a real, no-kidding, documented grammar rule—to the contrary, do what the boss suggests.

And that brings me to rule number three: Language changes. Get over it!

Did I really start a sentence with the word And?  Yes.  And from time to time, I’ll start a sentence with But.  Or I might—dare I say it—end a sentence with a preposition.  Gadzooks!  I might even use a contraction in my business correspondence.  Guess what?  It’s okay to do so; the former president of the United States said I could use “common, everyday words” in my business writing.  Go ahead and google President Clinton’s 1998 Plain Language Memorandum.

In a recent writing class comprised of federal employees, when I brought up that the Plain Language Memorandum suggests it’s acceptable to use contractions (common, every-day words), I nearly had a revolt on my hands. “It’s unprofessional!” several declared.  Another participant complained, “I was told that I shouldn’t use contractions in business writing.”  I smiled and calmly asked the class, “Would you consider your responses unprofessional or inappropriate?”  “Of course not,” was the response.  I followed, “But all of your statements just contained contractions.”  Silence.

I don’t write using the language of my ancestors.  I can’t tell you the last time I used the expression “four score and seven years ago” in a note to my boss.  Nor did our forefathers write in the language of Shakespeare, just as Shakespeare did not write in the language of Beowulf.  Let me be clear.  I’m not advocating that we riddle our documents with the expressions “dude” and “um.”  But our language evolves and our writing evolves along with the spoken language—thankfully.  Yet for some reason we are uncomfortable with changing our writing.

Maybe this says more about human nature than grammar, but it’s okay to move forward in our writing.

I’d love to hear your thoughts about our changing business writing “rules.”

Just as in Greek mythology where the sirens lured ancient mariners to their destruction upon the rocky shores, the sweet song of business wisdom lures us into thinking that we should plan for a “win-win” outcome when negotiating.

I disagree.  It’s not that I think both parties should walk away from the bargaining table unhappy.  No, it’s that planning for discussions using any competitive approach—using “win” or “lose” terminology—puts us in the wrong frame of mind for impactful, fruitful discussions.

Rarely does anyone “win” a negotiation.  If we are even thinking about winning a negotiation, we’re starting out on the wrong path.  The need for victory gives rise to hubris and the means, not the desired end state, becomes the focus of our planning.

Sadly, this compulsion for victory diverts attention from why we are in the discussion in the first place.   Our focus should be on achieving our interests, not winning or losing.  Look at it another way: if we get most of what we are looking for—but not all—did we win?  On a competitor’s scoreboard, the answer is “No.”  But did we lose?  Of course not!  We are well on our way toward where we want to be.

So forget “win-win.”  Think results … in meaningful, measurable terms.  The sirens may be disappointed, but both parties will be better off!

Something very strange happened to me this week.  A supervisor came to me and asked for feedback on her performance.  Imagine my surprise!

It’s been said in oh, so many ways that a critical component of effective performance planning is establishing expectations and discussing meaningful outcomes.  If we keep in mind that organizations fail or succeed as a team, it becomes obvious that everyone in that unit—individual contributors and supervisors—must do their jobs well.  So performance planning should not be a one-way, downward-directed activity; no, it should be bi-directional.  Most bosses do a great job of discussing expectations and desired outcomes with their subordinates.  But how many subordinates have a performance discussion with their boss?

Bosses have a responsibility to their subordinates to do the things that are expected of them as supervisors.  That’s their job.  If they do that poorly, the unit will flounder.  Therefore, individual contributors should be demanding performance planning sessions of their bosses.  But this doesn’t happen.  Why?  One word: “fear.”  The superior is afraid that she might appear unqualified to be in her position, and the subordinate is afraid that the feedback she delivers will be used against her.

To move beyond this potential stalemate, only the supervisor is in a position to take action.  Make performance planning discussions two-way conversations.  And you can do so by asking a few simple questions of your subordinates:

“To better help you get done what I’ve asked you to do,
- What should I continue to do, but perhaps do better?
- What am I doing that you’d like me to stop?
- What am I not doing that you’d like me to start?”

You want to be an effective boss.  You want your subordinates to respect you.  You want to meet the goals you’ve laid out for your organization.  If all these statements are true, then ask your subordinates for feedback!  Doing so is a sign of strength, not weakness.

I’d love to hear your experiences in asking for the opportunity to give feedback to your boss.

Fellow Baby Boomers, I am embarrassed…dare I say, appalled?

As a facilitator for leadership classes, I have the privilege of hearing, first-hand, concerns from supervisors of all levels. One overwhelming complaint is that they are tired of the newest workforce generation–the millennials–continually asking “why?”

Have we forgotten our roots? We were the generation that questioned everything; indeed, the Boomer mantra was “question authority!” We implored compatriots to not trust anyone over 30.

The problem is that we soon turned 31 and older. And when we did, we found that some of the establishment’s perspectives actually were reasonable and valuable. Somehow, we slowly devolved into the very same cynical, unreflective, unyielding leaders as our traditionalist forebears. So now, as supervisors, we get frustrated when our subordinates don’t just march off and execute the orders we bark out. We’ve taken on a new mantra borrowed from a well-known sports advertising campaign: “Just do it!”

Answering “the why” is how we avoid complacency—how great change occurs. New generations are sent to us for a reason: to keep us thinking and moving forward.

So, fellow Boomers, embrace “the why,” encourage “the why,” enjoy “the why.” But if you really want to reach back to your past, preempt “the why” by not only thinking and executing great thoughts yourselves, but by extroverting those thoughts so subsequent generations can understand and learn to think great thoughts too.

Service providers often think good customer service means giving the consumer more:
more choices, more time, more options.

Customer service isn’t how much you provide, it’s how you provide it! 

On a recent trip to Illinois, I took passage on one of our financially-challenged major
airline carriers.  Although it was a relatively short hop from DC to Chicago, the airline
was willing to give those of us in the “cattle car” one of their few remaining perks-a
pop (deferring to the colloquial term for “soda”) and a snack.  Because I was sitting near
the tail of the aircraft, I was last to be served.  Fortunately, the plane was only half full, so
snacks were plentiful.

After asking me if I preferred peanuts or trail mix and then handing me my snack, the
flight attendant stared at me for a few seconds and asked, “Where’s your money?”  I
apologized for not knowing the snack wasn’t free.  She tersely responded, “Snacks
haven’t been free in three years.”  Really?  On a flight just two months ago, this same
carrier tossed snacks about the cabin like the government handed out TARP funding,
never once asking for payment.  I gave back my trail mix, saying that I really didn’t need
it.  After walking away, the attendant stopped, turned with snack in hand, and decided to
give me a freebie.  However, it wasn’t free at all; it came with a follow-on lecture about
how she didn’t have to do this and how much the airlines are struggling financially.  I sat
there not quite knowing how to respond, so I didn’t.  I just took the snack, thanked her,
and went back to my Sudoku puzzle.  But the more I thought about what happened, the
angrier I got.

No, I don’t believe this is a poor reflection of the airline’s service.  I’m smart enough to
know that not all airline employees act this way.  In fact, the flight attendant’s co-worker
was clearly uncomfortable with her comments.  I also know that a flight attendant’s
primary role is to ensure safe passage for everyone on board; the fact that she helps
provide refreshments is a bonus.  But conducting this secondary duty with such poor
grace has a profound impact.  A 2007 global Nielsen survey found that consumer
recommendations were the most credible form of advertising among 78% of the study’s
26,000 respondents.  And more recently, a 2009 Econsultancy survey showed that 90% of
consumers trust recommendations from people they know and 70% trust the opinions of
unknown online users.

There are several choices for the DC-to-Chicago route, all similarly priced.  Providing
snacks isn’t a selling point for me.  Attitude is!  In the future, I will choose to work with
flight attendants who very politely tell me that snacks aren’t free, and who leave it at that. 
You can take my pillows, you can take my blankets, and you can take my snacks.  But
what you do, you’d better do exceptionally well-or I will choose another airline and tell
others about it.

Whether you are conducting your primary duties or “other duties as assigned,” how you
do them means so much more than what you choose to do or not do.