"Avoiding career suicide" (my article in Computerworld)

Here's a link to my article in Computerworld www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9079721&intsrc=hm_ts_head In fact, it's the top story for today http://www.computerworld.com

Reactions to my Tech Republic "ATM post"

I recently published a

post at the Desktop Support blog of Tech Republic.


It concerned a "pet peeve" of mine, i.e. the practice of many bank automated teller machines (ATMs) to dispense cash, and only afterwards to prompt the customer for removal of the card. This practice has caused me several times to forget my ATM card, causing inconvenience for me and expense for the bank. In my Tech Republic post, I suggested a solution that made sense, at least to me, namely to reprogram the ATM to reverse these actions. That is, required the customer to remove his ATM card before being able to receive cash. True, this change would inconvenience those people who have more than one transaction. However, I respond that possibly the majority of ATM visits consist of a single transaction, and that single transaction consists of a cash withdrawal.

My point in publishing that post was to underscore the importance of looking at things from the other person's point of view.

I was, frankly, surprised by the vehement reactions I received. Some did agree with me. However, others chided me for my views. For example,

dchow@ said "Thinking in life is critical period. We don't need to hear about how you used to suck at it, then you went and decided learning the hard way was getting old." Ouch!!!

Big Ole Jack said "Why must things be dumbed down for the masses because of a few dimwitted dolts out there? Nevermind that...the release of Windows Vista answers that question quite well because the masses are a bunch of dumbasses."

However, qhartman@ summed up the negative reaction the best: "So, you propose that ATM designers make life harder for a small, but likely quite significant, group of people to protect an even smaller group of people from their own thoughtlessness? What an American way to think. "Won't someone think of the children?!?!" Give me a break. If you can't be present enough in your own life to remember your card, you _deserve_ the pain of having to replace it."

Let's examine each reaction.

Dchow is right: thinking IS important. However, I have found that simply telling people this fact doesn't get it across. Illustrating the point via example helps make it clearer and more vivid. For example, Jesus used parables to make important points.

Big Ole Jack and qhartman object to "dumbing things down." Believe it or not, I agree with them in general. However, this particular situation is different, because possibly the benefits of making my change outweigh the costs.

What are costs involved in keeping things the way they are? From the customer's view, there's a loss of time in calling the bank, and a loss of convenience in not having the ATM card while waiting for the replacement card. From the bank's view, there's the time the call center staff spends in processing the replacement card request, the expense of generating the new card and the expense of mailing it. These expenses are not one time, but rather recur every time a customer leaves a card in the ATM.

On the other hand, what are the costs of making the program change? Probably one or two lines of code, plus testing, plus release. Chances are this change is a one time change. I've never programmed an ATM, but I suspect the costs of the program change are less than the costs of the forgotten ATM.

Assuming I'm right: is there really a compelling reason to have the ATM operate the way it does now (i.e. cash first, card second)? It doesn't appear so. In fact, I was reminded, after the Tech Republic post, that my bank DOES do it the "right way," (card then cash) but only if I select the "quick cash" option. That fact makes the "cash then card" approach even less persuasive.

Next, is anyone made worse off by doing card-then-cash? As we saw above, those who do multiple transactions would have to reinsert the card. But they would have to do anyway if they selected "quick cash." I suspect most would be better off.

Given these facts, I still fail to see why banks still do cash-then-card.

Remember, a key to succeeding at work is to look at things from the other person's point of view, something the bank is failing to do.

"You know you have a bad web site / phone system when..."

...people have to do a Google search to find your contact information."

Don't laugh, it just happened to me. I had to fax a medical examination form to my daughter's pediatrician. The office doesn't open until 8:30, and I wanted to leave my house by 8 am. No one was there to answer the phone and give me the fax, and when I called, all I got was the after-hours message, but no announcement of their fax number. I pressed the option to speak with a live person, but after ten minutes gave up.

I googled the office name, and found several listings. One was the "official" site for the office, but it had no fax number.

Finally, I located another listing, not the official one, but a physician directory, and found their fax.

What's the moral? Check your web pages and phone systems. Try to figure out what information most callers will need (that is, apply the 80-20 rule). Try to make that information available.

If people have to Google to find your information, there's a problem in how you're presenting it.

An embarrassing e-mail

I received a note from someone today, in reaction to my Tech Republic article on avoiding e-mail blunders http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/helpdesk/?p=56.

This person had received, from someone he knew, a note in error. The sender did not mean to send it to this person, but rather to someone with whom the sender was having an affair. The person who e-mailed me wondered if he should have let the sender know, then concluded he probably shouldn't, because of the resulting embarrassment.

I don't know how to answer this person, so I'd like to get your comments. From my perspective, I see two issues:
- addressing and sending too quickly
The person mentioned in the email probably didn't check the address field. If they have predictive fill-in, it's easy to send a message to the wronge person.
- relying on e-mail in the first place
Putting such intimate thoughts in an e-mail is questionable by itself. One doesn't know if the note will be forwarded, and in addition, the contents of e-mail are generally open for being read by others. Rather than putting dangerous or sensitive thoughts in e-mail (and I'm not advocating that you have an affair), think about simply asking the other person to call.

Principles from giving driving directions

I don't know why, but I love looking and reading maps. I love giving directions to people who are looking for a particular place. Even when I'm away from home, for example if I'm in Washington, invariably someone will stop me and ask for directions. Yes, maybe they're sizing me up because they want to mug me lol. Nonetheless, I still like giving directions.

Giving directions involves communications. We don't want people to get lost, so it's important our directions be clear. The principles involved in giving directions apply to the way we communicate in our jobs as well.

"Begin with the end in mind."

If this phrase sounds familiar, it's because it came from Steven Covey, the author of The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Dr. Covey recommends that before starting a project, to think about what we want our results to be.

In the specific case of giving driving directions, think about beginning your directions with a description of the final destination, rather than by simply giving turn-by-turn instructions. Why? You might save the other person time, if he or she recognizes the place.

One time I was trying to find the location of a business near my home. I went to their web site, and saw the following instructions:

• Take Route 202 southbound to the Route 252 northbound (North Valley Forge Road)
• Make a right at the bottom of the ramp onto Route 252 northbound
• Take Route 252 northbound about 0.1 miles to first traffic light
• Make a right at light (Anthony Wayne Drive)
• Immediately make a sharp right into Gateway Shopping Center

Look at these directions, and keep in mind the Covey principle. Also, remember that I said this business is near my home. How would you change these directions?

If I were doing them, I would mention Gateway Shopping Center first, as an introductory paragraph. My theory and assumption is that most of the people who are interested in this business already are familiar with the general area. By telling "Gateway Shopping Center" first, you save many of them the time and effort of reading through the whole set of directions.

By rewording the directions to put destination first, you are "beginning with the end in mind." More importantly, you are communicating from the point of view of your listener.

OK to answer phone with just "Hello" at work?

Last night I received an email from someone who was reacting to my "10 telephone blunders" article at Tech Republic, http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/10things/?p=196. He (the sender) disagreed with my point #9, in which I criticize people who answer the phone by saying just "hello."

The sender said had an issue with that advice, saying that I had things backwards. He continued by saying,

It's common courtesy for the caller to identify himself when the phone he
calls is answered, before stating his request -- not the other way around.

"Hello" is a perfectly good answer for the callee to give. Nothing unprofessional about it.

It also isn't any more of a time-waster than the way you suggest.

Either way any time-wastage is essentially the same.

In replying, I said that we were really addressing two separate issues. My focus was on the CALLED party answered the phone. His focus was on how the CALLER responded to the "callee." In particular, he was concerned with callers who then would say, "Who's this?" I told the e-mail sender that in this case, I agreed with him that asking "Who's this?" is unprofessional and rude. I went on to say that regardless, answering with "hello" wastes time and is equally unprofessional.

This exchange illustrates what I call a "violent agreement" lol. Two people appear to disagree, but actually, when you look at it, are saying the same thing, often because they're addressing different issues. Stay tuned to Tech Republic, because I have an article coming out soon on how to keep disagreements under control.

Advice re. bad boss: don't repay evil for evil

Last night I received an e-mail that complimented me on a recent article, "10 tips on working better with your boss," http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/10things/?p=284. However, in going on, he said that probably my advice wouldn't help him in the case of his own boss, who often publicly chastised and humiliated this person, who told his boss that if that behavior continued, he would do the same to her. This person asked my advice on how to handle the situation.

[WARNING: BIBLE REFERENCES FOLLOW]

I pointed this person to Romans 12:17, and its advice to readers not to repay evil for evil. In other words, I said, don't do the same thing to the boss that the boss is doing to him. Rather, I said, talk to the boss privately, and use neutral language to discuss the issue, e.g. instead of "your behavior troubles me," saying "I'm troubled this THIS behavior." I also advised him to document each incident in writing.

I hope your bosses don't treat you this way.

Tips on explaining things more clearly; and additional comments

My article on tips for explaining things more clearly is at http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/10things/?p=330

I did, however, have to take exception to one comment, by alxnsc@... He said that "analogies cannot be used to explain and never make things clearer." Another poster (and I) both disagreed, and pointed to the parables that Jesus used. Jesus used stories to illustrate spiritual truths.

Canceling vs. changing a hotel reservation

You probably have to travel as part of your job. If so, and if you ever need to arrive at a hotel on a date later than your original reservation, never tell the hotel staff that you are "canceling" those first few days. Instead, tell them that you are CHANGING your reservation, specifically that you are changing your arrival date. The danger in telling them that you are canceling the first x days of your reservation is that the hotel staff might end up canceling your ENTIRE reservation. This situation happened a few years ago to a friend of my wife. The friend was a senior at Franklin and Marshall College, in Lancaster PA, and had made a reservation for her parents, who were arriving for graduation. The friend had called the hotel to "cancel" the first day of the parents' reservation, and the hotel ended up canceling the whole stay. I don't remember what happened, but do remember that our friend was quite agitated.

The nonexistent car wash

I recently had a meeting at The Inn at Penn with a professor I had while at Wharton. We had a great discussion, during which I talked about my customer service work. It's too bad I lacked the ability to see into the future, because after leaving that meeting I had a frustrating experience.

On the way back from the meeting, I stopped at a gas station that had a car wash. These types of gas stations allow the customer, via the pump, to specify a car wash in addition to the gasoline purchase. The price of the former is added to the price of the latter, and a code number is printed on the gasoline receipt. The customer then takes the receipt, drives to the car wash entrance, types the code number into a keypad by the entrance and enters the car wash. Usually, the customer need not get the car wash right at that time. Usually, the code is good for a few days, or even for a month.

After I received my receipt, I drove the short distance to the car wash. I saw in front of me a closed door. "I guess the entrance is at the other end," I said to myself, and continued to the other end. I looked there, and THAT door was closed too. How to get in? Well, I drove back to the gas pumps and asked the attendant how to get into the car wash. His answer? The car wash closed at 5:00, about a half hour before I had arrived.

In annoyance, I asked for my money back for the car wash. Even though I probably could have come back later, I rarely drive by that station.

This situation is what I term "leading customers down the primrose path." Setting up a customer expectation, only to dash it later, leads to dissatisfaction. What could the station have done differently? In order of increasing complexity, perhaps

• post a sign by the pump, giving the car wash hours
• disabling the car wash purchase option at the pump, and requiring purchase at the attendant booth
• programming the pump to display hours of the car wash before allowing customer to select it
• programming the pump to allow car wash purchase only during the hours the car wash is actually open.

Any of these options would reduce the chance of dissatisfaction.

What do you think?

No overcoats permitted at the Renoir exhibit!

A few weeks ago, my wife, daughter and I attended the Renoir exhibit at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. This exhibit was well attended, so I figured parking would be a problem. After dropping them off, I headed off to find a parking spot. A few minutes later my wife called, upset about an incident that occurred as they were entering. Apparently, my daughter had worn her ski jacket into the museum, rather than checking it, as my wife had done. A museum staff person approached my daughter and told her that she (my daughter) HAD to check her jacket. My wife was upset not so much at this requirement as she was at the way the directions were given.

While I was on the phone, my wife, she asked that person to speak to me. This person explained that because of the large number of attendees, space was an issue. My daughter's jacket, in their view, was sufficiently bulky that it might cause problems within the exhibit. In fact, the person told me, they had had an incident in which two people collided, and one of them brushed against one of the paintings.

After hanging up and parking the car, I entered the museum. As soon as I did so, a guard asked me to check my own jacket as well.

I can understand this policy, now that it had been explained. However, the museum could have taken one simple step: namely, to publicize this policy in writing. Doing so helps set expectations of visitors. In addition, it helps "take the heat off" guards, some of whom probably received negative comments.

Learn from this situation: if you to be persuasive with someone, it helps to be able to point to a piece of paper or sign that supports your view. That outside evidence can augment your own credibility.

The exhibit was otherwise fantastic.

A poorly worded help screen

I discovered this afternoon, by accident, that my fax machine was preventing my voicemail system from being activated. An incoming call would cause the fax machine to answer prior to the voicemail. One way to solve the problem would have been to change the "ring count" on voicemail, so that it would answer on say the second ring rather than the fourth.

So, I called my voicemail number and listened for an option to change the ring count. I listened and listened but heard no options for it. So, I went to the "customer care" screen on the web site for Cavalier, my telephone provider. http://www.cavtel.com/help/ In the middle of the screen, under the title "Look Up Voice Mail Guide" is a field that asks for "telephone number." I entered my own telephone number, and the web page responded "No Guide Found for this Number." I tried two or three more times, and got the same result each time. By this point, I was getting annoyed and frustrated.

Then I stopped and said to myself, "Maybe that's not the number they're looking for." I thought some more and then said to myself, "Aha, maybe they want me to enter the number that I call when I want to use voicemail." I entered that number and voila, I was able to access the voicemail guide.

Even after I did so, I still didn't see a way to change the ring count, but that's another issue.

The point to remember here is the ambiguity in the screen. A field label that reads simply "Telephone number" is bound to be misinterpreted. Take the time to label things clearly. In this case, a better label might be "Telephone number you call to access voicemail."

Taking a little time here can save your customers large amounts of time as a result.

Learning from a poorly-designed sign

Yesterday I took my wife to a new dentist. I found the office building, and turned into the parking lot. Right by the entrance to that lot was a sign that displayed to tenants. I looked for the dentist's name, and because his last name began with "L," I focused on the middle of the sign. To my surprise, I saw all sorts of last names, beginning with all sorts of letters. I looked again, and realized the sign was organized not by alphabet, but by floor. That is, all of the first floor tenants were at the top, followed by second floor and so on.

I did eventually find the right dentist. However, the experience frustrated me, and it's not the first time or the first office building that has signs this way. Let's analyze the situation, because there are lessons for how you should communicate with people.

Think about it: when you go into an office building to see a particular person, do you really care who's on each floor and in each office? Probably not. You're looking for a particular person, say Dr. Smith. But if the sign is organized by floor or office, you might have to look multiple places before finding Dr. Smith. Doesn't it make more sense to organize the sign by last name? Doing so reduces the number of times you have to look.

What's the lesson? Look at things from your customer's perspective. In this case, organize the sign the way your customer most likely would find it most convenient.

Problems with the Metrocard

Over the Christmas holiday, my family, along with friends of my younger daughter, spent time in New York City. One day, the nine of us took the subway from Chinatown to midtown. The MTA (the transit authority for New York City) has an arrangement under which a person can purchase five subway trips (at $2 each) and get a sixth trip free. "Great," I said to myself, "there are nine of us, so I can put $30 on a MetroCard, and get 18 trips rather than 15--that's just enough to get the nine of us up to midtown and back."

At this point, I'm thinking I'm a genius. I put $30 on a single MetroCard, proceed to the turnstile, and begin swiping it. Each time I do so, one of our group goes through. The first four go through fine. However, when I swipe it the fifth time, the turnstile locks up and displays a message, "transfer limit exceeded." I swipe it again, and get the same message. Not wanting to take chances, I get more MetroCards and get the rest of our group through.

After we arrive at our destination (Bryant Park, behind the Public Library), I go back into the station and ask the booth attendant what happened. She told me that the MetroCard has a four-person limit--that is, a maximum of four people can use a single MetroCard. That's why, when I swiped it the fifth time, I received the message.

Looking back, I see two issues with the MetroCard limitation. First, nowhere are we told about this four-person limitation. I couldn't find any signage in the station about it, nor did I see any reference to it on the MTA web site www.mta.info Second, the text of the error message doesn't really convey the issue. If it had said, for example, "Maximum passenger limit exceeded" it would have been clearer.

Apply these lessons to your job. If you're designing a computer system, make sure your error messages are meaningful. If you have limits to your process, make sure people know about those limits.

Even if you're not designing a computer, these principles still apply in communicating with others. Be sure they understand you, and try not to surprise them. In other words, set their expectations.

Ends vs. means: negotiations tips, from the book of Daniel

Did you ever have a disagreement with a co-worker, customer or boss about something the other person wanted you to do, but you didn't want to do it, because of good reasons you had? Did you ever think about how to handle that situation better?

My favorite source of advice for this situation comes from , of all places, the Bible--in particular, the Old Testament book of Daniel. The events in Daniel take place during the time the people of Israel were captured and taken in captivity to the city of Babylon. Among those taken was, of course, Daniel. Because he was young and of good appearance, the king selected Daniel to be in a program that groomed him for service in the kingdom--think of it as a early version of "The Apprentice." There was only one problem, though: part of this program involved a diet set by the king. This diet, however, contained food that Daniel objected to on religious grounds.

The lower level official in charge of the young men argued with Daniel about this matter. He insisted that Daniel eat the royal food, because if he didn't, the official would literally lose his head.

Does this sound familiar? The other person has a good reason for wanting you to do something. You have an equally good reason for not wanting to do it. So, how did Danile solve the problem, and what can we learn?

It turns out that the real fear of the official was that Daniel, by not eating the royal food, would look worse than the other young men. When Daniel learned this fact, he proposed an alternate arrangement to the official: for ten days, Daniel would eat only vegetables and drink only water. If, at the end of that time, Daniel looked bad, he would begin the royal diet. If, however, Daniel looked as good as the others, Daniel would be allowed to keep that vegetables and water diet.

You guessed it: Daniel looked even BETTER than the others, and could continue his own diet.

What's the point here? First, don't get caught up in the "means." Look at the "ends" as well. If the only options are eating royal food vs. not eating royal food, then there's no good solution. Someone has to win and someone has to lose. However, each side had a different "end" or objective: Daniel wanted to keep his diet and the official wanted to keep his head. Daniel's idea allowed BOTH objectives to be met.

For example, suppose a co-worker or boss wants you to "cut corners" on a project or falsify a report. Ask the other person if the objective can be met some other way that doesn't involve questionable actions.

Thinking this way helps you maintain your integrity while keeping good relations with the other person.

My Tech Republic article on how to be more persuasive

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/10things/?p=304