Building Rapport

The following article reminds us to stay in the present, and do it right — whatever it is.

It is written by my friend Eli Mina, a Registered Parliamentarian.

PAY ME NOW OR PAY ME LATER

Governments and businesses often discover that a narrow focus on financial considerations may produce short term gains, but at the cost of long term pains. To produce better decisions, organizations need to look beyond narrow fiscal realities, and consider options that involve a more balanced and long term outlook. The caveat to consider is; “Pay me now or pay later.”

The caveat of “Pay me now or pay me later” applies to more than just money. In the case of meetings, “time is money.” Sometimes Boards and Councils become obsessed with the quest to save time, and may therefore find themselves stuck with undesirable consequences later on. It is much better to do things right, even if it takes a bit longer.

Take this example: The Chair rushes a motion to a vote without clearly stating it. Shortly thereafter people complain that they had no clue what they voted on. Procedural arguments ensue: Can we please re-vote on this motion? Was our commitment finalized? The apparent saving in time can result in a loss of much more time later on..

Another example is when a Board or Council is in a hurry to end the discussion on an issue, so much so that members with valid concerns are afraid to speak up, for fear of upsetting others. The consequences may be severe, e.g.: a flawed decision may be made because it was not sufficiently scrutinized. The savings in time can be more than offset by the substantial risk that a flawed decision may present. This also is a clear case of “Pay me now or pay me later.”

The conclusion? It is best to invest the time needed to generate balanced and sustainable decisions. The pace of the deliberations must be comfortable and measured. Slowing down to ensure clarity and to allow close scrutiny of decisions will likely deliver substantial benefits over the long term. The Chair or any participant should not hesitate to say: “Can we slow down please? The desire to be efficient is laudable, but we also need to be effective.”

Eli Mina, M.Sc., P.R.P.
Meeting Mentor &
Registered Parliamentarian

Web site: www.elimina.com
E-mail address: eli@elimina.com
Phone: 604-730-0377

And I highly recommend his workshops:

“Minute Taking Standards & Related Issues”
A one day workshop on minute taking standards, tools and key principles, and on working effectively with your Council or Board.

“Meetings & Rules of Order”
A one day workshop on shared decision making, making meetings work, dealing with dysfunctions, and demystifying the rules of order.

From eirokso.com

When will a new technology break through?

Engineers – think it will catch on simply because it’s possible

Economists – think it will go mainstream when it’s cheap enough

Marketers – are sure it will explode if they spend millions marketing it

But the most important thing is that it will not catch on before it’s user friendly and easy to understand!

Harvard’s Ig Nobel Award was given this week to a paper published last year. The paper proved that unnecessarily verbose and haughty writing lowers the author in the reader’s opinion.

“It’s important to point out that this research is not about problems with using long words but about using long words needlessly,” said study author Daniel Oppenheimer.

“Anything that makes a text hard to read and understand, such as unnecessarily long words or complicated fonts, will lower readers’ evaluations of the text and its author.”

The article is available for purchase at:
Research Article
Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: problems with using long words needlessly
Daniel M. Oppenheimer *
Princeton University, USA

email: Daniel M. Oppenheimer (doppenhe@princeton.edu)

*Correspondence to Daniel M. Oppenheimer, Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Green Hall Room 2-S-8, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA.

Abstract
Most texts on writing style encourage authors to avoid overly-complex words. However, a majority of undergraduates admit to deliberately increasing the complexity of their vocabulary so as to give the impression of intelligence. This paper explores the extent to which this strategy is effective. Experiments 1-3 manipulate complexity of texts and find a negative relationship between complexity and judged intelligence. This relationship held regardless of the quality of the original essay, and irrespective of the participants’ prior expectations of essay quality. The negative impact of complexity was mediated by processing fluency. Experiment 4 directly manipulated fluency and found that texts in hard to read fonts are judged to come from less intelligent authors. Experiment 5 investigated discounting of fluency. When obvious causes for low fluency exist that are not relevant to the judgement at hand, people reduce their reliance on fluency as a cue; in fact, in an effort not to be influenced by the irrelevant source of fluency, they over-compensate and are biased in the opposite direction. Implications and applications are discussed. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

——————————————————————————–

This article succinctly tells you how to reach your readers without alienating them.

Write to Build Goodwill With Readers … Even Those Who Disagree
by Dr. Ellen Weber, September 03, 2006