Blog

In the day-to-day grind, it's easy to become jaded. You interact with people who under-deliver, who are unnecessarily difficult, or who simply don't seem to care.

I recently shared a quick thought about acknowledging positive experiences when working with others, prompted by the growing frequency of negative interactions that seem to overshadow the good. The thought stuck with me.

These effects of these negative experiences tend to accumulate and start to colour your perception of the world around you. Then, every once in a while, you come across someone who just gets it. Someone who does their job well and is genuinely pleasant to work with. It's rare, almost startling, and it will make your whole day.

Have I become too cynical? I know I have a bit of a sarcastic edge, but have always thought of it more as playful venting than a genuine outlook.

After dealing with enough poor experiences, the bar for professionalism and basic decency keeps sinking lower. So when you find someone who actually does their job with competence and courtesy, it feels like an anomaly. An encounter that's worthy of praise simply because it's so uncommon.

And in that moment you realise that this should be the norm, not the exception.

We've all been there; dealing with frustrating service providers, clients who don't value your time, or partners who fail to follow through. It's almost as if the standard for "good enough" has become far too low. So when you find someone who's reliable, respectful, and genuinely makes an effort, it's refreshing.

Here's the kicker: it's also quite sad.

The fact that these positive interactions stand out so much should give us pause. Good, professional behaviour and positive interpersonal interactions should be the baseline!

That's why when you come across someone who goes above and beyond, it's worth acknowledging. Not because it's a rare occurrence, but because we should be rewarding and reinforcing the kind of behaviour we want to see more of.

A simple "thank you" or a small gesture of appreciation can go a long way. It's not about grand gestures.

It's about recognising that, in a world where so many fall short, someone has the integrity to do it right.

So, next time you encounter someone who behaves professionally, or with kindness, take a moment to let them know. It's a small thing, but it can make all the difference.

A little recognition for doing it right goes a long way.

And for goodness' sake, make sure you're setting the right example yourself! Be courteous, and do a good job. We'll all be better for it.

Stephen

"I'll fire off an urgent email," they said. An oxymoron if ever there was one.*

Would you email 911 in an emergency? Of course not. Urgency demands immediate attention, and email simply doesn't deliver on that front because it is an asynchronous medium.

There's an inherent contradiction when we talk about time-sensitive emails. Even the most pressing email can sit in someone's inbox for hours without a response.

A phone call, on the other hand, can address the issue in seconds, ensuring that the urgency is met.

Now, don't get me wrong, the last thing I want is to start advocating for more phone calls; we all know the dread of an unexpected ring. Nevertheless, personal comfort must take a backseat if we want to be effective.


"Dear Sir/Madam, I'm writing to inform you of a FIRE which has broken out at the premises of..."

The asynchronous nature of email isn't a flaw. It just makes it unsuitable for situations that require quick action. If you need an immediate response, email simply can't deliver.

It is, however, the source of its greatest strength: convenience. This makes it a very efficient and effective communication tool for most situations. For both sender and recipient alike. You can write a message, hit send, and get a reply when the recipient has time, if at all necessary.

It's ideal for providing updates without interrupting workflows. It helps communication with teams across different time zones. It keeps a written record of otherwise undocumented informal discussions and decisions.

These are all non-urgent matters.

Here are some situations, besides urgency, where email is not the best choice:

• Complexity: Complex or sensitive issues are often better discussed in real-time, whether by phone, video call, or in person. Emails can lead to confusion or misinterpretation, especially if the subject matter is complicated.
• Back-and-forth: Similarly, if your email is likely to spark a long chain of responses, it may be more efficient to pick up the phone. Endless email threads often lead to miscommunications and slow down decision-making.
• Unlikely response: If the recipient isn't likely to read or respond to your email soon, you're better off choosing a different method of communication. A phone call, for instance, ensures a more immediate reply. Although in this case, the bigger question would be why a response is unlikely to be received, but that's a separate issue.

The goal in communication isn't just to send a message, but to ensure that the message is received, understood, and acted upon appropriately.

A time-sensitive email is just like whispering into the wind: ineffective, misplaced, and bound to be ignored when it matters most.

Worse still, it signals to others that you don't focus on delivering results, which is something that can seriously undermine your credibility in a professional environment.

So the next time you catch yourself writing an "urgent email", just do yourself a favour and pick up the phone. Yes, yes, cue the rending of clothes and pearl clutching. And, you'll thank me later.

* And for all the pedants out there (like me) itching to point out that "urgent email" is not a true oxymoron, just a regular contradiction - I'm invoking a little literary licence here. I'm suggesting that email is so fundamentally not urgent that it's practically anathema to the very concept, thereby making the phrase oxymoronic.

Stephen

Fair warning: what follows below employs ostentatiously ornate language and sesquipedalian verbiage. It's up to you to interpret how much of it has been done deliberately, for effect.

I came across a LinkedIn post by Clara Costa titled "7 ways to spot ChatGPT copy." With tongue planted firmly in cheek, they facetiously pointed out hallmarks such as proper punctuation, starting sentences with capital letters, and even the correct use of "you're" vs. "your" as possible signs of AI authorship.

While humorous in tone, the post posits a provocative postulation: are we too quick to suspect AI at work in polished writing?

As someone who uses words like "albeit," "boon," and "behove" in everyday discourse, I've often wondered whether my penchant for elaborate vocabulary and verbose phrasing makes me sound more robotic than human. Although my use of abstruse words and recondite locution makes me sound ancient, more so than stilted.

In the very remote off-chance that it's still unclear at this point, I'm intentionally laying it on thick here. Just a smidge.

Combine that with my sporadic use of semi-colons and tendency to avoid contractions - I'll fight you on why "cannot" is the superior choice over "can't" in some situations - and I might unintentionally check quite a few of those AI markers.

I even question myself at times, though I'm always assured I'm not a robot whenever I play those little picture games that pop up sometimes.

My tedious proclivities aside, reality is nuanced. Yes, ChatGPT and similar tools are convenient. Yes, they are overused. Case in point, have you noticed how the word "elevate" has proliferated in marketing copy everywhere, whether it's within an epicurean context or on a billboard ad for plumbing services?

This is neither the fault of AI nor its users. Recall how not too long ago, people with an expansive vocabulary were often accused of relying too heavily on thesauruses. Rather, it reflects the exponential advancements in tools and technology and their increasing accessibility.

This holds true for many aspects of our lives, and when utilised for communication the phenomenon is amplified. Perhaps it could advocate for the judicious use of such tools.

I don't see this as a critique more than a call to appreciate the quirks and eccentricities that distinguish human writing, even if they sometimes align with "robotic" patterns. After all, isn't the charm of writing its ability to spark thought, conversation, or even just a quiet knowing smile to oneself?

And no, I won't conclude with a call to action or a pithy takeaway. Would ChatGPT end without some CTA or poignant conclusion?
Hah, I think not!
That, perhaps, is proof enough of humanity in my prose.
..
..
Now go read a book!

* Dang it! * 🤦‍♂️

Stephen

Oh, I love a good plan! The act of planning sharpens our focus, aligns our efforts, and creates a shared understanding. That said, meticulous planning can easily devolve into overplanning and analysis paralysis, where time spent perfecting a plan comes at the cost of action. I'm all too often guilty of this myself.

This isn't an argument for abandoning forethought entirely. Far from it. Striking a balance is key.

Meticulous planners may pride themselves on careful preparation, but their risk lies in missing opportunities while waiting for perfection. On the other hand, those who charge forward without a plan risk avoidable setbacks.

Success often lies somewhere in between, where deliberate preparation supports decisive action.

I was driven by Richard Muscat Azzopardi's LinkedIn post to reflect on the paradoxical nature of planning. While plans themselves often become obsolete as soon as the ink dries, the process of planning is invaluable.

Covey, Drucker, Allen, and countless others (Richard, you're in good company here!) have all underscored a timeless principle for bridging the gap between planning and execution: clarity on who is responsible for a task, what needs to be done, and by when it needs to be accomplished. Or, as Mark Horstman so elegantly puts it, who does what by when.

This deceptively simple concept eliminates ambiguity, making sure plans move beyond mere intention.



Here's how you can start applying these principles immediately:

• In meetings (whether one-on-one or with large teams), don't just decide that something needs to be done. Specify who will take action, and by when that task will be completed.
• For personal planning, use the same principle. The who is clearly yourself, but break down generic objectives into specific tasks and assign a date to them.
• Revisit plans regularly but keep moving forward. Adjustments are a part of the process, not a failure of the plan.

In essence, don't let planning become an end in itself. Instead, let it be the foundation for meaningful, measurable progress.

Now, if you'll indulge me, I've resisted the temptation to pepper this article with a bunch of adages, aphorisms and platitudes. So I'll just leave you with a list here.

If they help you keep in mind the balance between planning and execution, even if it costs me a bit of your respect, I'll consider it a win.

• No plan survives first contact.
• Plans are nothing; planning is everything.
• By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.
• The best-laid plans often go awry.
• A goal without a plan is just a wish.
• The difference between a dream and a goal is a plan.

Props to you if you can readily identify whom they're attributed to or are paraphrasing. If you can't, that's even better...go look them up, then practise the smug look you'll be wearing at your next trivia quiz.

You're welcome!

Stephen

Everyone loves a success story!

The internet is rife with inspirational stories of how people have beaten the odds and triumphed in their pursuits and endeavours. More often than not, such stories are presented to us in a manner which encourages us to see what these people did right in order for us to learn from their successes and hopefully replicate their positive results. The same holds true for articles which provide "tips and tricks" or advice from prominent individuals regarded as experts in their field. We read these stories to draw inspiration, to increase our knowledge of the field, or perhaps simply as a morale booster to see us through tough times...a bookish pep-talk of sorts. While this could be beneficial, if we focus solely on these success stories, we run the risk of always looking at a one-sided picture, a half-truth.

The stark reality is that many, many stories are in fact, to some degree, failures. However, nobody enjoys reading about how difficult it is to achieve our goals, or how many people have already tried and failed at doing exactly the same thing we are trying to do. Besides being a hit to our morale, we tend to think that since they must have done something wrong, they aren't the ones to learn from. So we look towards the celebrity figures as the sole source of wisdom.

What we fail to realise is that failures probably offer us much more valuable information than the successes. By seeing where things went wrong, we learn how to avoid doing the same mistakes. I'm not saying that we should focus on the negative rather than the positive. That would still be the same issue, albeit in reverse. One must have a healthy dose of both and look at all the available information.

Naturally the issue is much more complex than that, but the basic concept is that we must not blindly separate the winners from the losers or even fail to recognise that there are, in fact, losers in every scenario.

If you're not one to be deterred by lengthy articles, I strongly suggest you read David McRaney's article on Survivorship Bias. It's a very interesting read and extremely well written.

So if you're trying to start a profitable business and are in the process of understanding what works and what doesn't, make sure you don't fall victim to survivorship bias.

Stephen