THE ART OF TALK

These days, conversation just might be the 2013 version of texting. 

Then, again, a second talk trend seems to contradict that. 

One positive we’ve noticed, personally and in the media:  Encouraging, even engaging all around the table in hearty dialogue during mealtimes. “The family that converses together, stays together” is how the adage might play out. And families and couples, from the Obamas to, yes, Joe the Plumber and his peers, tune up the conversations at dinner.  Some focus on more meaty subjects, like politics and the state of the green world.  Others, simply on sharing the day’s events.  There’s no right or wrong way, say proponents, to talk.  Just do it.  Minus the television, cell phones, video games, and other tech distractions.

Trend two:  Casual restaurants (Applebee’s, Chili’s, even P.F. Chang) are installing mini-screens at the tabletop, offering diners the options to order, play games, and pay.  And not communicate.  Quite a few of these pilots claim great success in driving more frequent table turns, increasing dessert orders, and helping determine if the kiosks will become more permanent profit centers.  Parent reactions are mixed; waiters, even more so.  In this not-so-giving economy, we get it:  It’s time to continue seeking additional sources of revenue. 

We as proponents of the art of talk aren’t thrilled with the advent of diningIT.  There are good and valid reasons for eating outside the home, whether it’s a choice of more Top Chef-like menus (sorry, Mom!) or simply a relaxing escape from daily cooking.  Inserting technology into the experience negates personalized service offered by wait-persons and eager-to-serve counter people and, most important, limits our human interactions.

We know it’s hard enough to get managers and employees to talk casually and meaningfully with each other about work that matters.  So advocating that anyone adopt another tech-y habit is akin to endorsing “no talk zones” … everywhere.  Or is it enough to endorse the art of dialogue, as does Robert Louis Stevenson?  “Talk is by far the most accessible of pleasures. It costs nothing in money, it is all profit, it completes our education, founds and fosters our friendships, and can be enjoyed at any age and in almost any state of health”?

SAY IT AIN'T SO [with not-so-abject apologies]

Sometimes, it’s just tough to think of a compelling headline

We toyed with “Loose lips sink businesses.”    Or:  “Parse the ones you want to keep.”

We’ll spare you (and us).   We’re talking the decline of grammar, at work and at home, a subject that’s engaged (and often enraged) more than quite a few writers, journalists, and columnists in a literal war of words.  

The reasons for misusing affect-effect, I and me, dangling modifiers and the like are multifarious:   Little educational emphasis on writing principles, the domination of social media, even the informality of our world today.   The rise of OMG, LOL, pictorial emoticons and 140 characters, by themselves, negate elegant phrasing and paragraphs.

No one agrees on one overriding cause.  Nor, unfortunately, about the solutions.   Nearly 50 percent of the 400-something employers surveyed in 2012 by SHRM (the Society for Human Resource Management) and AARP (we hope you know the acronym) indicated they were increasing training, and offering more printed and online guidelines, coaches, and templates.  Again, no single panacea.

Generally, those most alarmed by the trend underscore its negative outcomes, from mistakes in marketing materials that have to be corrected to not-so-great client/customer perceptions.  The conclusion by most?   Good grammar, which shouldn’t be an oxymoron, is the architecture of good writing and, by extension, good thinking and clear understanding.

Which brings us to a remedy.  How about reviving the antique art of sentence diagramming? Created in the mid 1800s by Alonzo Reed and Brainerd Kellogg, it’s an illustrated map, also called a parse tree, of the logic behind a sentence.  It combines visuals with the appeal of a puzzle, showing how each word fits into the structure of a sentence.  Think building blocks, with easy-to-use lines and diagonals.

No doubt, this elementary school module had its foes.  After all, parsing a sentence is akin to eating canned non-gourmet peas that have been cooked to mush (thanks to my Mom).  But then I hear her voice:  “Do it; it’ll be good for you.” 

HOW DO YOU SPEND YOUR DAY?

It’s been the subject of many SNL skits as well as Second City-like improvs.

Universal groans are heard when the topic comes up.

Parodies and typologies published in The Wall Street Journal and BloombergBusinessweek (among others) take the different personalities of meeting participants to task, whether their aim is sabotageor boredom relief.

It’s clear:  Nobody, but nobody likes a work meeting.  Ask researchers from the London School of Economics to Epson; most respondents have voted with their clicker:  At least 50 percent of all business get-togethers are wasted.

But we’re like John Wanamaker, head of the late eponymous Philadelphia department store, who cried about his advertising:  “I just don’t know which half works.”

Solutions are many, both serious and fun.  “Set a clear agenda” usually tops the list.  Another:  “Schedule a start and an end time – and stick to it.”  Others use a combination of carrot and stick to keep meetings on track, on time, on goal.

There are three remedies that, truth be told, work harder than any other tactic to drive results at group gatherings:

1. Use a VERY loud alarm clock, set to stop disruptions and to end meetings.
2. Don’t use chairs.  [You’ll be surprised how efficient your meetings become when folks are forced to stand.]
3. Finally, track the number of meeting hours against individual, group, and business priorities.  See how well you can connect outcomes to time. 

Watch what happens when you start to measure:    We’ll bet you and your colleagues will be spending your work time just a bit differently. 

PRINT IS THE NEW BLACK

I’m an offline junkie.

There, I’ve said it.  Do I feel better because I admitted it?

Sorta.  Oh, I – and my colleagues – have all the requisite e-tools, from iPad, Nook, and smart phones galore to the latest in ergonomic desk-etry.  And the curiosity to match, whether it’s technology or content that catches our eye.

Yet there’s something seductive about the package that print offers.  No, we’ve not been pumped by the magazine industry’s ads in trade publications about the Power of Print.  “The top 25 magazines reach a wider audience than the top 25 prime-time TV shows.”  Or:  “Readers spend an average of 43 minutes per issue.”

Facts, to be honest, don’t persuade.  What does turn our heads – and fingers – are the touch and feel of a Print piece in hand, the tactile sensation of flipping pages, for real, not with a clicker. 

That kind of connection matters inside companies.  When a print piece is delivered straight into cubicles and mailboxes and desks of employees around the world, recipients take note.  They pause.  Curl up.  Get comfortable and enjoy the read (unless it’s written in language so non-compelling and so peppered with isms from corporate/technical lands).  And we’ve been witness to that wonderful event. 

Now for the pushback.

1.  “Print costs too much.”  How about trying downloadable pdfs and jpegs for employees to print on the local photocopier? 
2. “We’ve got to be green aware.”  Let us ask this question:  How many emails and attachments do you think employees print, despite the plea to conserve the environment?

The objections continue. 

We will too:  Ever met a re-engineered business process taught solely online, minus visual handouts?  Or a new benefits program without charts and take-aways?  How many  times have you lost track of a Web site or video or ad you want to refer to? 

There is a place for everything, and everything in its place.  Every medium deserves our undivided attention, for all the right reasons.

TRUTH OR ... CONSEQUENCES

In past lives, many of my former colleagues and I* would have leaped at the chance when asked to validate a series of statements, chapters, or books.

Not any more, especially after Election 2012.  Bloggers and punsters, editors and opiners alike rushed to quick judgment about which party/candidate told the truth and which, fabricated.  “Right or not” became a cause célèbre as factcheck.orgs of all shapes and sizes weighed in.  Blue or red truth? trumpeted the headlines.  Both political parties blared Fiction! … and pointed fingers.  Posturing?  Yes, for many.  Yet many voters, in the millions, were simply seeking credulity and authenticity.

Regardless of the outcome, the facts didn’t matter.  Because facts, in and by themselves, were ­ not the prime determinant of the election.  A further surprise:  What did make a difference, psychological researchers insist, is the very complicated science of behaviors.  One study reveals that the more knowledgeable voters, those armed with the most facts, show more bias than those who knew less.  Another shows that people assume news is true (or not) simply based on which TV or radio station, newspaper or magazine, Web site or blogger reported it.

Why?  It has everything to do with emotions, the reasons we search for verification.  If I’m afraid or concerned or insecure, it’s doubly hard for me to wrap my mind around the facts. The truth matters less if I’m simply not prepared to accept it.  Cognitive dissonance, in part:  We ignore facts and science when they conflict with our practices (smoking, for instance).

At this point, the consequences from non-truths might not matter, depending on the specific cause and effect.  What this signals, initially, is that, as communicators and marketers, as designers and brand strategists, we all need to become a bit less fact-obsessed and a lot more emotion-driven as we set about to change minds and behaviors.

*Say it’s so:  My career began as an MSLS-wielding librarian.