Using web conference software to present

One of my clients uses web conferencing software to present their solutions to potential clients. Some of the things I have noted in their presentations that can help your next webinar or conference:

• Have many slides that change often. Sameness is your enemy. If people get bored, they will quickly go to their iPhones or their Blackberrys.
  
• If you can, use two computers when you present: one as the host, the other to monitor what the audience is seeing. Sometimes there is a lag between what you see and what the audience sees. It's useful to know what your audience is seeing.
• Practice, practice, practice, to feel at ease with the technology. Nothing feels as amateurish as someone bumbling around, trying to figure out the technology during the delivery.
• If you are trying to convince someone at the other end, get them emotionally involved and if it is a small group, get them to say something out loud. Limit the number of time you incite them to say no (for example, "Do you have a question?")
  

Social networking and business

Many of the social networking sites will eventually become part of the standard work environment. Already, you can see some businesses taking advantage of the instant nature of Twitter. Dell, for example, is using it to expand ins customer service offerings. I have dealt with companies who have used instant messaging as a way to keep people updated on the status of various projects and troubleshooting situations.

I remember when email and the Internet were also a fad that would never take hold. Today in the Globe and Mail, there was an article showing that social media had passed email in overall Internet activity (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090310.COMPUTERS10/TPStory).

I think most businesses are afraid of these tools because the leaders do not use them nor understand them. As younger generations take over, or launch their new companies, these tools will become more entrenched in the overall business processes.

Social networking tools can be seen as a competitive advantage to prospective employees. Sure, in the current economic climate, that may not mean much, but once things improve (and they will) it can be enough to make your best new recruits bolt to another employer offering more bells and whistles.

So how can they be useful, and not become time wasters? The same way the Web managed to be come a useful tool: minimal control processes, accompanied by lots of education.

Finding fault or getting the best out?

The school system is based on a fault-finding approach, and that typically finds its way in our dealings with other people in business situations. The problem with fault-finding is that it is inherently disheartening.

Nobody's perfect and most people seek to improve their results by improving what they currently do. Fault-finding is focused on the past, and rarely looks to the future. But you can't fix the past, so sticking to fault-finding does not help anything.

Many managers, unfortunately, know how to criticize but aren't necessarily sure how to follow that criticism with steps toward an improved situation. To reach that improved situation, well, you need to know what that situation is!

I remember hearing a speaker ask a crowd of sales people: "Are you ready to bring your business to the next level?" and the crowd roared its approval. He followed that question with this one: "How many of you know what the next level looks like?" Not many hands went up. This is typical of fault-finding; we know what we don't want, but not necessarily what we DO want.

Instead of finding fault and criticizing, it's better to provide feedback. How is feedback different? Feedback is a loop. It's not a monologue but a dialogue. It gives the other person a chance to reply, to push back, to provide his or her opinion when needed. Doing so brings up another issue: ego.

People in leadership positions, but with fragile egos, will not accept pushback. They have difficulty accepting another person's opinion or objections. They won't accept that they could be wrong, so instead of giving someone else the opportunity to debate, they simply close the door to that option. This is the typical attitude of "I'm the boss, just do as I say."

Changing one's away of dealing with subordinates and moving from a coercive model to a cooperative model requires much work on oneself. In order to succeed, you need to have healthy self-esteem, you need to learn not to take things personally, and you need to learn to listen.

Furthermore, you need to focus more on the employee's needs and wants, and finding a way of aligning them with your objectives, instead of forcing the employee to adopt your point of view. You need to demonstrate more empathy. In short, you need to care more about the employee as a person, and not just as another body helping you to attain your goals.

That change is much more difficult to achieve than it seems. So rather than going through the challenges required to change ourselves, we prefer to try and change others... using the same old, ineffective methods.

Do you speak like Oscar LOSERS?

Every year I watch the Academy Awards to hear the acceptance speeches. And what amazes (and saddens me) every year, is how often the winners act like losers. Many of the winners are people who act for a living, or have been actors in past lives. Furthermore, many of them won earlier this year in other award ceremonies. You can NOT tell me that it hasn't given them the adequate preparation time to give a decent speech.

Now, I have never won a big award like this, so I can imagine that the adrenaline level is extremely high and it probably affects the delivery in unforeseen manners. Still, there are some things that just make some winners seem like LOSERS:

• Lists and more lists: Some people come on the stage and all they do is read a list of names, without giving much more importance to one or another, adding no personal commentary. This, to me, is similar to someone delivering a presentation and reading the PowerPoint slides during the entire speech. I understand the importance of thanking as many people as possible. However, there needs to be something more than a list of credits. Just a tad of a personal touch.
• Outpouring of nothing: this is supposed to be a joyous occasion. Some award recipients look like they have been condemned to eternal suffering. No smile, no excitement, nothing. I see many people do that when they stand in front of an audience. An otherwise entertaining and outgoing woman becomes an utter bore. A strong, confident man becomes a meek weakling. All because they may be trying too hard to control their emotions. Yes, you need to keep some emotions in check, but you need not thwart them completely.
  
• Surprise, surprise: this year, I didn't hear anyone say: "I wasn't expecting this," nor did I hear "I don't know what to say." So kudos for that. Unless something is absolutely, completely unexpected (one chance out of five is not completely unexpected), there is no reason for these types of comments. You don't apologize for being unprepared.
  
• Errring and Uhmming your way though: one "uhm," "ahh," or "err" doesn't kill a speech. But 20 in 45  seconds? Puh-leez! Ok, so maybe I'm exaggerating a bit, yet some bad speeches are made considerably worse by the constant hesitation of the winner. It is a habit that is quite annoying, and even Barack Obama suffers from it (just watch any interview where his speech is unprepared). Getting rid of those annoyances will greatly enhance any speech.
  
• Respecting time: there are rules and some people feel their moment in the limelight is more important. I say, if they give you 45 seconds, aim for 35 seconds. It helps you focus your message and, for the audience at home, it makes the show more watchable. Is 45 seconds insufficient for such an important moment? Fine, give them 60, but whatever the amount of time available, award recipients need to respect it. If the people want more time to speak, then they will need to give out fewer awards on air. Always respect the time given for your speech.
  
• Saying thank you: this is one thing that everyone does. They show appreciation for the recognition they receive. My belief is that most speeches should end on the words "Thank you" or something to that effect. Of course, sometimes you don't want to end on "Thank you" because it does not fit the final bang you are looking to deliver. However, I disagree with the school of thought that says "You never thank the audience. They should thank you for sharing your wisdom." Hardly. The audience took time out of their lives to listen. Saying thank you is just good form. In no way does it diminish you, or your speech.

You may never be in a situation where thousands of eyes are fixed upon you while millions are watching on television. Yet, you may need to give a speech in front of colleagues, or toast the bride at a wedding, or maybe you will receive an "outstanding service to the company" award. If that ever happens, will you pull it off, or will you end up like a LOSERS?

Wisdom

I just finished watching an interesting TED 2009 talk by Dr. Barry Schwarz:

Barry Schwartz on our loss of wisdom

He makes an interesting point that the more regulations and incentives are put in place, the less wise we become. Why? Because these rules encourage us to act without thinking, and to put the onus on the aforementioned rules.

I have seen this often in companies:

• An IT project that should take about one month, can take two or three because there are so many procedures to follow before doing the actual implementation. The procedures take precedence over the results.
• Because of rigid communication protocols, employees have no access to their boss's superior unless the boss "introduces them".
  
• Customer service is anything but, because management will not let their staff make decisions on their own. Should the client require anything special, employees must refuse ("It's our policy") or have to wait until their supervisor is available so he/she can make any decision.

Alan Weiss says that an effective consultant focuses on outputs rather than inputs. In other words, you must focus on the expected results rather than methodology. If your methodolody or procedures don't help get to the result faster, then you should replace it by something else. That's the right thing to do.

However, too often there may be an excessive amount of time, effort, and resources invested in the wrong things. Cutting funding, changing focus, or eliminating cherished procedures is tantamount to admitting that it was a mistake; this is not something that is palatable, for many reasons.

Wisdom is the ability to make these choices and decisions, not because they are easy or scripted, but rather because they are the right thing to do, at this time. Sometimes, one decision can be wise in one situation and foolish in the next.

• A sports team fires a coach because the team is not producing results as expected. It's a wise decision if the departure of the coach boosts morale and productivity. It is a foolish decision if the decision was made because "that's what we do when the team isn't working out" or if no noticeable changes occur after the firing.
• A company lays off employees to save money. It's a wise decision if indeed, it is the best option to assure long-term survival instead of short term profit. It is an unwise decision if it only helps the bottom line for one or two quarters, but doesn't help the company thrive or survive the tough times.
• Airlines typically will not reimburse or change ticket reservations once they have been made, unless clients pay a premium or a service charge. This can be seen as a wise decision since it helps manage cashflow and helps with staff planning. In an unusual move, JetBlue Airways has decided to reimburse passengers who bought tickets early but have lost their jobs in the interim.

As Dr. Schwarz explains, you aren't born wise, you become wise. And you can only become wise by making decisions that are not taken from a cookie-cutter approach.

I come from an IT background, and I remember the problems I had in certain small firms when we were bidding against larger firms. We often lost the bids, simply because we were the "little guy" and our approach was different. As they said, "You can't be fired for picking IBM or Microsoft."

Sure you can't be fired. But is it the wise thing to do?

Comics and visual design

I have been reading a lot about visual design, lately, and its impact on communication. While listening to a some TED talks, the following comic strip was mentioned. It is a very(!) large strip. To read it, follow the light blue line:

Pup Ponders the Heat Death of the Universe

The definition of security

I called to cancel a service I have been using for a couple of years. This is the conversation we had:

Me: Hello, I am calling to cancel my service.

Him: Yes sir, may I have your name please?

Me: Laurent Duperval.

Him: Thank you. Now, to validate that I am speaking to the correct person, can you please give me your email address?

Me: Sure. (I give him my business address)

Him: Thank you, sir. By any chance did you ever have an email which was (he spells out my personal email address).

Me: Yes, and I still use it.

Him: Excellent. Now, let's see what we can do for you...

Hmmmm..........