LIE TO US (WE DARE YOU!)

These days, software (and a brilliant engineer) can work wonders – or havoc.

A six-year-old program/company that analyzes facial expressions for ad campaigns and TV pilots, though not yet profitable, is getting much traction from the CBS’, Kellogg’s, and Unilevers of this world.  Now boasting a database of 2.5 million facial samples, Affectiva asks its subjects to watch a video on the computer screen while a computer camera watches them back.  Results, claim marketers, are a lot less touchy feely than findings from focus groups or polling.  Future apps?  Politics, education, and psychological conditions like autism.

Facial analysis actually started with the same Charles Darwin who pioneered survival of the fittest.  It continued with professors who’ve looked at almost every form of non-verbal communication known to man (and yes, chimpanzee too), from blinking rates (those who fluttered their eyes more in US Presidential debates lost all elections since 1980) to pupil dilation, eyebrow lifts, and forehead furrows.  Clearly, expression provides major clues about what we think and feel.

Yet no one has mentioned what might be the most intriguing of all apps:  To determine the link between employees and engagement.

Sure, it’s a bit Big Brother-ish (though subjects DO know that they’re being watched).  

On the other hand, how many of our leaders have questioned the percentiles of engagement, as foretold through surveys?  When do we ‘know’ that our teams and staffs have disconnected from their tasks?  At what time(s) would it be prudent to assess the state of employee well being?

The computer knows.  Or does it?

SCHOOL DAZE

Every year, Bloomberg Businessweek devotes one issue to MBAs and the schools that love them.

In the latest, a sidebar shows the survey results from 1,320 corporate recruiters who were asked to identify most valued job skills and score each institution for delivery of those skills. The charts revealed what industries want, skills employers value, and where schools succeed. 

Oddly enough (tongue firmly in cheek), the skill on almost every industry’s list was … communication.  Of the 11 industry sectors, from chemicals to transportation, only one – consumer products – didn’t mention communication in its top three ‘most wanted’ skills.  Six of the 11 industry reps ranked communication skills as number one; 68 percent of recruiters say it’s one of the five most important skills.

Then the disconnect begins. 

Of the top ten full-time MBA programs (as ranked by the magazine), from Duke’s Fugua to Carnegie Mellon’s Tepper – including the usual Harvard, Yale, Chicago, Columbia, Stanford, and Northwestern – guess how many scored super high on communication skills?

None.

Therefore, since business schools don’t do a superb job of training its grads on communication, it seems to be the responsibility of industry to do just that.  And sure, corporate courses available through Open Sesame, SkillSoft, Harvard’s ManageMentor do an average kind of job teaching communications.  But why couldn’t it be the province of the communications department and its siblings (like marketing) to supplement the standard learning?  Why couldn’t the function set up a mentoring program to coach managers, early talent, hi-pos, and the like on the ins and outs of communications?

No budget is no excuse.  What is?

WHEN THE STARS ALIGN ...

We’re sad.

Only (you fill in the blank) more episodes to the Mad Men saga, a time when creative directors ruled and men were, well, men.

Seriously.  With the star power of that era faded (but not completely obliterated), today’s work world, no matter what the industry or issue, resembles team collaboration more than individual creations.  Diversity is rampant.  The pace of digital collapses time and barriers.  That one great breakthrough idea is subsumed by little mini-campaigns, building incremental value.

Except:  Psychologists and social researchers reveal that the notion of team consensus – replacing leaders’ command and control -- doesn’t always work.  Decision making often stops, or slows down.  Execution can be slow at best, stuttering at worst. 

Their solution?  A list of four actions, from playing the connector to ending debate, all within the scope of senior leaders’ responsibilities.  Yet at least two of them, in our opinion, fall into the province of communications/marketing, roles that might not be the most comfortable, but, certainly, are the most needed.

Here are the two we believe we must own:

• Connecting.  It is up to us to bring in the appropriate universe to our companies, our clients.  We should be cultivating information that others might not have heard, sharing it in examples and how-tos.  It might be an arcane approach to storytelling.  A new technology that might excel, inside and out, in achieving goals.
• Modelling.  For sure, we act in all the right ways when we set up cross-organizational diverse networks and labor virtually.  We need to extend that role modeling, showing it live and capturing it in memories for the rest of our populations.  Otherwise, how will they know what collaboration really can mean?

Why not adapt this riff on Don Draper’s witticism:   “If you don’t like what is being done, then change the behaviors”?

F2F2F2F2F2F ...

Anyone in the communications business, advertising or marketing, knows that the human touch is profoundly instrumental in getting the results you deserve.

Part of that personal interaction includes face to face conversations, whether one on one, one in a group, and the like.  [Many of us call it F2F.]

And embedded within those dialogues is a skill that, of late, the media has examined inside and out:  Listening.

Yeah, your mother told you:  ‘Listen when I talk.’  ‘God gave you two ears and one mouth.’

Still. 

Recent academic research has probed the nature of mindful hearing.   Eighty-five percent of what we know we learn through listening.  Yet we only listen at a 25 percent comprehension rate.  Compare those numbers with the demands of a typical business day:   45% listening, 30% talking, 16% reading, and 9% writing.

Despite all those stats, we’re not great at attending.  We interrupt.  We’d rather talk about ourselves.  We’re uncomfortable with emotions, so we avoid them.   We try to fix.  We’re distracted by you-know-whats.

As with all intangibles, listening well takes time to, well, learn.  It’s a matter of using the right tone, interpreting body language, and learning to actively hone in on another being.  Which is why corporate processes and programs like performance management , learning and development, even business strategy could stand a long and lengthy dose of ‘how to listen.’ 

No wonder Harvard president Drew Gilpin Faust agrees:   “When you’re listening, you’re getting information.  You’re being given the gift of understanding where someone is … “