Thanks to the onslaught of technology and our need to constantly rush through everything, our grammar has gotten worse. Emails, text messages and other corporate communications are being sent without a thorough and professional proofreading, and using poor grammar in the workplace can have some negative impacts on your business.
It causes confusion.
If you use poor grammar in the workplace, you could end up confusing those people who need to read what you write or listen to what you say. Causing confusion will negatively impact your company’s productivity and require additional communications to clear up the confusion.
It makes you look unprofessional.
Poor grammar makes you look unprofessional. Nobody wants to do business with the company that has spelling and grammatical errors in their marketing materials, and no client wants to do business with the representative who doesn’t know the difference between their, there and they’re.
It hinders productivity.
Read full article on Every Marketing Thing
Customer experience is just a fancy term for customer service. Companies engage with customers, at all levels, whether at the front desk or via support emails. If the company culture allows it, feedback received is welcomed and used to solve problems and improve service. Yet, for some, feedback is received with contempt and disregarded before it can be shared with others.
For the companies where culture encourages feedback, you can see it. It’s Zappos, where customer service professional are empowered to solve customer issues as they deem appropriate. It’s Enterprise Rent-A-Car, whose new commercials emphasize that employees can solve customer problems without having to call a manager to authorize solutions. It’s Domino’s Pizza, where every pizza box is a feedback form.
via TheDrum.co.uk
What’s in a name? So begins the cover of corporate brochure of the Certified General Accountants of Ontario. It was the first piece rolled out following our year-long exercise to “capture” the brand of our membership and relate it to employers, clients, peers, the profession and public.
But how did the brand connect with a key “touch point,” the employees of this professional association of accountants? Or in the more likely words of our staff, prior to our efforts at employee engagement and brand championing, “What’s in it for me?”
A Collective Definition of “Brand” (Wikipedia, captured May 2005) A brand represents the holistic sum of all information about a product, group of products or organization. This symbolic construct typically consists of a name, identifying mark, logo, visual images or symbols or mental concepts, which distinguishes the product or service. It is useful for the marketer to think of this as a set of aligned expectations in the mind of its stakeholders—from its consumers, to its distribution channels, to the people and companies who supply the products and services that make up the brand experience. A brand often carries connotations of a product’s “promise,” the product or service’s point of difference among its competitors that makes it special and unique. Marketers attempt, through a brand, to give a product a “personality” or an “image.” Thus, they hope to “brand,” or burn, the image into the consumer’s mind; that is, associate the image with the product’s quality. |
Our “explicit” brand relates to perceptions of employers, clients and the public towards certified general accountants (CGAs). The “implicit” brand includes areas like simplifying education and business processes and procedures, thereby improving “customer” satisfaction in service and retention.
It’s remarkable the reach and influence our staff of 70 can have on an internal membership of more than 25,000, not to mention thousands of potential students, employers, the public, government, community groups and so on. If identification is muddy, contact with staff difficult, processes and procedures aren’t intuitive and proactive…the negative effects are substantial. Our end “product” is certificating members that are “broadly and deeply competent,” dedicated to “meeting needs by exceeding expectations,” etc., but a significant driver for the brand’s promise includes staff’s day-to-day delivery of customer service.
Capturing the CGA Brand
For 10 months, public affairs, marketing and communication staff worked intensely with our branding agency, first capturing the CGA brand’s values and attributes, then determining a campaign focus. The extensive training in the CGA program of professional studies, plus our members’ relationships with various publics, resulted in identification of these “honest and credible” brand characteristics and values:
- skilled
- knowledgeable
- confident
- adaptable
- approachable
- trustworthy
Next, we updated the CGA brand’s look, feel and communication: new corporate colours (including a “high energy” orange); a revamped corporate identity (logo excepted); and key messages that encapsulated the brand character. A vital component to CGA branding was evolving our focus from “awareness” of the designation to its “relevancy” to the end-users.
The end result was an array of evolved marketing tools, aimed at various publics.
Lunch and Learn about the CGA Brand
An identified challenge was staff having limited knowledge about branding efforts, including historic achievements and recent initiatives. Wanting all employees to embrace and champion the brand as much as the working group, we invited staff to “lunch and learn sessions.” Our goal was for employees to understand the CGA brand, and appreciate the significant role they played in its delivery.
An offsite location, catered lunch and branding paraphernalia—trade show booth, PowerPoint presentation, Flash video—helped transform the 10-year retrospective of our advertising/branding campaigns into an “event.”
First up was our tremendous historical success in profile building, primarily through our innovative advertising campaign, “We’re the name brand for business in Canada.” As one of three Canadian professional accounting designations, we operate in an incredibly competitive environment to attract students to our CGA program of professional studies.
More than 10 years ago we set out to raise public awareness of the CGA designation. Impediments to the communication challenge included a general lack of interest in the accounting profession, as well as a common misconception that the “product leader” was synonymous with the product category. Our opportunity was to establish CGAs as the accountants with the accounting and financial skills that businesses need, by using a creative execution that was unique to the Certified General Accountants of Ontario: its members and their names. At the beginning of our new advertising campaign, unaided awareness of the CGA designation in Ontario was just 27 per cent.
In September 1995, the “name brand” campaign hit television and radio, supported by print inserts in newspapers and magazines. It was tremendously well-received by members, the public and media. The commercials were eye-catching and quirky. We used the surnames of real CGAs to create short storylines, whenever possible using the actual members as “stars.” (If a CGA was uncomfortable in the limelight, staff filled in.) Although “actors” in our TV ads might have appeared a little stiff and awkward, they had huge smiles and appeared friendly and approachable, undercutting the traditional image of stuffy accountants. New TV and radio commercials were introduced every two years. Additionally, in 1999 we took the campaign outside with billboards…just like the TV ads, the first professional accounting association to do so.
Public Embracing of the CGA Brand
Post-campaign launch, awareness of the CGA designation and association rose substantially. Meeting people at industry functions, I’d indicate, “I work at the Certified General Accountants of Ontario.” The usual response, “I love your ads—they’re brilliant!”
Already we’d branded a “personality” for our CGAs: the friendly accountants. Media attention included Strategy magazine, CBC Radio, PR Canada, Marketing Daily, Ad-news Daily and The Lawyer’s Weekly. The director of public affairs was invited to present about our campaign at a Conference Board of Canada symposium. Perhaps the most thrilling recognition was our commercial being “spoofed” on CBC TV’s Air Farce; when comedians parody ads, they’ve made an impact!
The CGA Brand Evolves, to Broaden Its Reach and Influence
In 2001, we transitioned our expensive, full-fledged TV ads to the more cost-effective “closed captioning” option. Interestingly, the Ontario public continues to believe we produce TV commercials: earlier ads embedded the CGA brand in people’s consciousness. By 2004, research results indicated that unaided awareness of the CGA designation had risen to 75 per cent. Aided awareness exceeded 90 per cent.
We played the archived TV commercials at our sessions. Staff laughed appreciatively, called out the names of employees and CGAs, noted changing hair styles and fashions and indicated favourite ads. Seeing the commercials run consecutively emphasized their effectiveness. It was sinking in to employees their role in helping to raise awareness.
Mid-session, we began detailing the more recently identified challenge: employers said they recognized who CGAs were, and those who did know our “brand” liked it a lot…but many didn’t know enough about our members. Hence the reasons for our recent branding exercise: moving the CGA designation from awareness to relevance, from “name brand” to “name your need.”
The CGA brand character defines how our positioning comes to life. The values are those expressed by members and employees in behaviour, character, style, tone and manner. Attributes define the look and feel of all of our communications and culture. In addition to our advertising, the marketing department promotes the brand at career fairs and trade shows, in magazines and through career website banners. We also sponsor relevant events and engage in research. Our CGA brand is “out there,” in as many innovative ways as deemed feasible.
Extending the Explicit Brand into the Workplace
So how did employees fit in as champions of the brand? We indicated they should be proud of their part in “producing” CGAs with such an exemplary brand character. If CGAs were perceived as friendly and approachable, so were staff representatives of the association. Employees worked hard and diligently, fulfilling the needs of CGAs, students, prospective students and the public.
Today’s usual practice is to shorten organizational names into acronyms and initialisms. Although staff were used to saying “CGA” and “CGA Ontario,” we asked them to try to always say the association’s name in full. We emphasized consistency in identification and uniformity in presentation (using our in-house style guide). We shared samples of key messaging, for use in customer relations. Templates were provided for voicemail messages and e-mail signatures, incorporating all of these elements. Finally, we “requested” that staff consider including our new branding tagline at the end of e-mail signature blocks: Certified General Accountants. Name Your Need.
“Make-or-Break” Session Dynamics
The dynamics of the two sessions proved interesting. Despite session one being only two-thirds full, some staff “influencers” quickly voiced their approval of the exercise, signifying other ways to extend the brand, internally or publicly; for example, developing additional templates regarding vacation messages. Quieter staff began offering feedback, too. Enthusiasm was high!
Staff left with a branded-orange trade show bag, containing the corporate brochure; “champion” toolkit on CD-ROM; and a visual identification guide. (The PowerPoint presentation was in the portal for downloading.) We recommended staff use their association bag in public, to help extend the brand. They were invited to come to us for more, for family and friends or when their original bag wore out.
The second session was packed to capacity—with just enough food and seats—substantially larger numbers than had registered. Afterwards, we learned employees from the first group returned to the office and raved about how great was the session…so some staff actually “crashed” number two, which proved equally popular.
Mission Accomplished: Engaged Champions of the CGA Brand
Post-event, presenters received many visits and messages from employees regarding our efforts to “communicate” the brand; the majority updated their voicemail and e-mail signature blocks that day, including incorporating the tagline.
Our multimedia developer sent the favourite e-mail:
“I wanted to thank you for the marcomm presentation yesterday. It was very informative, and I especially enjoyed learning about the history of the brand and what the rational is for the way the brand is being promoted today. I have some marketing background, so understanding how the marketing/communications plan was conceptualized really helps me form a vision for my own work. It will also help in identifying myself as an employee of the Certified General Accountants of Ontario. I used to say, ‘I work for CGA Ontario, but I’m not an accountant.’ Now I can say, ‘I work for the Certified General Accountants of Ontario in the information services department.’
As part of the information services team, we can better serve the needs of all of our ‘clients,’ with this clearer understanding of what the brand really stands for. I must say that the direct mail piece is brilliant; if you have any extra copies I’d love to have one. Thanks again, and the food was great, too!”
Postscript : At the request of the chief executive officer of the Certified General Accountants of Ontario, our multimedia developer demonstrated her personal dedication and vision as a CGA brand champion (thereby serving the needs of her internal clients) by developing templates of HTML signature blocks, which make use of two distinct palettes drawn from our new corporate colours. Each staff member was invited to ask the information services team to download a personalized signature block onto his or her system, one that includes name, position and co-ordinates, plus our logo and tagline, Certified General Accountants: Name Your Need. With each message, staff are delighted to play a further champion role in extending the reach and influence of the CGA brand.
Judy Gombita is manager of communications for the Certified General Accountants of Ontario (http://www.cga-ontario.org) and has been happily involved in all aspects of the association’s recent branding efforts.
The original publication of a shorter version of this article was commissioned for the May/June 2006 issue of the Journal of Employee Communication Management (JECM) magazine, published by Lawrence Ragan Communications, Inc. (http://www.ragan.com). It is shared with members of the Communitelligence portal with the kind permission of JECM’s editor, David R. Murray.
Credit is extended to the following organizations and individuals for their role in the hugely successful advertising and branding efforts of the Certified General Accountants of Ontario. Branding agency: Cundari SFP (formerly Spencer Francey Peters). Brand strategist: Jeannette Hanna; project manager: Kristina Hayes. Advertising agency: Clique Communications. Creative director: Richard Clewes. Media buyer: Media Dimensions. Principal: Diane Webb.
Guest Article By Judy Gombita
The biggest challenge I find for managers responsible for the employer brand strategy is they don’t understand the science of branding and lack knowledge in branding principle and practices which have been informed by decades of research into how brands grow. I’m going to go over that here, and then get to what you can do to grow your company brand.
Common employer branding mistakes
Some of the most common mistakes I see made by companies include:
- Creating recruitment advertising that doesn’t build or refresh relevant memory structures or associations about what it is like to work for the company
- Viewing employer branding as merely a recruitment strategy or short-term recruitment advertising campaign
- Failing to conduct research with the internal and external audience to determine what makes their employer brand distinctive
- Paying premiums for low-reach media that is sold by money-hungry vendors as “reaching a niche audience”
- Relying on a ranking in “best places to work” surveys as the sole metric for the employer brand strategy
How strong is your corporate brand? Important question. How can you do better than guess at the answer? Well, you could spend six or seven figures on some quant research on reputation (which will do little more than confirm your gut about what people think of you), you can invest in a brand valuation (which will give you a nice round number that isn’t reliable and won’t tell you much about how well your business is performing) or you can put a PR resource on retainer to track the interweb for mentions, sentiment and buzz. Or there is Net Promoter Score, and no doubt myriad other ways to extract your dollars and distract you from what matters. Even after all this expenditure of time and money, I don’t believe you’ll be any better informed than you are now.
But wait, there’s hope. Wander over to HR and ask them to give you the last three years of your company’s employee engagement data (and if they don’t have employee engagement data tell them to get busy and start collecting it).
My hypothesis – and I am about to launch a research initiative to test it – is that organizations with low employee engagement scores have weak brands and those with high employee engagement scores have strong brands. I have observed this pattern in every organization I have worked with that has had the data available. Naturally I cannot name names as we are talking about confidential data but there are winners and losers.
Forced ranking – the process of assessing, identifying and potentially eliminating a percentage of the lowest performing employees each year – is on the rise. Promoted by many – most notably GE’s Jack Welch as a way to increase organizational performance over time, the practice has come under scrutiny recently. Two studies cast doubt on the long term benefits of the practice.
In the first study of 200 seasoned HR professionals, released last summer1, researchers gathered “…some startling findings around the perceived negative repercussions from forced ranking systems, such as reduced productivity, inequity and skepticism, negative effect on retention, and a detrimental impact to the bottom-line.”
The second study, done by researchers at Drake University2 used a computer model to simulate the performance improvement gained over a 30 year horizon by organizations using forced ranking systems. While they found an initial “bump” of a respectable 16% in the first two years, this quickly tailed off to a negligible 1% by the 10th year.
In the short-term forced ranking appears to create a high performance culture; focusing on staffing with the best of the best. However, this occurs at the cost of reducing other behaviors that contribute to innovation and risk taking; communication and collaboration. “Hard fun” needs to be located in the content of the work, not the politics of survival to benefit both the individual and the organization.
What do you think? Post your thoughts in Q&A.
1 to read the press release about the study go to http://www.novations.com/novations/go/rainbow/4045/en/DesktopDefault.aspx You can also request a copy of the complete study there.
2 to read a brief article about the study go to
In this paper, the author refers to current trends and essentials that organizations must consider to actively engage their workforce. Consistent communication, employee involvement, building trust and supporting real-time recognition are key elements to successfully engagement. Positive outcomes of engagement include increased productivity, loyalty and better alignment to company’s goals. A list of recommendations and a case study from Sapient distills best practices from within the organization.
Jack Welch, ex-CEO of General Electric once famously said – “without everybody embracing what we want to do, we haven’t got a prayer” summing up the importance of engaging employees to align to the organization’s goals. Organizations today face innumerable challenges including overcoming economic and business changes and managing varied workforce demands. That apart engaging employees is more complex with an explosion in social media tools and usage, increasing information overload, waning attention spans and a war for talent.
Engagement Takes Center stage
Employee engagement has taken center stage in the recent past with a host of consulting firms claiming to have cracked the code with well researched concepts and artifacts. For example, Hewitt sums up their understanding with the Stay-Say-Strive model and defines engagement as the ‘state of emotional and intellectual involvement in a group or organization – the extent to which an organization has captured the hearts and minds of its people’. Organizations also commit a lot of time and resources to participating in best places to work studies in order to reflect high levels of engagement that improve their chances of attracting the best people.
What does Engagement Mean?
The Gallup organization describes employee engagement as the ‘the involvement with and enthusiasm for work’. According to Development Dimensions International, ‘engagement is the extent to which people enjoy and believe in what they do, and feel valued for doing it.’ Watson Wyatt explains it as ‘the combination of commitment and line of sight’. The Corporate Leadership Council defines engagement as ‘the extent to which employees commit to something or someone in their organization and how hard they work and how long they stay as a result of that commitment’. Four focal points of commitment – day to day, team, manager and organization emerge from two broad types of commitment – rational and emotional. The outcomes of engagement are discretionary effort and an intention to stay.
While consultants and academicians spar on a worthy definition, the implications for communicators and organizations are barely understood. Gallup distinguished employees based on their engagement levels ranging from ‘engaged’ to ‘actively disengaged’. Some research firms coin creative ways to represent the profile of engaged employees based on their contribution and satisfaction – core contributors, lost believers, aligned skeptics, loose cannons, silent listeners, hamsters, crash and burners. It is important to revisit the reasons for declining engagement scores and relook at drivers that can change the way organizations keep employees connected.
Why Should Organizations Bother?
Global research reports such as the Edelman Trust Barometer highlight falling engagement levels within organization which face newer challenges such as globalization of business, new age technology, an increasingly diverse workforce and greater market pressures. There is a power shift in information sharing and credibility. According to the Trust Barometer, opinion leaders also consider rank-and-file employees more credible spokespeople than corporate CEOs (42% versus 28% in the US). Trust in “regular employees” and “colleagues” is growing, and is already significantly higher than information conveyed by a CEO. This may mean that the way internal communication is perceived may dictate how committed employees are within an organization.
To stay ahead, organizations need to tap their employees’ talents and market trends such as changes in the social media landscape. Organizational programs and policies that address employees’ needs and concerns and demonstrate caring and supportive environment are likely to motivate employees to reciprocate with higher levels of engagement. Development Dimensions International believes that organizations understand that people are a key asset and they have an overwhelming impact on the company’s growth. The right work environment usually translates into improved motivation and enhanced or discretionary effort; which in turn leads to business success. There are however ways to build engagement and Hewitt’s survey on ‘Cost Reduction and Engagement’ mentions that executives need to focus on planning, communicating better, measuring engagement impact and retaining talent. Those companies that communicate proactively are much surer of measuring engagement and better equipped to handle any downturns.
Five Strategies to Engage Your People
1. Involve Employees in Decision Making
The Egage Group in the UK recently discovered through their study that ‘including’ rather than ‘talking at’ people was the most effective way of engaging employees to improve business performance. The findings confirm a direct relationship between an organization’s financial performance and employees’ commitment to contribute effort. The essence of the study is that people are more committed when they are involved in change.
Similarly, a study by Gallup in 2009 among 1,003 U.S. employees arrived at the conclusion that if supervisors focus on their peoples’ strengths and actively engages rather than overlooks, the greater the chances of employees rallying for the organization’s cause. ‘What’s Working’ – Mercer study on worker insights highlights that employee engagement is no more about just the employee’s intent to leave. The employee’s commitment to the organization and motivation to contribute to the organization’s success plays a significant role. Among the key drivers are trust in senior management, organizational perception for customer service and fair pay. Not surprisingly, among the least valued factors in the continuum were benefits, compensation and performance management.
2. Effective Communication Key to Success
Watson Wyatt’s ‘Global Work Attitudes Report’ indicates that if engagement is high, so is financial performance. It highlights that the main drivers of employee engagement are similar around the world: effective communication, a clear customer focus and confidence in the strategic direction and leadership of the organization. It is therefore recommended that senior leaders proactively communicate, explain their thinking behind key decisions and organizational changes. It is also expected that managers and leaders personalize communication to improve trust and credibility. By regularly seeking feedback and employee inputs in the decision making process helps engage them better. Frequent recognition is known to be a relevant engagement lubricant and Towers Perrin underscores the influence of managers in inclusive communication and building trust through the power of recognitions.
3. Managers as Communication Ambassadors
The manager’s role in positively impacting engagement is widely accepted. A study by the Society of Human Resources Management found that managers or the immediate supervisors have a mission to build and sustain a workplace environment that fosters engagement and also attracts potential employees. Employees’ emotional commitment to the job, organization, team and manager has been found to determine stronger performance. Also managerial style has a significant impact on trust, respect and leadership and is one of the factors that influence engagement. A study by Development Dimensions International highlights that among the top key components of engagement are communication and accountability. This emphasizes the highlighting the managers’ responsibility in engaging employees. Having a competent manager community and a comprehensive communication strategy are vital to an organization’s engagement initiatives.
A well crafted reward and recognition program that is fair, clear, outcome driven and real-time supports a manager in improving commitment and productivity. That said, the manager is also expected to be attentive (listen intently), receptive (be open to suggestions and acknowledge value of what is heard) and responsive (demonstrate interest to take action). It is know that people show increased levels of respect and trust for managers who regularly ‘uplift’ their employees with informal and formal confidence building measures.
4. Demonstrate your commitment to corporate social responsibility
A research by Kenexa suggests that an organization’s active participation in corporate social responsibility efforts has a significant influence on employees’ engagement levels and how they perceive senior management. The research bases itself on the premise that those companies that win the hearts and minds of their top talent will be able to deliver value over both the short and long terms’. Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, Sankar & Korschun (2008) in their study emphasized that employees like to work for social responsible companies because it gives them the opportunity for personal growth. CEOs who were polled ranked ‘CSR’ 2nd in importance only to ‘reputation and brand’. Those who identify strongly with the company, view its success as their own. Employees who noted their organization’s commitment to social responsible behavior were motivated to work harder and be more productive. The benefits for the organization included high levels of employee commitment and dedication to excellence at work.
5. Embrace social media to engage employees
In their book ‘First, Break All The Rules: What The World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently’ the authors Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman articulate how communication is a vital element in energizing a flagging workforce. Overcoming information overload and getting employees to manage their work and by providing necessary tools helps to motivate and engage.
The research proposes a model – Develop-Deploy-Connect taking into account alignment, capability, performance and commitment. According to Aon Consulting, employers are unable to keep pace with the way employees communicate and hence do not know how to engage them. With growing social media interest it no more about what we communicate with employees but how we do so. There are lessons for leadership to absorb newer trends in social networking and mobile telephony to appeal to their younger generation at the workplace. Recommendations to involve and create a culture of sharing and peer to peer communication include instant messaging, podcasts, virtual training, blogs, internal social networks, wikis and social sites.
Deloitte’s 2008 talent report quotes a couple of relevant surveys – a Conference Board study which highlights open and two way communication as one of the top three expectations of employers. Another study from MIT which reinforces the social engagement aspect – ‘people are five times more likely to consult a co-worker for information than a corporate system’. ‘Who you know’ matters more than just ‘what you know’, a shift from our earlier understanding of knowledge and importance within an organization.
These pointers are crucial for organization to remodel the way communication needs to get created, shared and viewed. Social media tools will play a defining role in building trust and transparency, drive engagement and help measure the impact of how employees view their employers. There are very few organizations who take employee feedback and actively drive recommendations from consultants. Look up a case study of Sapient to know of how the organization involves and integrates its people to win loyalty.
Helping employees understand their role in the organization’s growth, channelizing their creative energies and allowing freedom at work can deliver results for organizations who want to win the engagement battle.
The Sapient Way – A Case Study
At Sapient, a global services company founded in 1990, the commitment to help clients transform their businesses for today’s digitally centric world is top priority. The organization believes in aligning its people to the company’s goals and understands the importance of keeping everyone on the same page when it comes to meeting it objectives. From its unique 3 day integration workshop and strategy called Sapient Start to its performance linked assessment program, from its ‘localized’ rewards and recognition initiative to its wide reaching alumni connection – the organization ensures that every person imbibes the Sapient culture. By keeping its internal programs consistent across all levels and all geographies it retains its unique identity and the clients’ experience of Sapient.
Sapient’s culture hinges on Strategic Context, a framework of common purpose, vision and set of values that connect every Sapient person to the company’s future. This aligns its people to a common and shared goal and their efforts are contributing to a bigger cause. The key differentiators of Sapient are its focus on internal communication, involving people in key decision making, extensive leadership-people connection, open and transparent work environment, its corporate social responsibility commitment, sharing ownership with the manager community and its consistent measurement of engagement.
Due to its focus on engagement, it ranks globally amongst the most engaged companies in the BT Mercer ‘Best Companies to Work’ as well as the ‘Great Places to Work’ surveys. Its reputation as a great place to work is also significantly enhanced by being featured amongst NASSCOM’s Top 100 innovators.
Below is a snapshot of a few internal initiatives that drive engagement at Sapient.
Strategic Internal Communication Approach: Effective internal communications drives Sapient people to change behaviors. It shares relevant and compelling communication to get people to move from awareness to understanding and action. Specifically, for change management initiatives that affect a large portion of Sapient people, a toolkit is shared that outlines communication practices at Sapient. A strong partnership between Public Relations, Internal Communications and the leadership ensures that Sapient people receive significant information about big changes, such as acquisitions and leadership transitions real time. Through telephonic debriefs, Town Halls and e-mails Sapient’s leadership effectively cascade the information with the help of managers to everyone in the company within a matter of hours.
Consistent Leadership Connect Town Halls: Every quarter the senior leadership and Office Leads commit time to engage with its people, share company updates, take feedback and answer questions face to face. The management believes it is vital to have everyone on the same page. The Town Hall conversations cover the company strategy, the impact of people practices, the company’s progress against goals, recognitions and office level updates.
People Forums: People from different career levels meet up on a recurring basis to interact, engage, drive initiatives and connection with peers and the organization. The forums such as the manager, director and technology sessions strive to align to the company’s charter and the Leadership Team’s goals. These are also opportunities to groom future leaders by allowing people to take accountability and initiative. Apart from this gathering, the Leadership Team frontends an initiative called the ‘Lessons in Leadership’ which allows people to interact with leaders, get advice on growing leadership skills and connect on a personal level with leaders.
Consistent communication through plasma TVs: Across offices plasma TVs play a roll-up of key company updates in a timely and consistent format. Every week the information is refreshed with a dedicated team monitoring and releasing content on company branded templates. The plasma screens are placed at vantage locations near the reception areas to ensure the information is relayed effectively. Also the slides are pictorial and timed to give people sufficient opportunity to absorb key messages.
The People Portal : The Sapient People Portal, represents a key step in the company’s commitment to keep its people better connected and informed, and provide an intuitive, easy-to-use experience. A major benefit is its ability to communicate important messages from management in a timely and efficient manner. The People Portal is unique in the manner the company involved the entire company in its conception and development. Over 40 teams made up of over 100 Sapient people submitted design entries, which were voted on by the entire company. Many of the designs provided key functional ideas and specifications that have been incorporated into the winning design.
Sapient’s company newsletter, the Sapient Connection: The weekly internal newsletter, emailed to every Sapient person and posted on the landing page of the People Portal, highlights new messages from leadership, as well as corporate news and success stories from offices worldwide. The newsletter received than three times the number of articles submitted and much wider readership than its predecessor. The Sapient Connection is now more accessible with a pdf format that is e-mailed to those who are at client locations and are unable to view the People Portal from a remote site.
People Portal Communities: Sapient believes in frequent and open feedback. It encourages people to leverage the current trend in social networking to help foster a sense of community between people and leadership. The People Portal includes online Sapient Communities, which have become a valuable tool for sharing information and insights in real time and fostering a sense of community across teams, practices, offices worldwide. Leaders can now connect with their people through postings, articles, and discussion threads.
Social Media Usage: Sapient creats CEO ‘You-Tube’ style videos to share company updates and progress against objectives set. The video medium is an ideal communication tool that allows the company to share information in a consistent and timely manner. Feedback on this new format has been extremely positive; people feel the video format helps them connect more easily (than an e-mail bulletin, for example) to leaders’ new ideas. Similarly, leadership blogs written by a pool of leaders share experiences and personal learning from the workplace. The blogs capitalizes on their ‘personality’ within the organization, provides an opportunity for leaders to be heard and allows open interaction. It is measured through the number of direct comments from readers, fruitful conversations and increased engagement. The posts range from the leaders’ business interactions to the team’s charter, from recent industry trends to the company’s people volunteering initiatives. The leadership accesses and manages the blogs in a DIY (do it yourself) model with e-mail communication templates to share updates after they post their entries. The company recently launched a Sapient India Facebook group (http://www.facebook.com/sapientindia) to build on the success of its social media strategy, which already includes Sapient Interactive groups on Facebook and LinkedIn. The Sapient India Facebook group is designed to help the company create brand awareness, showcase its culture and provide a community forum where Sapient people can share important company milestones and engage others in relevant discussion. The page reached 861 fans in a short span of 5 months.
‘Non-Business’ Distribution Lists: The company allows people to operate subscriber led distribution lists which appeal to special interest groups. The leadership monitors and observes posts and responds to comments and feedback which impact the organization. The lists are self-moderated and the moderators proposes guidelines so that only relevant communication is shared. Close to 1/3 of the company use the lists and many claim that it increases their chances of getting good deals as compared to the traditional route of newspaper advertisements. Through peer reviews people are able to get quick feedback on courses, real estate, banking needs among others.
Engagement Measurement: The company conducts a company-wide ‘pulse’ designed to assess the quality of how its people experience Sapient. The Engagement Survey using qualitative and quantitative questions assesses the company’s performance against a set of unchanging key measures. It measures various aspects of Sapient and gives Company, Support Teams, as well as Account, Project and Practice Leadership insight into what we are doing well today and what we need to change and improve. Apart from that Sapient conducts periodic Focus Group sessions designed to gather qualitative and anecdotal information from Sapient people about their thoughts on Sapient’s culture. Culture Champions approach people directly to participate in these in order to ensure a representative mix of domains, career stages, tenures and roles in each office are covered. Regular periodic ‘pulse’ checks are also conducted to get a sense of people and preempt attrition. The focus covers key themes: leadership, recognition and fun, connect to company, nature of work and growth. Using a proven discussion grid the inputs are captured for developing an action plan and shared directly with leaders.
Recognition Program: Sapient not only has a dedicated resource to oversee its recognition program it also makes improvements to the way award recipients are selected and celebrated. It applauds extraordinary effort and success across the organization consistently. All recognition programs are localized to ensure easier connection, faster distribution and smoother processes. The program is linked to the organization’s objectives and recognizes high performance. There are awards ranging from a spot recognition to a company wide honor for business development and living the core values.
Career Framework: Sapient invests in career tools to build readiness among its people for rapid growth and expansion into new markets. With an updated, integrated, holistic and standardized set of tools for talent management that better reflect its current and future business requirements, the company is well positioned to meet the needs of both the business and the inspirational needs its people. Online tools support peoples’ understanding of their competencies, areas of improvement and career levels they can move to.
People Led Office-Level Programs: Celebrations assume different dimensions at the local Sapient office level and are a blend of social, leadership-based and even, family-oriented celebratory gatherings, to recognize the value and impact that our people have on the organization. Sharing successes at the workplace with people’s families make celebrations even more meaningful. Through office-level social meets, leadership-people interactions and family gatherings we place a strong emphasis on recognizing the value and successes that our people bring across the organization in varying degrees. Budgets are allocated via the Office Leads who involve people for the office level programs.
Emphasis on CSR: We believe that corporate social responsibility (CSR) relates to the way organizations integrate social, environmental, and economic concerns into their values, culture, decision making, strategy and operations, thereby establishing better practices within the organization, creating wealth, and improving society. Sapient is interested in CSR as a way to ‘give back’ to the communities that we operate within while improving morale and engagement within our organization. We actively support the programs which fundamentally help improve lives. The programs are unique since it is people led and the organization plays the role of enabler with resources and support. The ‘enactors’ are the employees who choose, design and implement initiatives that impact society.
______________________________________________________________________
References:
1. British Association of Communicators in Business (2008). Engagement: Results of Engage Group Survey. Retrieved: http://cib.uk.com/content/knowledge-bank/1457-engagement-yougov-survey-results.html
2. Vance, Robert J., Ph.D. (2006). Employee Engagement and Commitment. Retrieved: http://www.shrm.org/about/foundation/research/Documents/1006EmployeeEngagementOnlineReport.pdf
3. Baker, Brian (2009). Engagement 2.0 Beyond the Firewall. Aon Consulting
4. Wellins, Richard S., Bernthal, Paul & Phelps, Mark (2004). Employee Engagement: the key to realizing competitive advantage, Development Dimensions International, Inc.,
Retrieved: http://www.ddiworld.com/pdf/ddi_employeeengagement_mg.pdf
5. Mercer (2008). What’s Working Study. Retrieved: http://www.mercer.com/whatsworking
6. Watson Wyatt (2008). Increasing Employee Engagement: Strategies for Enhancing Business and Individual Performance. Work Asia Survey
Retrieved: http://www.watsonwyatt.com/asia-pacific/research/docs/WorkAsia_SurveyReport_2007-2008.pdf
7. Bhattacharya, C. B., Sen, Sankar & Korschun, Daniel (2008). Using Corporate Social Responsibility to win the War of Talent, MIT Sloan Management Review. Winter 2008. Vol 49 No: 2.
8. Kenexa (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility Efforts Are Recognised By Employees
Retrieved: http://www.kenexa.com/getattachment/76533599-b86f-4391-8d50-3b8e35286d3f/Corporate-Social-Responsibility-Efforts-Are-Recogn.aspx
9. Buckingham, Marcus., & Coffman, Curt. (1999). First, Break All The Rules : What The World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently.
10. Deloitte (2008). It’s 2008: Do You Know Where Your Talent Is?. A Deloitte Research Study
11. Lockwood, Nancy R. (2007). Leveraging Employee Engagement for Competitive Advantage: HR’s Strategic Role. SHRM Research 2007 SHRM® Research Quarterly
12. Driving Performance and Retention Through Employee Engagement. Corporate Leadership Council 2004 Employee Engagement Survey.
13. Hewitt (2009). Cost Reduction and Engagement Survey. Retrieved: http://www.hewittassociates.com/MetaBasicCMAssetCache/Assets/Articles/2009/Hewitt_Survey_Highlights_Cost_Reduction_and_Engagement_042009.pdf
14. Towers Perrin (2009). White Paper – ‘Turbo charging’ Employee Engagement: The Power of Recognition from Managers.
Aniisu K Verghese is the India Internal Communication Lead at Sapient Corporation. Aniisu is passionate about engaging fellow communication practitioners through workshops and presentations. Visit Aniisu’s blog at http://www.intraskope.wordpress.com
How we talk to our sweetheart often transfers to the workplace
Maybe it’s because Valentine’s Day is upon us, but lately I’m thinking a lot about communication that has nothing to do with the workplace. I’m thinking about the kind that is ultimately more important than communication at work. Let’s call it communication in love.
We guys usually get pretty low scores from our significant others on our communication skills. Most women’s complaints usually have to do with our unwillingness to talk about our feelings. We opt instead for the universal grunt, which can be interpreted in a variety of ways. We do this so women will think we’re strong and mysterious. Revealing too much about what we think about something – whether it’s our political opinions, our existential questions or our innermost feelings – might ruin the mystery or make us appear weak.
Men give women low scores on communication because women do so much of it. For most women, a relationship is all about two people sharing information with each other. Besides asking us guys to tell them what we’re thinking, women also are all too willing to tell us guys what they think. Men generally have no problem with sharing information, as long as the information can be shared in less verbal (i.e., more physical) ways.
As a guy who has been through a few failed relationships and as a professional communicator, I can tell you that there is usually a direct link between the success of a relationship and the ability of the two people to communicate with one another. I admit this is not earth-shattering news.
But have you ever wondered how communication in love translates into communication at work?
Many of us have two faces – the one we wear at home and the one we wear to work. (In fact, this is one reason so many extramarital affairs happen with co-workers; they see the charming, intelligent side of us rather than the side that lies on the sofa in our underwear, watching WWF and belching out loud). This might be true, but I believe there is no hiding our true communication styles.
A man who withholds his feelings, who refuses to be vulnerable with the woman he loves, probably withholds information from his co-workers. A woman who prides herself on telling her husband exactly what she’s thinking without regard to his bruised ego probably annoys her co-workers with her brash character assassinations in the break room. A guy who believes the universal grunt should suffice as an acceptable response to a sincere question from his girlfriend probably thinks the people who work for him should be able to interpret his gutturals. A woman who resents the fact that her boyfriend can’t read her mind about what she’d like to do this weekend probably doesn’t understand why her subordinates can’t read her mind about how she likes the work to be done.
Just as those barriers to open communication keep couples from experiencing the joy of a loving relationship, similar obstacles prevent us from being as productive and as fulfilled as we can be in our jobs. Improve the way you talk to your sweetie and you just might find you’re improving the way you talk to your associates.
Love is work. And our communication in love is our communication at work.
Do you see a correlation between your communication in love and your communication at work? Talk about it in Q&A.
Refined Wisdom: Just as open communication in our personal lives depends on a certain level of trust, the same is true in our work lives. There simply are no perfect safeguards. The best business leaders can do is to set clear expectations of employee behavior, put as many safeguards in place as possible and – hold onto your seats – trust employees to do the right thing. |
Two recent news items shed light on how employee communication continues to be redefined and the sticky issues surrounding it.
A recent survey by a California-based business software company found that more than 43 percent of large U.S. corporations employ people to monitor outbound e-mail. A story last Wednesday in the Richmond Times-Dispatch said the area’s largest employers routinely check e-mails sent by employees to make sure they’re not leaking sensitive information.
A story published by Reuters on Saturday tells about the latest mainstream technology to be adapted by some corporations. Web logs – shortened to “blogs” – essentially are online journals written by everyday people for public consumption. One indication that blogs are picking up steam is that some bloggers received press credentials so they could write about the Democratic National Convention in July.
Now corporations are looking at the potential for blogs to be used as tools to enhance knowledge sharing and communication among employees. Not surprisingly, Microsoft and IBM are two leaders in the effort to introduce blogs to corporate America. The idea is to allow employees to post blogs on the company intranet – or perhaps even the public Web site, depending on the target audience – so they can share information more quickly and efficiently.
I work with companies to help them figure out the best ways to facilitate communication – from business leaders to employees, from employees to management, and laterally among employees. The flow of information is essential to any organization’s success and the less painful the communication, the better. Anyone who works in an organization with more than one employee knows exactly what I’m talking about.
Electronic media can greatly enhance communication. It’s difficult to imagine what we ever did before e-mail was introduced to the workplace. (Some might wish it never was as they spend hours a day creating and responding to e-mail.) Intranets, which are Web sites for employees, also can make communication and the flow of information easier. It looks like blogs might be the next big thing to find its way into our work lives – just as some companies also use message boards, chat rooms and desktop video.
The problem is that while many companies embrace the new technology, they also worry that it might be fraught with security problems. E-mail and Web-based technology offer just another way for proprietary information to leak to competitors, customers, the news media, and perhaps even criminals. This is true, but nothing kept employees from carrying sensitive documents out of the building with them in the days before e-mail. Nothing keeps employees from having one too many at the neighborhood block party and blurting out the name of the new product.
There simply are no perfect safeguards. The best business leaders can do is to set clear expectations of employee behavior, put as many safeguards in place as possible and – hold onto your seats – trust employees to do the right thing.
Just as open communication in our personal lives depends on a certain level of trust, the same is true in our work lives. I am not suggesting that companies should open the gates and throw caution to the wind for the sake of open communication. That would be foolish. However, there comes a point at which organizations must treat employees as responsible adults.
Routinely monitoring e-mails might be necessary in this day and age, but is it really necessary to completely restrict employees’ use of communication media? Such a hard line sends a bad message to employees, who then become increasingly distrustful and suspicious of management.
I expect blogs won’t become as ubiquitous as e-mail in American companies. I don’t believe there are many companies that trust their employees enough to give them that kind of freedom of expression. On the other hand, it’s interesting to think about the possibility of free-flowing information from one responsible employee to another.
An employee describes what led to leaving a job they loved, in an organization they respected, and people whom they enjoyed working with.
“Why did I leave? Good question. I was tired. Not like you might think, although I was physically tired sometimes. It might sound funny, but was tired in spirit and tired of feeling that way.
“I had been at the company for about eight years when I left. I really wanted that job and was excited when I got it. It was someplace I really wanted to be. For the first five years I was as engaged as they come. I felt like it was my company.
“When I started management said they wanted employees to make the company better, to make a difference. Sign me up! Even with the long hours and bad take out food those were great times. I was always looking for things that might improve or scuttle a project or decision and talking to others about what was going on. I made a difference, learned all the time and helped the organization achieve its goals. It doesn’t get much better than that, does it?
“Back then I knew I was appreciated too. Management would comment on my work and seek me out to participate in all kinds of projects. And although my co-workers and I didn’t always agree, we always listened to each other. That was the really great part. The respect everyone had for each other. Those project meetings and even the casual hallway conversations built trust across the organization and gave us a deep understanding of the business. We knew we could count on each other and we were doing important work.
“About two years ago things started to change. First we were growing and couldn’t keep up; everyone was spread so thin we were lucky to just keep things together. Then the market shifted and management decided to cut staff. It was the first time they didn’t ask for our involvement. Those of us who were left had to absorb additional work. There had always been pressure to meet short-term goals, but this was different. Suddenly speed trumped thinking and understanding. Questions weren’t appreciated. I was seen as resistant to change, a troublemaker. It’s not true; I know speed is important, but we kept missing important information just when we needed to really be on our game.
“Eventually I stopped trying. I just did what I was told. I know I had insights that could have helped us, but it didn’t matter. No one was listening. While I still liked and respected my co-workers, even those I disagreed with, I eventually realized I didn’t know as much about the business and its problems as I had. Neither did they. We had stopped learning. Decisions weren’t as sharp. Relationships weakened. When we needed to pull together, not only was the ‘can do’ spirit missing, so was the real knowledge.
“Like I said, coming to work used to be fun. When it became just a job I finally admitted to myself it didn’t matter if I was there. I got tired of not having fun, so I left.”
Things to think about:
U.S. job satisfaction continues to fall
Employee attitudes and expectations about work have changed
Employees are more confident about finding a job
The clock is ticking. How much fun are people having in your organization?
- Strategic communications help a business achieve its objectives. That is their purpose.
- Effective communications are those that produce measurable results and they can be a competitive differentiator.
- There are costs associated with communicating, but there can be costs associated with not communicating as well. Internal communications seek cost-effective and creative solutions to solve complex communications challenges.
- Employees are drowning in information, but starving for understanding. Our job is to make the important interesting.
- Credibility is the foundation upon which effective communication is built. Unless it is believed, a message has no worth.
- Face-to-face communication is the most desirable form of communication because it is immediate, personal and interactive. Most employees say their immediate supervisor is their preferred and most credible source of information about the business.
- Communication is, by definition, a two-way process. Feedback mechanisms must be part of every employee communication.
- Communication is a management responsibility. Internal Communications supports leaders by serving as consultants, facilitators and resource partners.
- As in any effective strategy, form should follow function. The medium is the message.
You must decide – as an organization and as an individual team leader – what spirit you intend to convey with the participation of your employees in social media.
If your intention is for them to be simply mechanical amplification vehicles for a very carefully crafted marketing message, that can work. You’ll likely see some results in terms of absolute reach and volume of short-term message resonance. You will sacrifice a degree of credibility on behalf of your individual representatives and personality and genuineness on behalf of your brand in favor of a consistent, safe(-r) message. You will also likely sacrifice culturally, since your employees will realize they’re part of a marketing machine, not someone who is entrusted to help build and shape a brand.
If your intention is for employees to become individual voices for your organization and unique representatives of your company’s values, personality and diversity, that can work too. You’ll likely see results in terms of trust and affinity for your brand as well as better identification of your advocates, both internal and external. You will sacrifice a certain amount of stability and potential consistency of message in favor of communications that are more unique and individual. You’ll also sacrifice some predictability around outcomes and need to rely on strong education and culture initiatives to guide your teams and hone their own sense of good judgment.
The bottom line: governance and guidance is important. But it’s a means to more scalable social media, not the end.
We’ve said many times here — and will continue to — that social business transformation is far more cultural than it is operational. Getting your employees involved is no different, and your policies and guidelines need to consider not just what you don’t want to happen, but instead what values, vision and intent you want your teams’ social media participation to convey.
INTEL
Always pause and think before posting. That said, reply to comments in a timely manner, when a response is appropriate. But if it gives you pause, pause. If you’re about to publish something that makes you even the slightest bit uncomfortable, don’t shrug it off and hit ‘send.’ Take a minute to review these guidelines and try to figure out what’s bothering you, then fix it. If you’re still unsure, you might want to discuss it with your manager or legal representative. Ultimately, what you publish is yours – as is the responsibility. So be sure.
Perception is reality. In online social networks, the lines between public and private, personal and professional are blurred. Just by identifying yourself as an Intel employee, you are creating perceptions about your expertise and about Intel by our shareholders, customers, and the general public-and perceptions about you by your colleagues and managers. Do us all proud. Be sure that all content associated with you is consistent with your work and with Intel’s values and professional standards.
It’s a conversation. Talk to your readers like you would talk to real people in professional situations. In other words, avoid overly pedantic or “composed” language. Don’t be afraid to bring in your own personality and say what’s on your mind. Consider content that’s open-ended and invites response. Encourage comments. You can also broaden the conversation by citing others who are blogging about the same topic and allowing your content to be shared or syndicated.
Web writing is all about emotional impact. We’ve already said web writing is a direct selling environment. (WWUP #1) To attract and retain readers, we must get to the point quickly. But the point we get to cannot be intellectual. It must be emotional. When I use the word emotional, I don’t mean the writing should be cheesy or sentimental. I mean it should be emotionally authentic. It should build trust, not violate it.
For example, consider this web copy: “When you buy from Company XYZ, you receive personalized service.” That is obviously an empty promise—dead and wooden. It doesn’t build trust. What if we approached it from the point of view of the customer: “Our service representatives have fans. One customer calls her rep, ‘Mr. Trustworthy’ because he always shows up when she calls. Once, he returned her call while he was getting ready to attend his son’s wedding. Mr. Trustworthy returned her call and made sure her problem was handled.’” Do you see the difference? In just a few words we create emotional impact by relating a success story.
So, how do you create emotional impact? Particularize. Tell a story about satisfied customers. Get real about how you create delighted customers. Deliver that impact.
What if you’re a new business and you don’t have any success stories you can call on? What if you company business process isn’t there yet, generating quality success stories.
Just use business language instead of abstracted, intellectual sales talk.
An example: “Smaller grocery chains are being inadequately serviced by large food marketing organizations. Company XYZ solves that problem.”
Improved: “As far as the large food marketing organizations are concerned, your grocery chain is not even on their radar screen.”
You could argue using “radar screen” is a cliché. Perhaps you don’t like it. My larger point is to suggest you should use language that delivers the emotional impact without beating around the bush. That kind of language creates trust, keeps people reading your web site and ultimately contributes to making a sale.
The most important words on your web site are not the ones you wrote. Here’s my thinking on this and tell me if you don’t agree: The most important reason people do business with an organization after looking at their web site has to do with trust. They believe the organization is presenting itself truthfully. And, of course, they want what the organization is offering. As you may know, the whole issue of trusted relationships on the web is very current, being discussed by security and work collaboration experts. How do you create trust on the web? There are many ways, but in my opinion, the most effective way to create trust is to include customer/client testimonials throughout the web site. They don’t have to be lengthy—just a few sentences will do. Many organizations will have a page devoted to client testimonials. That’s good, but what I’m suggesting is that you sprinkle those testimonials throughout the web site. The welcome page can have rotating testimonials. Every page thereafter should have at least one testimonial towards the bottom of the page. The point is this: You can’t go on any page of that web site without reading at least one testimonial—people who paid you a compliment and are willing to let you use their name on your web site. They’re going to bat for you. And that communicates trust. So think about it: The most important words on your web site are not the ones you wrote. They are the words your clients or customers wrote about you. Do you agree?
Here’s a universal principle that frames the experience of writing for the web: “Form ever follows function.” Those words were first written by Louis Sullivan early in the 20th Century. What does designing a department store or any large public building have to do with writing for the web? And what could an architect who lived so long ago have to say to us about writing web content? Or designing web sites? Everything.
Just as no building architect today would design a building without taking into account how people are going to use it, likewise, no web site architect should ever consider designing a web site without thinking about how visitors are going to use it.
We talk about usability—a word that would have seemed strange to Mr. Sullivan—but aren’t we talking about the form of the web site reflecting the way people use it? And when it comes to writing content, aren’t we likewise trying to make the content as readily available, as comprehensible and effortless to read as possible? I think so. That thought frames everything I know about writing for the web.
So, based on “Form ever follows function,” and the way people use web sites today, let me suggest three thoughts as a guide to web writing: chunk, light, tuna.
Chunk. People don’t read on the web, they scan. Break your story into bite-sized chunks. Make your writing compact and succinct. A few short paragraphs on one page and you’re done. Bullets and subheads improve readability. Keep it simple.
Light. Keep the writing light. Avoid self-serious or ponderous prose. Focus on benefits. Tell how a product or service improves peoples’ lives or adds value. Tackle serious subjects and be real, but do it in a highly readable way.
One example from a white paper I wrote: “Digital asset management systems can generate a healthy ROI, yet few do. Why? Three important reasons: Planning. Planning. Planning.”
Keep it light, but avoid humor which can easily backfire on the web.
Tuna. This is not a reference to a losing Cowboy coach. By tuna, I mean give people substance. Tell people what they want to know: What you’re going to do for them. Give them benefits. Tell how they’re going to feel after they’ve used your service or product. Most importantly, prove it with testimonials from real customers•statements that carry emotional impact.
Write “chunk light tuna,” and you’ll be writing the way people use the web today.If Louis Sullivan were alive, I bet he would agree.
If this is indeed the year of reading more and writing better, we’ve been right on course with David Ogilvy’s 10 no-bullshit tips, Henry Miller’s 11 commandments, and various invaluable advice from other great writers. Now comes John Steinbeck — Pulitzer Prize winner, Nobel laureate, love guru — with six tips on writing, culled from his altogether excellent interview it the Fall 1975 issue of The Paris Review.
- Abandon the idea that you are ever going to finish. Lose track of the 400 pages and write just one page for each day, it helps. Then when it gets finished, you are always surprised.
- Write freely and as rapidly as possible and throw the whole thing on paper. Never correct or rewrite until the whole thing is down. Rewrite in process is usually found to be an excuse for not going on. It also interferes with flow and rhythm which can only come from a kind of unconscious association with the material.
- Forget your generalized audience. In the first place, the nameless, faceless audience will scare you to death and in the second place, unlike the theater, it doesn’t exist. In writing, your audience is one single reader. I have found that sometimes it helps to pick out one person—a real person you know, or an imagined person and write to that one.
Read full article via brainpickings.org
Are you a deluded writer? Stop! Before you answer that question, let me tell you about Brian Wansink and the bottomless bowl of tomato soup.
Wansink is a scientist who holds the John S. Dyson Endowed Chair at Cornell University where he is Director of the Food and Brand Lab. He’s also the author of the 2006 book Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More.
In one of his most famous studies, he rigged up “bottomless” bowls of tomato soup. (Researchers kept the bowls filled by hidden tubes that imperceptibly kept adding more soup while the subjects ate). Wansink then compared the eating habits of people faced with a normal bowl, versus those given a “bottomless” bowl. The results were astonishing.
People who had a normal bowl ate, on average, nine ounces of soup. But people who ate from the rigged bowls averaged 15 ounces — 73 percent more! And most amazingly, the subjects at the self-filling bowls did not rate themselves as any more full than the subjects at the normal bowls.
All of which goes to show, we are terrible judges of ourselves.
This principle applies to our writing, too. Are our carefully thought-out words lucid, moving, and compelling? Or are they boring, self-indulgent, and banal? Who knows? The problem is, we’re not very skilled at analyzing ourselves.
I won’t lie to you. The verb “to lie,” meaning “to recline,” is not the easiest verb in the English language. For that matter, neither is the verb “to lie” meaning “to tell a falsehood.” I sometimes see the present participle of both verbs spelled “lieing.”
Now either you were horrified by the title of this piece and thought Ranly has finally lost it completely, or you have come to accept the misuse of the verb. Is it really so bad? Doesn’t the language change? Shouldn’t we just accept that few people will use the verb correctly?
For more than three decades I have been trying to teach writing and editing, and even though I sometimes doubt that I can teach writing other than to encourage good writing when I see it (“Hey, that’s good. Do some more of that!”), I have thought that I could teach editing. And all I have tried to teach is what some call Standard American Written English.
People speak colorfully and certainly in ways that we would not find acceptable in accepted print publications. I was listening to a local talk show the other day, and an officer of a bank, I think he was the president, was discussing how quickly the new bank had been completed. “If you had drove past here just two weeks ago, you would have saw a lot of work still to do.” Now that’s just great. He may be a helluva banker, but should he speak in public?
Standard American Written English. I’ve been stewing about this “lie” verb for some time now, and then this past week I started reading a packet of articles sent to me by an absolutely outstanding young writer by the name of Justin Heckert. Justin was hired right out of undergraduate J-school here at Mizzou by ESPN The Magazine. Well, he just couldn’t stand it there because they wouldn’t really let him write. So he went to a magazine that would, an outstanding city magazine, Atlanta.
Now I’m reading this wonderful personal story of his, and I come upon this sentence: “The first day of tests I had to lay flat on my back while the doctors drew a sufficient amount of blood to test.” My student wrote that! (His mother is an English teacher.) And the editors, good editors, did not change it. Damn. Well, maybe the battle’s over.
But then I read another piece by Justin, and I came upon this sentence: “… Skip (Caray, the Atlanta Braves announcer) had just been sitting there, at the table, transfixed by all that lay outside the window….” Damn again. They do know the verb! The least they can do is be consistent!
The hospital scene reminds me of a story about a former professor here that is so good it just might be true. He was a fanatic about “lie, lay, lain,” and being around doctors and nurses who regularly told him to “lay back” nearly drove him out of his mind. Well, the story I tell is that he was literally on his deathbed when a nurse told him to “lay back.” He bolted straight up and shouted at the top of his voice, “Lie back!” and he lay back and died.
Another story that’s almost true that I love to tell my students is about my dog, Rosie, who will just look at you if you tell her to “lay down,” but she will recline immediately if you tell her to “lie down.”
My granddaughter was 4 when I asked her what she did with the TV remote. She told me, “I lied it over there.” Seemingly she had heard me lecture enough about the use of “lie” not to ever use the word “lay” in any of its forms. But how do you tell a 4-year-old that “to lie” is intransitive; it cannot have an object. You meant, sweetheart, to say that you “laid” it over there because that’s the past tense of “to lay,” a transitive verb that requires an object. You see transitive verbs do things to things. Intransitive verbs cannot do things to things. You cannot “lie” something.
But neither is the remote “laying” over there. It’s not doing anything to anything. It’s just “lying” there. Is that really so difficult?
If you are a reader who always uses these verbs correctly, I salute you. If you want more explanation, read on.
The past tense of “to lie,” meaning “to recline,” is “lay.” The past participle (we use past participles along with the helping verb “to have” to form the present perfect, past perfect and future perfect tenses) is “lain.” So here’s how it works:
“At midnight I thought I would lie down. I lay there an hour before I turned off the TV. I had lain there another hour before I finally fell asleep. I don’t know how long my puppy was lying beside me.”
Now the past tense of “to lay,” meaning “to place down,” is “laid.” The past participle is also “laid.”
“I always lay the remote next to me on the bed. I’d swear I laid it there last night, but I couldn’t find it. I thought I remembered laying it there. Perhaps I had laid it on the stand by my bed.”
Remember. After I “lay” something down, it’s just “lying” there. It’s not doing anything to anything.
Is the battle worth fighting? Shall we let sleeping dogs lay — or lie?
Or would you rather just email me?
A couple of readers have asked me about making “email” a verb. I’m a little surprised they didn’t ask about taking out the hyphen in email.
Well, as I wrote in my piece about verbyfying nouns, some of our strongest verbs were once nouns. Linguists like to trace when nouns first became used as verbs, and I suppose some words were used as nouns and verbs almost from the beginning.
Take the word “work,” for example. I have no idea. Was it first a noun or a verb?
It certainly didn’t take long for “email” to be used as a verb. At least the form of the word remained the same, and we did not “ize” it. Wouldn’t it be awful if we “emailized” people?
All I know is, one day I made a momentous decision. I decided on the same day that I would never again put a hyphen in “email” and that I would lower-case (notice that verb!) “internet.”
So, OK, “email” me. But for heaven’s sake, don’t “copy” me!
Refined Wisdom: Here’s what I think about making verbs into nouns. Usually, there are so many better, simple words that we can use.
It seems months ago by now (and it is) that, strangely enough, I found myself listening to Condoleezza Rice testifying before the special committee investigating the events surrounding 9/11. Not once, but several times Rice said various people “were tasked” to do something, and I’m quite sure she also said “we were tasking” that at a certain point in time.
Then I read this quote from Richard A. Clarke in The New York Times: “All 56 F.B.I. federal offices were also tasked in late June to go on increased surveillance.”
So, there was a lot of “tasking” going on. So also was there a lot of “verbyfying” nouns, to use the word Edwin Newman coined for the phenomenon. Well, it might have been William Safire.
I looked up the word in Webster’s Third, quite confident “task” was never a verb, but I was wrong again. The first meaning listed is “to tax,” but it says that usage is obsolete. “To impose a task upon,” it says in the second meaning, and then it quotes John Dryden using it that way. The third meaning, also obsolete, is “to reprimand.” And the fourth meaning is “to oppress with great labor.” I was just with a staff of a software company in North Carolina, and a sharp copy editor there defended the use of the word in the passive — “was tasked.” Sounds like cruelty to me.
Well, it does bring up the whole question of turning nouns into verbs. There’s no disputing that many verbs we now use were once nouns (was “progress” first a noun or a verb?), and some would say, what’s the big deal anyway? We have verbs such as “maximize” and “minimize,” so what’s wrong with “parameterizing”?
(I once had a phone conversation with the father of a student whom I had failed in a magazine-editing class. The father assured me that he and his daughter “now had matters parameterized.” I almost told him that I would never have failed her had I known she had been paramaterized.)
Here’s what I think about making verbs into nouns. Usually, there are so many better, simple words that we can use. Even if it takes a few more words to say something, it’s better than appearing pompous or pretentious with overblown, made-up words. In the end, it comes down to clarity.
Why would we want to “utilize” something when we can just “use” it? I like to say that if we don’t stop “utilizing” the English language, we’re going to “finalize” it. I don’t really believe that, but if you or your boss is verbyfying nouns, stop it already.