Hanging on the telephone: learning about communicating virtually

This week I listened in on a webinar session, entitled "Who are you talking to?"

It was billed as a chance to learn about communication in a virtual environment. I was excited: it's something I do a lot of, working for a company with headquarters in California and with remote members of team based both in the UK and abroad.

I have to say, on the whole I was fairly disappointed. It's expected that if I sign up for something free, or hosted by a sponsor, that I'll have to hear a little bit about that sponsor. But really, to set up a training session where 50% (20 min of a 45 min session) is a sales pitch is taking the proverbial.

There really wasn't much consideration of how to use communication techniques in a virtual environment. What I was hoping for was something that would consider how to compensate for the absence of body language cues, how to help establish common ground, or how to tackle flow when there are several people all trying to speak at once. It's really easy to be in a bad conference call, where people can't hear what is being said, or where everyone is trying to speak and good communication gets lost as a result. 

Ironically a good quarter of that 45 minutes was spent sharing feedback on what visual cues to look for in communication: so if the person you're talking to is looking up they're a big picture/visual thinker, looking to the side an auditory thinker (they apparently look at their ears), and looking down a kinaesthetic thinker. In a webinar environment there is no verbal cue: that would have been an interesting discussion to get into. Even on video conference this can be almost impossible, since screen resolutions or camera/screen size make it difficult to see more than a rough outline of the people in the room. I would love to come across more relevant advice/reading/training on how to do virtual meetings really well.

What it did do was reinforce some general good communications practice, such as thinking about your sphere of influence (Covey's seven habits) and how to use that sphere of control available to you to build a wider circle of influence. I also liked the trainer (Lynne Copp, founder of the Worklife Company): she consistently used a clear and varied tone that made the 45 minutes go quickly. She had some interesting ideas on using "words, music and dance", or in other words ensuring that body language and physical self have such a large impact on our ability to influence. I believe she said just 7% of our ability to influence is the words we use, the rest is all wrapped up in that frame of reference created by the "music and dance". 

It also reinforced some known truths about effective communication, which is never a bad thing: 

1. Email is the worst form of communication. Ambiguity is so easy on email. Have a conversation face to face, or by phone. It's almost impossible to influence if you can't be in dialogue with that person. Email doesn't cut it.
2. Unplanned attempts to influence will almost certainly fail. This was a point that really got drilled home to me on an excellent training course last month, where we spent two days considering personalities and how to influence these different types of people. You need to consider who it is you are talking to, how they think and what method of influence they are most likely to respond to.
3. This in turn feeds the last important truth: two-way dialogue is key. They say that the majority of your time in influence should be spent listening, not talking. Get feedback, involve with open questions, and summarise the responses you hear. That all adds up to showing understanding, which in turn makes influence more likely.

Learning more about webinars is a focus for me this year, and I've already lined up some more reading to do on the subject. Two key takeaways for me from this particular webinar were:

• Don't talk over each other. The webinar established this by only allowing input via Twitter or an online popup box - all attendees were muted. In a live meeting, another way to do this would be just to establish ground rules at the top of the meeting, and encourage people to be considerate to others on the call.
• Use a varied tone of voice. I already mentioned how well Lynne did this on this particular webinar. It's important if you're the only person talking to do so with authority and keep the listening audience engaged.

I'm starting to compile more thoughts on running good webinars, and more on this to come.

Warning: this blog post may contain strong English language

It's entirely possible that I'm a little tired and grumpy this evening, and as such, perhaps the rant which I am about to begin is a little harsh. But nevertheless it would only be a little harsh.

As a communications professional, I'm conscious of the need to think through who I contact. And to reach out to those people with relevant information. As a PR professional, if I made the grievous error of reaching out to a journalist who wasn't interested in the topic I was pitching, I'd find myself blacklisted, or even worse it would be posted about all over the internet (cf the wonderful bad pitch blog).

So it was with a little outrage that I opened an email newsletter from my alma mater this evening, the University of Durham, with the subject line "English Department Alumni Newsletter".

Why such outrage, you ask? Because I didn't study English.

Now I can see how such an error might occur. My degree did have the word "English" in the title, but I studied English Language and Linguistics, and I was registered in the Linguistics department. Not English. Durham closed my department the year I left, with the tutors moving mostly to the University of Northumbria. That felt, to me, appalling at the time, not least of all because it was one of the best courses in Linguistics in the country, but because the department received high impact scores. I'm not going to dwell on this though, because despite how it may have appeared to me, I was 21, and frankly don't really know the politics or strategic direction that the then administration based their decision on.

But while I won't dwell on the demise of the Linguistics department, I will dwell on the poor re-categorisation of a Linguistics graduate to an 'English Studies' mailing group. I won't blame the people involved with writing the newsletter, which is perfectly nice (although the e-reading interface is a little challenging and they might want to consider splitting the pages for online viewing). Where the buck stops is really in the management of alumni data at the University, wherever that sits. Is it CRM? Administration? I don't really know but this is a message to them, whoever they are:

Dear X,
I am a graduate from the University of Durham with a first class honours degree in English Language and Linguistics. Whilst that department no longer exists, at the time, it was a world-leading Social Science department. You wrote to me recently addressing me as an 'English Studies' graduate. I'm sorry, but you seem to have me confused me with an Arts student. You see, Linguistics has absolutely nothing to do with English Literature. In fact, I probably read as much literature as a plant scientist.
I spent my degree drawing syntax trees setting out grammatical sentence structures; analysing discourse; and writing out phonetic symbols. Where the English Literature scholars your newsletter addresses learned of poets and prose, and dug deep into understanding what these great works might mean, I was listening to kids learning to talk. I was watching individuals playing a game and analysing the sociological roles they assumed in a group. I was listening to accents and phonetically transcribing the sounds. I was studying people and language. I wasn't studying literature.
Other than them sharing the same symbols, they really don't have much in common. So can I have something targeted to me in my own right as an alumnus of your institution? Or does the fact that there no longer is a Linguistics department mean I am lost forever, a floating name in your CRM system without a proper category?

As I say, it's been a long day, perhaps I'm being too critical. And for the record, I absolutely loved my university experience. My heart beats a little faster when I think about how much I love Durham, how much I loved my time there. So I guess maybe that is why it's even a little sadder when my alma mater doesn't recognise me, lumps me with a group I share no affinity with, and doesn't offer me anything to engage with. Maybe I could ask the University of Northumbria to email me from their Linguistics department instead...

In the chair: how to handle a panel discussion

I chaired my first conference session this week. The panel were, frankly, amazing. I was very lucky to have had acceptances from a truly great group of people, that not only offered a broad range of views, but were willing to be open and honest about their point of view.

Having not done this before, I set out to get some advice from others who have done this well. Some suggested reading follows below:

• http://www.sparkmediasolutions.com/conference.html
  http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2006/06/04/10_rules_for_be.html
• http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/03/how_to_be_a_gre.html#axzz0yevjiPXZ
• http://powazek.com/posts/497
• http://www.ehow.com/how_2099947_moderate-panel.html
• http://www.socialsignal.com/blog/rob-cottingham/13-keys-to-a-good-panel

So what would I add to these words of wisdom? Well, having now faced the challenge head on, I'll agree with all those pieces that chairing a panel is not easy! At all! Some of the hardest things were dealing with questions or answers that took the issue off topic, and handling the same small vocal minority to ensure they didn't monopolize the conversation.What I also found difficult was keeping the questions very short and to the point. In hindsight I'd practice that aspect more. I'd prepared lots of questions and had lots of views myself (which I managed, for the most part, to keep to myself), but there were a few occasions where I felt I should have worked the room better. So my advice is as follows:

• Preparation really is everything. My biggest benefit was having looked carefully at who was on the panel, and what their strengths were, what they could respond to, and where to turn a particular question over to them.
• Keep intros snappy, and set out how you want audience participation to be. If they know what your expectations are, it's easier to control. So if you want questions throughout, say so. If you want them just at the end, be clear. It's just like facilitating any meeting.
• Keep questions short and clear. Take time to clarify if there is any confusion, so your speakers don't veer off topic.
• Make sure you do look to the whole room, not just the small vocal minority, for input. They do have questions, they're just shy. Find ways to get them involved.
• Do leave time to cover what you want. I set a timer to count down at the start of the session, which enabled me to monitor how long we were spending on each area, and to say clearly how much time we had left.
• Final point: be flexible. It won't go exactly how you plan - you can't predict what people will want to talk about, either on the panel or in the audience. You just need to keep the flow moving, and ensure the audience get lots of time to engage.

I think my first chair experience was far from a disaster, but I've got lots of room for improvement. It was great to hear from lots of different people how much they enjoyed the session over the course of the conference. Looking forward to the next opportunity to try it again!

Presentation zen?

I'm trying to carve out some time each week to look at my skills base. Tonight it's the humble presentation. A skill I've honestly worked hard at over the years. When I got my first job in publishing, I was terrified of even speaking in a meeting. I forced myself to practice, taking every opportunity to present internally and then externally. Now, even if I still get nervous, I can stand up and deliver a good presentation. I blogged about a really great event I went to last year, which has some great tips on good delivery. But tonight I'm reading all about the practice of 'presentation zen'.

Garr Reynolds, who is behind this particular learning phenomenon presents the case for the approach in a really attractive (appropriately) book published 2008 by New Riders (details on his website).

He refers to research from the University of South Wales which showed people can't read and listen at the same time. In other words, suggesting that powerpoint - with words up on the screen - wasn't a useful aide. Moreover Reynolds points to the bad habits people have fallen into with Powerpoint use.

The Zen presentation reflects balance, grace, beauty. It targets both side of our brains, with visual stimulation that forces a reaction from those viewing it. Importantly it stresses the need to break away from the series of bulleted text on every single slide. It begs us to think about our creative side. Tells us to get away from the computer and explore the shape of our narrative with flipcharts, or sticky notes, or just a notepad.

What that technique aims to do is refocus us away from the technology or tools, and move us back to the narrative we are trying to create. Clearing the clutter, if you will. It's about starting with the goal, and then figuring out how to get people there. Like any planning cycle, Zen presentations want you to step back and examine the big picture, decide what it is that is important, then focus on a clear and concise way to explain that through a well thought-out narrative.

I'm not going to summarise the whole book - otherwise you'd have no reason to visit Garr's website or read it yourself. But in short, the key take aways are

• Simplicity: both message and design
• Emotion: make both sides of the brain work hard
• Storytelling: focus on the narrative.

How to win friends and the rest. 7 Golden rules

Today was a perfect example of how NOT to make friends or influence people. A series of unfortunate events have led to me dreading a meeting next week with a particular journalist. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that he thinks I'm a moron. In fact, he would be very justified in thinking so. If he reads this, you know who you are, and I can't apologise enough.

To set some context, the catalogue of errors were not all my fault, but when you add them all together, it just presents a classic set of 'what not to do when meeting new contacts'. Not only did my office leave it too late to arrange a venue for a meeting I'd booked for him, but then today I publicly announced his coming to an event a day later than he was actually coming. Lesson learned. Never tweet a date without checking it first!

With that in mind, here is a list of some better ways to meet and greet journalists...

1. DO confirm bookings that you agree with journalists in good time. If they have taken the time to reserve a slot in their diaries, make sure you are also going to be able to make that time. Importantly, make sure the place (and any other people who need to be there) is reserved and kept ready for the meeting.

2. DO confirm all those arrangements with the journalist ahead of time. As much as you'd like them to keep meetings, the nature of news means that they won't always be able to. It's not their fault. And it's not personal.

3. Do think about convenience for the journalist. They're more than likely to be pushed for time: can you meet them near their office? If you can't, are you sure the arrangements fit with their schedule? It's not press deadline day? It's not a really tricky time of year, or on the day something else important is happening? (see the above on that last point too).

4. If they've got time for more than a coffee (most haven't), do something nice with them. Lunches are rare occasions - at least my contacts book tell me so. With less staff on many titles, they just don't have the time to do this. If they do you should feel both privileged and make sure it is well worth their while.

5. Keep it relevant. If they're taking time out of their day, make sure there's a story in it for them. That means doing your homework, and ensuring that what you're telling them is going to light their fire.

6. Find out what lights their fire. See above.

7. Follow up. Nothing worse than meeting a new contact, or seeing an old one, then forgetting all about what you talk about afterwards.

I've never regretted taking time out of my day to go and chat informally with a contact. Particularly if I've exchanged emails or phone calls, but not met them in person, it makes a world of difference. You learn more about that individual and what they are interested in, and go away with a much stronger relationship.

I'm going to have to work hard next week to prove I'm not a moron, and despite my catalogue of errors that I'm a friendly, helpful contact for them to know and get to know better. Hopefully I'll follow some of my own advice.