E-terruptions Drain Performance

They seem harmless... even helpful...  Email, text messages, Blackberrys, Facebook, and other tools make us more productive - right?  Wrong!  Here's the real skinny on how e-terruptions are destroying productivity in the workplace.

Recent Basex studies reveal that the average worker who spends their day behind a desk loses 2.1 hours of day of productive time to interruptions.  Intel places a value of approximately $1 billion per year on the cost of email interruptions to Fortune 500 companies.  Staggering numbers.  Especially for technology that we all thought was there to help us work more efficiently.  Here are the big issues with e-terruptions and some suggested solutions:

1.  Techno-addiction is real.  Bottom line, folks... there are a lot of you out there who don't run your technology - it runs you.  Turning off your Blackberry and closing out of Outlook for 2 hours while you focus on an drafting an important document is unthinkable.  Every 10 minutes during the day you check your emails, your IMs, your social networking accounts, etc. and you can't stop.  But look at it this way, if you check messages every 5 minutes that equals 96 interruptions in an average work day.  No wonder you can't think!

Stress management experts confirm that most managers are driven crazy by the constant barrage of messages and questions to the point that they can't perform their real job: leading people and making decisions.  Compulsive message checking is not the behavior of a highly productive worker.  It's the sad reality of a techno-addict.  Seek help before it's too late!

Solution:  Set times throughout the day to check your phone messages, your emails, your texts and your social media accounts.  Otherwise... turn it off!  It will be really tough at first (like quitting smoking), but you'll find you get twice as much done in half the time.

2.  Multi-tasking is a lie.  Honestly, as much as we revere multi-tasking people aren't very good at it.  Our brains just are not made to handle multi-tasking of similar functions.  It's like this... you can probably chop carrots in the kitchen and have a coherent conversation on your cell phone - one is a mundane physical task and the other engages the language part of the cognitive brain.  The problem kicks in when you're trying to do multiple things that engage the same brain areas.  Imagine a narrow path through the woods where three people cannot walk abreast - they have to slow down and take their turn - and they lose speed in the process.  If you're reading an email, listening to a voice mail and trying to engage in a conversation with a co-worker walking by, you experience a 'switching cost' of probably 40% of your time and understanding due to the overload.  People are optimally productive when they can focus on complex tasks and complete them without interruptions.

Solution:  Stop trying to multi-task.  Let go of the cachet of doing multiple things all at the same time.  If you're on a conference call, don't try to answer emails in the background.  If you're writing a report, just let the phone ring.  Prioritize your day, doing one thing at a time and giving it your full attention.

3.  Minor interruptions don't hurt productivity.  Constant interruptions are not OK and most workplaces inadvertently foster an environment of incessant bombardment.  University of Minnesota researchers recently found that 'peripheral tasks' (AKA interruptions) triggered twice the errors, up to 106% of the annoyance, and up to 27% of the time that a task would take without interruptions. Then, even worse, it took the worker 15 minutes to get back in the groove and re-focus on the original duty.  Our brains get so scrambled by bouncing from one point of focus to the next that we can't do anything well and we're frustrated to boot.  In some fields people are even losing their ability to engage in stimulating conversations and face-to-face interactions!

Solution:  Implement times when you are 'OFF' and time when you are 'ON'.  It's not a bad thing for your co-workers to learn that from 9-12:00 each day your office door will be closed, your voice mail will be on, and you won't answer to anything but an emergency.  I guarantee that those will be your 3 most highly productive hours of the day.

One of the Best Brand Refreshes I've Seen...

Chiquita Banana isn't completely reinventing itself, but it is taking one of the most well-recognized brands of the 20th century into the 21st in high style. It's very risky to play around with a successful brand, but I really think this campaign is going to work!

Take a look at these fun and memorable stickers that will soon be adorning bananas everywhere:

Mehrabian Nights – an informative tale about (mis)communication

by Martin Shovel
www.creativityworks.net

Here’s an urban myth about communication that’s harder to swallow than a whale. It’s one of the most influential and widely quoted statistical stories around, and it goes like this:

When someone speaks to us, only 7% of their meaning communicates itself through the words they use.

You have probably come across this figure before. It’s based on research which apparently demonstrates that most (55%) of what a speaker means is conveyed through their facial expressions and the rest (38%) is communicated through tone of voice. In one fell swoop, words are relegated to the role of bit-part players on the stage of communication. They hardly seem to matter at all.

But as with most urban myths, when you chew the story over, the alarm bells of common sense start ringing. Is it really possible that if I get lost and ask a passerby for directions, I’ll have to work out the correct route mostly from their facial expressions and tone of voice, and not from the words they use? As Mr Spock might say, “it’s communication, Jim, but not as we know it.”

Google the name ‘Mehrabian’ and you’ll discover any number of websites eager to inform you that these statistics are based on research done by Professor Albert Mehrabian. But – surprise, surprise – his research proves nothing of the kind, as he’d be the first to tell you.

The devil’s in the detail
 On his own website, Mehrabian expresses the results of his research in the form of an equation:
“Total Liking = 7% Verbal Liking + 38% Vocal Liking + 55% Facial Liking”

He goes on to explain that “this and other equations regarding relative importance of verbal and nonverbal messages were derived from experiments dealing with communications of feelings and attitudes (i.e. like-dislike). Unless a communicator is talking about their feelings or attitudes, these equations are not applicable.”

What the peddlers of the urban myth version of Mehrabian’s statistical story don’t make clear – or perhaps don’t know themselves – is that Mehrabian’s research was concerned with a very specific, and limited, aspect of nonverbal communication – it’s not about communication in general. His work relates only to inconsistent messages about feelings and attitudes, that is, face-to-face exchanges in which the meaning of what we say is contradicted by our body language and tone of voice.

Mixed messages
Imagine a situation in which you’ve had a disagreement with a colleague but they insist they’re not annoyed with you despite the fact that they’ve got their arms tightly crossed, their head is turned away from you, they avoid eye contact and they deliver their words through clenched teeth.

Or you tell a friend a joke and they respond with a stony face but tell you they think your joke is really funny. Chances are you’ll be more influenced by their impassive look than their encouraging words – and you won’t be telling that joke again in a hurry!

As a result of his experiments, Mehrabian concluded that when we’re faced with a mixed message like the ones above, we’re much more likely to believe that the real meaning is contained in the nonverbal signals the person is giving off, rather than in the words they’re saying. His famous statistic is his attempt to express this kind of experience in the form of an equation.

But – and this is the crucial point – we must not lose sight of the fact that Mehrabian’s statistic only makes sense when applied to the very narrow range of communicative experience that he was investigating, i.e. the ambiguous expression of feelings and attitudes. The attempt to apply it to all face-to-face communications is both wrong and ridiculous.

The appeal of the urban myth
So why has the distorted version of Mehrabian’s statistical story been so eagerly embraced? Well a large part of its appeal – as with other urban myths – is that its message is simple, credible and, above all, surprising. It belittles the power of words and, in an instant, it turns everything we think we know about communication on its head. Could this be why so much current thinking about presentation skills exaggerates the significance of the finer points of delivery while underplaying the fundamental importance of getting the words right?

We should always bear in mind that words are the main ingredient of presentations, talks and speeches. But they have to be the right words, used in the right way, by the right person, at the right time. So maybe it’s no wonder that many of us would rather embrace the false comfort of a spurious statistic than face up to the creative challenge of trying to discover those right words.

Wordle... a Very Nifty (and Useful) Tool

I've just discovered www.wordle.net and I must say I'm impressed.  This handy little website allows you to enter a block of text or the URL of any blog or webpage and see an instant cloud of words.  The clouds give greater prominence to words that appear more frequently in the source text, so a quick glance at the 'wordle' tells you where your emphasis lies.  This is an amazingly easy way to optimize copy for SEO because it clearly shows you where your focus is and what keywords you're using the most.

Here are some examples from my website (and aren't they pretty too!):

My strategic services page (http://www.akamai-consulting.com/strategicservices.html)...

My marketing and PR page (http://www.akamai-consulting.com/marketingservices.html)...

And finally, my own bio copy (http://www.akamai-consulting.com/trishthomas.html)...

Very cool - isn't it?

Solving Problems with a Designer's Eye

Design principles can help small businesses tackle issues in new ways. To start, think of design as a process, not a look...

Diane Jermyn

Special to The Globe and Mail

Published on Thursday, Mar. 11, 2010

 

Warren Berger thinks business can learn a lot from designers. The award-winning American journalist and author sees questions such as, ‘What are we going to make? How can we make it better? And how can we satisfy our customers?' as design challenges because you can apply design principles to all of these things.

“Don't think about design just as your logo or the visual aspect of your business; think of it as a process you can use to tackle problems in your business,” says Mr. Berger, who features revolutionary Canadian designer Bruce Mau's ideas in his book, Glimmer: How Design Can Transform Your Life, and Maybe Even the World.

Mr. Mau defines design as “the human capacity to plan and produce ideas.” Known as a cutting-edge visionary, Mr. Mau tries to push the limits of what design can do and what it can encompass. Or in Mr. Mau's words, “What if we looked at the world as a design project – how might we begin to make it better?”
Mr. Berger says, “This is a revelation to people because they don't think of design that way. Design is really creative problem solving.”

The reason businesses, even small ones, should care about design is because it can help them figure out what to do next and what could be done differently, Mr. Berger says. A key element is finding out what people need, based on research into their lives. What a business can learn from designers is how to step back, look at what they're doing and ask basic questions.

“Designers are very good at asking what I call stupid questions,” Mr. Berger says. “Why do we do things the way we do? Is this the best way to do it or could we do it differently? Small companies especially need to do that because they can get into a pattern of doing things a certain way for a long time.”

Designers also use lateral thinking to trigger ideas – something we can all do, Mr. Berger says.

“Most of us tend to approach problems in a straightforward manner and think about things in terms of our own area of expertise. So if you're a bakery or an accounting firm, you look at what other bakeries or accounting firms are doing, or you read industry magazines to try to get ideas. The problem is that you end up doing what everybody else is doing,” Mr. Berger says. “Designers are really good at thinking sideways and jumping fences.”

A designer can borrow from another field or discipline and look at things that may seem unrelated. For instance, a bank might look at what a great hotel is doing. “This kind of lateral thinking is huge for designers,” Mr. Berger says. “They call it smart re-combinations. Bruce Mau believes that to get to originality and innovation, designers must be given free range to be able to venture far and wide in their thinking. They take ideas from all over, bring them together and create new ones. That's one thing small business can really learn.”

Listening is another huge tool for designers, Mr. Berger says, because everything they do is based on human need. Instead of using conventional methods such as customer surveys, sterile focus groups or even social media, designers are good at going out there in person and putting themselves in the places where people live and work so they can observe.

“The Internet is a great tool, but there's no substitute for human contact,” Mr. Berger says. “If you have the opportunity to watch your customers, to really see how they live and interact with your product and company, do so. It may seem weird, but if you can accompany people on a shopping trip or watch how they cook, the insights are amazing. Many products and innovations have come about, not by research in a lab, but by watching people.”

One example he uses is the OXO Good Grips measuring cup, which allows you to see how full the cup is from above. That invention came from watching people in the kitchen and realizing that they had to bend down and look at the side of the cup.

“If you had asked people about their measuring cup, they'd say it was fine, but when you watched them, you could see that there was something that could be improved,” Mr. Berger says.

“Companies need to use empathy more than ever before. That comes about by getting out there in the world, talking to people and seeing what's missing in their lives. If you can identify that thing that's missing, that's a business opportunity.”

The Simple Truth about Shortcuts to Success, Wealth and Happiness

"Earn $10,000 a Month Working 10 Hours a Week"

"Explode Sales AND Slash Your Marketing Expenses With Our Simple Proven System"

"Learn to Generate Massive Wealth at our Upcoming Weekend Seminar"

 Shortcut claims seem like obvious foolishness, but these silly pitches wouldn't work if we weren't all looking for expertise, success and wealth with no real investment on our part.  Most intelligent people dismiss such offers as too good to be true, but enough people respond to outrageous bogus deals that we keep seeing them over and over in print, online and in our inboxes.

I suppose it's understandable - people want prestige and money fast with minimal effort.

The thing I've noticed lately (perhaps it's the recession) is how pervasive this promotional tactic has become in recent months. Absurd claims with no basis in reality are not confined to infomercials, internet ads or spam emails - they have invaded mainstream business. You don't have to look far to find people hawking programs that promise you the moon for a few bucks and a few hours.

What the "marketers" (and I use that word very loosely) of these programs conveniently leave out is the proven science of greatness. In his blockbuster book Outliers, author Malcolm Gladwell notes that it takes roughly 10,000 hours of practice for anyone to reach the top of their field: the equivalent of three hours of practice a day for ten years. If measuring in 40 hour work weeks, you would have to labor for five long years before earning your stripes as an 'expert'.  No one has yet found a case where world-class talent was accomplished in less time.

I hate to see people with a legitimate program make it seem trite by attaching absurd claims to their services.  I hate to see hopeful individuals hand over their hard-earned dollars and waste their time trying to accomplish the impossible.

When you pay, no one explains that the sure-fire marketing system, or the can't miss stock tip, or the weekend seminar to make you an instant millionaire really can't take the place of real knowledge or faithful practice. Some of the 'experts' teaching these classes and hawking these programs are apparently suffering from memory loss.  Having achieved a high level of mastery in their own right, they have forgotten what it took to get there and think they can transfer their expertise to anyone in a few hours.

But that can't really be done. There are infinite subtleties to true expertise... intuition, connections and experiences that have to be learned the hard way.  The obvious solution to a real expert cannot come naturally or easily to the beginner - and no quick-fix artist can alter that reality.

The real way to achieve success in business and in life is to find the unique path to mastery that works for you. It will take time and effort - sometimes sweat and tears - but in the end you will reap the rewards of honest effort.

The simplest path to success, respect and happiness is to dismiss the scams as a distraction and get on with the legitimate task of becoming a master at what you love most.

Aim for Two Markets and you Might get None!

Startup Adventures In NYC »
Brad Hargreaves is an entrepreneur in residence at Tipping Point Partners.This post was originally published on his blog.

I hate seeing start ups make the same mistakes I’ve made. When I see it once, it sucks. When I see it over and over again, it’s worth a blog post. When I started GoCrossCampus with a few college friends, we set out to build a simple strategy game that could engage any college student with at least a bit of campus pride. I’ll forgo an extended explanation of what GoCrossCampus was (you can check out the link above if you’re curious), but you could think of our intended market as two distinct audiences:

a) Strategy gamers
b) College students

Initially, we were able to capture the union of those groups — large (30%+) percentages of students at Ivy League and tech schools were playing the game. If you had pride in your campus, you played. We also had a big, dedicated group of strategy gamers not associated with any college that played the game because they liked the game.

But at many colleges, we ended up capturing the intersection of those groups. That is, college students with campus pride who also enjoyed playing strategy games. This wasn’t a terribly big group of people, especially for a company that had raised $1.6 million in venture capital. In other words, we ended up capturing the space on the diagram where the two circles intersect rather than any space covered by either circle.

This distinction cost me a company. While the union of the circles — gamers and college kids — were certainly big enough to justify raising venture money, the intersection — college kids who played games — wasn’t even big enough to build a lifestyle business without a radical change in business model.

So how do you know when you are aiming to capture the intersection rather than the union of two groups?

There’s probably no way to tell for sure, but that’s not going to prevent me from throwing a few things down on paper. Here are some questions you might want to ask yourself before committing to a two-audience strategy:

1) Is there a major psychographic disparity between your intended audiences? In woot.com, there isn’t. People who like consumer electronics also like deals. In theNethernet (formerly PMOG)? I’m not sure I see why Steampunk fans also want to play an ultra-casual game. But I don’t have their analytics at hand, so please correct me if I’m incorrectly throwing them under the brass-and-mahogany bus. In short, if it is hard to imagine that there are a lot of people that fit into both your audience categories, perhaps it is best to focus on one or the other.

2) Is my product compelling enough to wholly attract at least one of my targeted audiences on its own merit? GoCrossCampus would’ve succeeded if we had spent a bit more time creating a game that was compelling to strategy gamers on its own merit; that is, if the college rivalries element was just a gimmick to get people to play rather than a necessity.

3) Is “technically savvy” already one of my desired audiences? If it’s not, you better build a damn good UI. Many startups claim that they are going after one particular audience (say, “Soccer moms”), when in fact they are building a product that goes after the intersection of their core audience and “technically savvy people”. And that may be well and good for your beta, but if you’re throwing a third category out there — say, “People with an interest in crafts” or “Gamers”, you may be setting yourself up for a much smaller audience than you are anticipating.

4) If my audiences are X and Y, is there a disdain/revulsion/annoyance towards X by Y? If so, run, do not walk, to the nearest exit. College students with bucketfuls school pride tend to think poorly of gamers. It did not bode well for GXC.

That’s all for now. I’m sure this may warrant a follow-up post at some point, since I think it is one of the most under-appreciated mistakes that startups make.