The Articulate CEO

How To Use Email Effectively

If we are honest then we have to admit we have all decided to send an email to deal with an uncomfortable or upsetting issue rather than have a direct conversation. We would also have to admit that those emails didn't actually help resolve the issues or confusion more quickly and effectively. The fact is we were just using email as a way of hiding and, in turn, creating a situation of rising tensions and escalating problems. Thus, email wars erupt, clutter mailboxes, eat up time and thwart collaboration, morale and productivity.

Email is a great way to communicate if it is used correctly but unfortunately it often isn't. So here are a few tips for making the most of its efficiency while avoiding the worst of its failings:

1. Use email for its main purposes: communicate or receive information, as a form of documentation or for friendly correspondence
By all means use email to keep everyone informed of a project’s status, to verify what was discussed in a face-to-face or phone conversation, to ask a quick question, to say hello or send a compliment.

2. Do not use email to resolve emotional issues or arguments
In other words, if you are upset with someone or someone is upset with you, then you need to talk rather than send email. An email can never convey tone - no matter what emoticon you attach to it! It is just not a good way to communicate emotions or resolve difficulties.

3. State the purpose of your email immediately.
By stating the purpose in the subject heading or in the first sentence of your text, you minimize the possibility that the recipient will misinterpret your message or delete it before it is read.

4. Write email as you would a newspaper article.
The first sentences should contain the most pertinent information, with details following in subsequent sentences. People are busy and need the highlights. They may never finish the email and may miss important information if it is buried in the body of the text. If appropriate, have a quick summary sentence at the end.

5. If an email starts looking like a tennis game, pick up the phone.
If you email back and forth with someone more than two times about the same issue, it is time to pick up the phone and get clarification. When emails volley back and forth about the same issue, it is often a sign that something else is going on (someone is really upset, doesn’t understand, is being resistant, and so on).

6. If you don’t want an email published in a newspaper, don’t send it.
You never know what will happen with your email or to whom it will be forwarded once you press send and once it is out there it is out there for good. By definition email is public domain so treat it that way.

The bottom line is that is the information you want to convey is really impoirtant then you should be talking to someone not emailing them. Email can be a great tool but onl;y if used appropriately.

The Futility of 'Engagement' Surveys

'Engagement' is the latest buzzword used to describe an abstract emotion that we would like our employees to feel about their work. In the past it has been called empowerment or ownership or commitment and now we have 'engagement'. It is simply another attempt to describe an instinctive understanding that we have that our organisation tends to be better off when our workforce care about what they do. The reason that the word we use to describe this keeps changing is because we have not been able to discover what it is that we have to do to get it - mainly because it id actually different for most people. So, instead of admitting failure, we change the word and make it look as if we are looking for something different.

Most of us have still not found out what to do to allow our workforces to engage so when our bosses ask what we are doing about engagement we look for a survey to prove that they we are (at least) doing something. The people whose business it is to produce surveys are very happy to oblige our desperate need for affirmation.

The survey does not even have to measure engagement at all, just provide data that makes it look as if it does. Consequently, there is pretty much no correlation between 'engagement survey' results and performance. About the best anyone has managed to do at Gallup for example is about 0.19 (100% correlation would be 1.0). The fact is most engagement surveys are complete nonsense and usually pedalled by executives trying to justify their existance.

Imagine trying to measure a similar abstract emotion like happiness. No one in the business world would even contemplate it would they? You can't measure 'happy' - you just know if you are.

King Jigme of Bhutan declared when he ascended the throne that his major concern was the happiness of his people. If that had happened in the business world it would have led to an explosion of 'Happiness Consultants' and then cost a fortune while they benchmarked the nation’s current state of happiness using 'Happiness Surveys', and ran focus groups to find out what happiness was and perhaps what colour it should be. Instead, when asked what he was going to do, King Jigme replied that he was going to create the conditions that would allow his people to be happy and then they would choose to be happy for themselves.

'Engagement', like happiness, is the way that people feel about what they do. Trying to measure it is an extremely difficult and ultimately futile exercise. We would be better off, like King Jigme, creating the environment that will allow our workforces to engage. Then when they do we will know it. No survey needed... but then the survey is so much easier isn't it?

Intuitive or Intelligent - Which is More Valuable?

In sports, there are two types of players: intuitive and intelligent. Intuitive players are naturally brilliant. Such athletes can do things on the field that make others stare in awe, all while hardly appearing to break a sweat. They’re fantastic to watch – people flock to sporting contests just to see the expression of this natural talent. They make it look so easy – because it is for them. But they can’t show you how to play like them, because they often don’t know how they do it. It’s instinctive.

The style of the intuitive player is largely based on confidence. They can’t play any other way – break down their confidence and you go a long way towards shutting them down.

The intelligent player, on the other hand, may not be as naturally gifted as the intuitive player, but they have the advantage of being able to adjust their game as the conditions or situation demand.

So it is with many other activities, public speaking included. Intuitive skill will get you a long way, but if you can’t adapt to different conditions – a range of audiences, lack of a lectern or a variety of presentation topics, just to name a few – you greatly reduce your chances of being effective.

It would be great to be blessed with natural talent, but most people will have to make do with the talents they’ve been given. Far better to be an intelligent player – someone who has developed the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. That is the challenge for anyone wanting to seriously improve their public speaking or anything else for matter.

How do you develop the ability to adapt? By learning as much as you can about the basic principles of the subject you wish to master. The deeper your undertsanding, the more likely you are to be able to recognise when something isn't working and a change is required. That is why I teach people the principles of communication rather than the mechanics of public speaking. The mechanics of public speaking is all about giving you confidence which is great... but will only ever take you so far.