Today's Hump Day Hmm asks us to write about "The Rules" of life. What are the rules, mores, or ethics of life, do we all have to follow them in the same way, are they applied equally to everyone... all great questions. I believe in following certain rules myself, and I believe certain laws do apply equally to all, but I realize that not all rules are followed or applied equally. For instance, the guys who drove drunk, did drugs, raced cars, and made doughnuts in parking lots were more likely to catch a break from the police in my hometown than I was because those officers said things like, "Hey, take it easy. I used to be crazy like you when I was this age, so I'll let you off with a warning this time." I got read the riot act, even on occasions when I wasn't guilty (as found by the judge). We also had what is commonly referred to as a "hanging judge" who loved to throw the book at underage miscreants, but his own children got their tickets fixed and their accidents were never written up. That is, until a neighboring DA decided to prosecute one son who nearly killed himself in an accident involving drugs and alcohol (no one else was found with the car, but it was a single car incident). I have read numerous reports on trucking companies that are repeatedly written up for violations on the road that are never evaluated by a DOT inspector in their office, but my company has been audited five times in eight years, even though every audit has shown we remove any violators from our company.
So what rules should we live by? I think we should all be decent to our fellow man, and work to do good in the world. I believe we should all provide for our own well being and try to help those who cannot help themselves (my definition of "those who cannot help themselves" differs greatly from that of the welfare department, though). I believe we should have laws that maintain order and protect life, and we should prosecute those who violate those laws. I believe laws that are unenforceable or are simply for show should not be passed or should be repealed. I believe that individuals should be taxed at a reasonable level (my definition of reasonable also does not agree with the government's) to provide for the various administrators of justice (police, judges, etc.), legislators (though their compensation should be re-evaluated), and national defense (military). I do not believe corporations should pay income taxes because those taxes only serve to raise prices, lower wages, and reduce the opportunities for employment. I believe market forces govern most interactions between buyers and sellers, but governments have a habit of altering the natural mechanics of those forces to create false opportunities or damage otherwise good opportunities for two parties to agree on a price. I do think some government regulation has a purpose when it comes to product standards, but it has gone far beyond what is necessary in most cases. I can accept that those who mete out justice are imperfect and therefore apply it imperfectly, though I prefer they keep the unfairness as far away from me as possible. I do believe that doing more good in the world than bad (and doing as little bad as possible) will come back to someone in the end. That end just might not be the end of the day, year, or even lifetime. I would rather have a "balance owed" than a "balance due" in my "goodness account" at the end of everything. I do, after all, believe in a divine justice that is perfect and which will be properly meted out when the time comes. That is enough for me to continue striving towards a better me.
I am sure my response to this Hump Day has been overly simplified thus far. I would like to write something deeper. I'm just not up to it as I head off on vacation, and since this is a very busy time for me anyway.
-- Robert
Showing posts with label Etiquette. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Etiquette. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Older Posts Revisited
My wife and I were laughing together about some of the crazy phone calls I've had over the years, and she told me I should write about them. I reminded her I already had, but she thought I had omitted a particular one. I realize why she might have thought I omitted it when I reread the original post. It was the last thing I said, but since the call said "I' M FINISHED!" really loud on a voice mail, I used it to segue into finishing the post. So, here is the original post:
Crazy Things Heard On The Phone
While I was back there digging, I thought I might also share some other gems of wittiness from my early days that some of my newer readers might not have gotten to see.
One Of Your Drivers Just Ran Over My Car
Tony Drove Off the Side of a Mountain
I Regret to Inform You...
So, enjoy. Feel free to comment here on any of these posts, or comment there. I'll try to look all four places. My apologies if some of these stories seem indelicate. Most of them happened between five and ten years ago, if that helps.
-- Robert
Crazy Things Heard On The Phone
While I was back there digging, I thought I might also share some other gems of wittiness from my early days that some of my newer readers might not have gotten to see.
One Of Your Drivers Just Ran Over My Car
Tony Drove Off the Side of a Mountain
I Regret to Inform You...
So, enjoy. Feel free to comment here on any of these posts, or comment there. I'll try to look all four places. My apologies if some of these stories seem indelicate. Most of them happened between five and ten years ago, if that helps.
-- Robert
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Wronged, Hump Day Hmm
Today's Hump Day asks us to "...describe an incident where you or someone was wronged, in what would normally be considered outside of the social norms, and how you reacted, how you wish you reacted and what is possibly the best way to inform these idiots that they screwed up if that is even possible."
I certainly have several that immediately come to mind, but I will write about one of the most egregious because it still bothers me. For the record, I cannot prove I am right about this situation, but I have reasonable confidence that what I am writing about here is the truth.
When I was in graduate school, I took a course in Human Resources as part of a sequence of courses required to get a specialization in risk management. Of all the business courses I recall taking, I felt this ranked among the most worthless to me. The professor was terrible, and she never really attempted to teach, but instead had guest lecturers who worked in certain areas of benefits to discuss their line of work. The final project of the class was to create a benefits package for an employee pool with a given quantity of dollars and certain parameters to meet. The project was worth at least 40% of our grade. My team for this assignment included me (who has never had a job in corporate America with benefits), a Navy Officer (who never had any benefits before his time in the service), and an Indian (who came to America to get his education and had no familiarity with benefits here). Despite our lack of familiarity, we were able to create a package that met all the basic requirements of the assignment - within budget, certain minimum coverages, and certain options available - and certainly did not demonstrate we had not made a strong effort to accomplish the assigned task.
We got a 40. For those who have never attended graduate school, most professors do not give grades below C's because an overall grade below a C does not count towards graduation and can sometimes lead to dismissal from the program. To give a 40 on such an assignment suggested we had turned in something made of paper mache and crayon, not a multi-page report complete with charts, budgets, and writing explaining the package. We were all literally shocked. It could have kept the Navy Officer from having his tuition paid that term. It was not a small matter to receive such a grade. We were given the opportunity to review the grade in her office, and there was almost no writing on the report itself. Just a big 40 on the grade page with a few notes. We appealed the grade to the department, and we were denied. The professor who explained it to us told us as delicately as he felt he could not to pursue it further, because no one would overrule this professor. It was the only class she taught, after all, because her primary role was the Dean of Research. She decided who got what funding in the College of Business. No one would overrule her for three graduate students who would be gone in six months regardless. So, we dropped it.
I was talking to another classmate one day about this situation, and he shed some light on why our grade might have been so terrible. One of his jobs was to type up written evaluations given by students just before the end of class. They were typed to protect the anonymity of the student giving the evaluation in the hopes of getting an honest review of the professor's performance and the course's value overall. What this classmate told me, though, was he regularly saw professors come in and demand to see the written evaluation after reading the typed version. The reason, of course, to read the written version was to compare it to hand-writing and decide who wrote it. My evaluation of the course was scathing. I suggested the professor never be allowed near students again, or at least not until she'd had a course or two on proper teaching methods. I also suggested the course be removed from the requirement for the sequence because it had very little to do with the other two courses involved and seemed to have been tacked on primarily for the purposes of giving the Dean of Research a class to teach once a year. I was mostly tactful, but I was not kind in my remarks. Clearly she had read my remarks and chosen to retaliate on my grade.
After learning the true cause of my grade, I decided to do nothing more. I knew no one would care what had happened, and I was not going to risk my reputation and possibly my degree over my evaluation. Instead, I chose to inform every student who called to invite me to give more to my college - which I dearly love - that I would not be giving an extra dime to my school until she retired. I could not, in good conscience, support my school while they kept such an unethical person in such a high ranking position, or on staff at all. I smiled when I read of her retirement this year in the school magazine. I may not give any time soon in large amounts, but at least she is gone from the ranks of teaching, and gone from my school.
How could I have handled it better? I probably should have done what most people do and written a bland review of the class. I would have gotten a B overall instead of a C for the course, and my transcript would have looked better. That certainly was the wiser course of action. The problem is, to answer the last part of the Hump Day Hmm question, is that to take the wiser course would not have helped anyone know how terrible that course was. It did not let anyone know that a person of high rank was obviously doing something highly unethical. If I were a brave soul, I might have gone to the Associate Dean (her immediate boss) or the Dean of the College of Business, or even the University President. But I know the politics of education too well. I know nothing would have come of it. Or if it did, I would more likely be remembered as "that disgruntled MBA student who went to war over a grade" instead of my other legacies. I am glad I took the path I did and just moved past it. I just sometimes wonder who else might have suffered at the hands of such an incompetent professor because I did.
-- Robert
I certainly have several that immediately come to mind, but I will write about one of the most egregious because it still bothers me. For the record, I cannot prove I am right about this situation, but I have reasonable confidence that what I am writing about here is the truth.
When I was in graduate school, I took a course in Human Resources as part of a sequence of courses required to get a specialization in risk management. Of all the business courses I recall taking, I felt this ranked among the most worthless to me. The professor was terrible, and she never really attempted to teach, but instead had guest lecturers who worked in certain areas of benefits to discuss their line of work. The final project of the class was to create a benefits package for an employee pool with a given quantity of dollars and certain parameters to meet. The project was worth at least 40% of our grade. My team for this assignment included me (who has never had a job in corporate America with benefits), a Navy Officer (who never had any benefits before his time in the service), and an Indian (who came to America to get his education and had no familiarity with benefits here). Despite our lack of familiarity, we were able to create a package that met all the basic requirements of the assignment - within budget, certain minimum coverages, and certain options available - and certainly did not demonstrate we had not made a strong effort to accomplish the assigned task.
We got a 40. For those who have never attended graduate school, most professors do not give grades below C's because an overall grade below a C does not count towards graduation and can sometimes lead to dismissal from the program. To give a 40 on such an assignment suggested we had turned in something made of paper mache and crayon, not a multi-page report complete with charts, budgets, and writing explaining the package. We were all literally shocked. It could have kept the Navy Officer from having his tuition paid that term. It was not a small matter to receive such a grade. We were given the opportunity to review the grade in her office, and there was almost no writing on the report itself. Just a big 40 on the grade page with a few notes. We appealed the grade to the department, and we were denied. The professor who explained it to us told us as delicately as he felt he could not to pursue it further, because no one would overrule this professor. It was the only class she taught, after all, because her primary role was the Dean of Research. She decided who got what funding in the College of Business. No one would overrule her for three graduate students who would be gone in six months regardless. So, we dropped it.
I was talking to another classmate one day about this situation, and he shed some light on why our grade might have been so terrible. One of his jobs was to type up written evaluations given by students just before the end of class. They were typed to protect the anonymity of the student giving the evaluation in the hopes of getting an honest review of the professor's performance and the course's value overall. What this classmate told me, though, was he regularly saw professors come in and demand to see the written evaluation after reading the typed version. The reason, of course, to read the written version was to compare it to hand-writing and decide who wrote it. My evaluation of the course was scathing. I suggested the professor never be allowed near students again, or at least not until she'd had a course or two on proper teaching methods. I also suggested the course be removed from the requirement for the sequence because it had very little to do with the other two courses involved and seemed to have been tacked on primarily for the purposes of giving the Dean of Research a class to teach once a year. I was mostly tactful, but I was not kind in my remarks. Clearly she had read my remarks and chosen to retaliate on my grade.
After learning the true cause of my grade, I decided to do nothing more. I knew no one would care what had happened, and I was not going to risk my reputation and possibly my degree over my evaluation. Instead, I chose to inform every student who called to invite me to give more to my college - which I dearly love - that I would not be giving an extra dime to my school until she retired. I could not, in good conscience, support my school while they kept such an unethical person in such a high ranking position, or on staff at all. I smiled when I read of her retirement this year in the school magazine. I may not give any time soon in large amounts, but at least she is gone from the ranks of teaching, and gone from my school.
How could I have handled it better? I probably should have done what most people do and written a bland review of the class. I would have gotten a B overall instead of a C for the course, and my transcript would have looked better. That certainly was the wiser course of action. The problem is, to answer the last part of the Hump Day Hmm question, is that to take the wiser course would not have helped anyone know how terrible that course was. It did not let anyone know that a person of high rank was obviously doing something highly unethical. If I were a brave soul, I might have gone to the Associate Dean (her immediate boss) or the Dean of the College of Business, or even the University President. But I know the politics of education too well. I know nothing would have come of it. Or if it did, I would more likely be remembered as "that disgruntled MBA student who went to war over a grade" instead of my other legacies. I am glad I took the path I did and just moved past it. I just sometimes wonder who else might have suffered at the hands of such an incompetent professor because I did.
-- Robert
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Free Speech, Hump Day Hmm
Today's Hump Day Topic states: "we're going to tackle the notion of free speech in writing, particularly blogging, considering that court cases are considering it fair to limit free speech on blogs and are definitely willing to use your words against you. "
I have tried writing an entry several times, but I keep coming back to the feeling that it will not be well received. And each time I think that, I consider the irony of it, given what I keep wanting to write. If free speech doctrine truly protects my writing, then I am safe to write what I feel without fear of rebuke or reprisal. But the rebuke and reprisal can absolutely follow comments of dissent. Fortunately, though, in the United States, I do feel safe from government rebuke or reprisal for what I write. In so many countries around the world, the same cannot be said. News media that disagrees with the government in most Middle Eastern countries will be shut down, and those guilty of attacking the government might disappear, never to be seen or heard from again. Even in Europe it has only recently been safe to write against the "king and crown" without fear. So I am thankful to be an American, as I write about free speech without fear.
Can what we write be used against us in court? It absolutely can, in the court of public opinion. Whenever I write something on a blog that disagrees with typical crowd who frequents that blog, I can expect (and have often received) a backlash. It feels somewhat like being the "ignorant redneck" (or whatever derisive term would follow) who walks into an art show and wonders if the artist just spilled a can of paint. "He must not be refined enough to appreciate such vision, what a half wit."
How easily we turn against those who disagree with the group. I find that people of like minds congregate to avoid feeling like a lone reed in the wind, so dissent is met with ridicule. Is that healthy? Should we revile those who speak against us? Perhaps, but I think not. Rarely do we learn from sycophants and yes-men who parrot the groupthink we agree with. Watch what happens, though, when a student disagrees with a teacher - either in writing or in speech. Even if the teacher lets the comments slide, the other students often mock the student as a fool. In rare cases, the class supports the student when they agree but were too afraid to say anything, but most of the time the student who stands out is beaten down.
So, in the end, what is true of free speech? Are we truly free to write what we believe? We are, in most cases, free from the expectation of going to jail for what we say and write. We are not, however, free to write without expectation that it can be used against us.
I have tried writing an entry several times, but I keep coming back to the feeling that it will not be well received. And each time I think that, I consider the irony of it, given what I keep wanting to write. If free speech doctrine truly protects my writing, then I am safe to write what I feel without fear of rebuke or reprisal. But the rebuke and reprisal can absolutely follow comments of dissent. Fortunately, though, in the United States, I do feel safe from government rebuke or reprisal for what I write. In so many countries around the world, the same cannot be said. News media that disagrees with the government in most Middle Eastern countries will be shut down, and those guilty of attacking the government might disappear, never to be seen or heard from again. Even in Europe it has only recently been safe to write against the "king and crown" without fear. So I am thankful to be an American, as I write about free speech without fear.
Can what we write be used against us in court? It absolutely can, in the court of public opinion. Whenever I write something on a blog that disagrees with typical crowd who frequents that blog, I can expect (and have often received) a backlash. It feels somewhat like being the "ignorant redneck" (or whatever derisive term would follow) who walks into an art show and wonders if the artist just spilled a can of paint. "He must not be refined enough to appreciate such vision, what a half wit."
How easily we turn against those who disagree with the group. I find that people of like minds congregate to avoid feeling like a lone reed in the wind, so dissent is met with ridicule. Is that healthy? Should we revile those who speak against us? Perhaps, but I think not. Rarely do we learn from sycophants and yes-men who parrot the groupthink we agree with. Watch what happens, though, when a student disagrees with a teacher - either in writing or in speech. Even if the teacher lets the comments slide, the other students often mock the student as a fool. In rare cases, the class supports the student when they agree but were too afraid to say anything, but most of the time the student who stands out is beaten down.
So, in the end, what is true of free speech? Are we truly free to write what we believe? We are, in most cases, free from the expectation of going to jail for what we say and write. We are not, however, free to write without expectation that it can be used against us.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
When Using My Words Cost Me
So, I had to write a second Hump Day Hmm. This story just shot out of my memory when I read another poster's comments.
In graduate school, I had a definite experience of using my words that cost me. I was taking a human resources class, and the profressor was terrible. She seemed to have little experience in what she was teaching, and she never talked at great length on the final project - creating a benefits package for employees at a business based on a given cost maximum and certain needs as a minimum. My teammates were an Indian (no US HR experience), a Navy officer (again, no HR experience), and me (who'd never had a benefits package with a job before). We did our best and, at a minimum, we complied with the project guidelines. But I wrote an anonymous (supposedly) evaluation of how terrible the professor was. We got a 40 on our project, and I got a C for the class. We appealed the grade, but since the professor was the Dean of Research, we knew after the first level the grade was not changing. I only found out later, from a classmate who worked in the office that processed evaluations, that many times professors came in to review the hand-written evaluation (despite assurances they were anonymous) to recognize the handwriting. I am solidly convinced I got a C because I ripped my professor to shreds in that evaluation.
My recourse, though, was simple. Any solicitations from my school for funds came with one question back, "Does Dr. [her name] still have a position there? Call me when she's retired."
She retired early this year, so I can now give to the school I love so much again.
In graduate school, I had a definite experience of using my words that cost me. I was taking a human resources class, and the profressor was terrible. She seemed to have little experience in what she was teaching, and she never talked at great length on the final project - creating a benefits package for employees at a business based on a given cost maximum and certain needs as a minimum. My teammates were an Indian (no US HR experience), a Navy officer (again, no HR experience), and me (who'd never had a benefits package with a job before). We did our best and, at a minimum, we complied with the project guidelines. But I wrote an anonymous (supposedly) evaluation of how terrible the professor was. We got a 40 on our project, and I got a C for the class. We appealed the grade, but since the professor was the Dean of Research, we knew after the first level the grade was not changing. I only found out later, from a classmate who worked in the office that processed evaluations, that many times professors came in to review the hand-written evaluation (despite assurances they were anonymous) to recognize the handwriting. I am solidly convinced I got a C because I ripped my professor to shreds in that evaluation.
My recourse, though, was simple. Any solicitations from my school for funds came with one question back, "Does Dr. [her name] still have a position there? Call me when she's retired."
She retired early this year, so I can now give to the school I love so much again.
Technician Who Left Me Wishin'
Today's Hump Day Hmm asks "when and how do I use my words?" and Julie was kind enough to propose several scenarios to elaborate on.
Her first and fourth scenarios each remind me of stories from my own experience. I want to relate the story that came to mind because of her fourth, since it ties in well with the general theme of my blog dealing with my working life.
Technician Who Leaves Me Wishin'
My office relies on phones more than anything, though computers have become a close second. We make our living communicating with shippers and drivers, easing the correspondence between the two we have helped come together. We are, after all, a broker of freight.
Several years ago, we had several instances of needing some technical assistance from the phone company because of lines going down or individual phones going down. Each time we called, one of two men tended to respond. One man always seemed to solve the problem quickly and effectively, and we rarely needed him to return for the same issue he had previously solved. The other man almost always required a follow-up visit from the first to solve whatever else he managed to screw up, along with the original problem. Because of this continued record of disservice, I finally decided to make a specific request when I called for support. I talked to the manager of the local phone company directly and asked him to send the competent man, explaining I had always been pleased with his service.
Not long after my call to the manager ended, I was greeted by an obviously irate technician - the second man. He threw open the door of my office and began his visit with the words, "So I hear you don't want me workin' on your phones anymore?"
Given his obviously excited state, I decided to calm him down with an explanation that veered away from my dissatisfaction. Yes, it could easily be construed as a lie, but I mainly avoided the topic of his competence. I simply explained that it would be fine for him to work on the system. I had simply requested the other man, but I needed help and would take what I could get. It would not have surprised me if the man had gone in and torn out my phone system to spite me, but to his credit, he went to work on it instead. Once he left, I placed another call to his manager.
"I did not ask you to tell [the man I didn't want] that I did not want him," I explained, rather calmly I recall despite my agitation. "I wanted [the first man] to come because he gets it done right. I do not appreciate how this situation was handled."
Ever since, I am fairly certain we have always been serviced by the first man I wanted, or by another man who came to work for them later who is equally competent. Rarely have I been more displeased with how a service company handled a request I made. When people I deal with ask me not to refer their business to a particular employee of mine, I simply comply with the request in the hopes of a continued relationship. If they explain some problem they have with a particular employee, I admit that I have often had cause to take notes on their concerns and convey them to the employee in question. I do not recall ever forcing the specific employee on the displeased customer, though.
And for the record, I am not sure if the man who came in with such fury solved my problem or not. I do recall the first man coming the next day, which suggests he did not manage to get it done. Without any grisly details here, I will just say the second man is no longer employed by my phone company.
-- Robert
Her first and fourth scenarios each remind me of stories from my own experience. I want to relate the story that came to mind because of her fourth, since it ties in well with the general theme of my blog dealing with my working life.
Technician Who Leaves Me Wishin'
My office relies on phones more than anything, though computers have become a close second. We make our living communicating with shippers and drivers, easing the correspondence between the two we have helped come together. We are, after all, a broker of freight.
Several years ago, we had several instances of needing some technical assistance from the phone company because of lines going down or individual phones going down. Each time we called, one of two men tended to respond. One man always seemed to solve the problem quickly and effectively, and we rarely needed him to return for the same issue he had previously solved. The other man almost always required a follow-up visit from the first to solve whatever else he managed to screw up, along with the original problem. Because of this continued record of disservice, I finally decided to make a specific request when I called for support. I talked to the manager of the local phone company directly and asked him to send the competent man, explaining I had always been pleased with his service.
Not long after my call to the manager ended, I was greeted by an obviously irate technician - the second man. He threw open the door of my office and began his visit with the words, "So I hear you don't want me workin' on your phones anymore?"
Given his obviously excited state, I decided to calm him down with an explanation that veered away from my dissatisfaction. Yes, it could easily be construed as a lie, but I mainly avoided the topic of his competence. I simply explained that it would be fine for him to work on the system. I had simply requested the other man, but I needed help and would take what I could get. It would not have surprised me if the man had gone in and torn out my phone system to spite me, but to his credit, he went to work on it instead. Once he left, I placed another call to his manager.
"I did not ask you to tell [the man I didn't want] that I did not want him," I explained, rather calmly I recall despite my agitation. "I wanted [the first man] to come because he gets it done right. I do not appreciate how this situation was handled."
Ever since, I am fairly certain we have always been serviced by the first man I wanted, or by another man who came to work for them later who is equally competent. Rarely have I been more displeased with how a service company handled a request I made. When people I deal with ask me not to refer their business to a particular employee of mine, I simply comply with the request in the hopes of a continued relationship. If they explain some problem they have with a particular employee, I admit that I have often had cause to take notes on their concerns and convey them to the employee in question. I do not recall ever forcing the specific employee on the displeased customer, though.
And for the record, I am not sure if the man who came in with such fury solved my problem or not. I do recall the first man coming the next day, which suggests he did not manage to get it done. Without any grisly details here, I will just say the second man is no longer employed by my phone company.
-- Robert
Friday, November 30, 2007
I Regret to Inform You...
The first job I ever had, my boss told me how not to answer a phone with this story:
"Don't explain why someone is unavailable. One time someone asked when the boss would be back and the secretary told them he had gone to the bathroom with the newspaper under his arm, so it might be a while. Some things, just don't need to be shared."
I learned a lot about phone etiquette on that job. If I ever let my boss's phone ring more than three times before answering it, I knew he was coming out the door of his office to have a talk with me. If I ever let a call drop by putting someone on hold too quickly, I would get a talk. There are certain things you do not do when you answer a phone. Now, fast forward to a year later at my trucking business, while I was still in college. We had a dispatcher working in another area who had passed away suddenly in the night. Out of courtesy to the family, the home office explained to his wife how she could forward his calls so she did not have to answer them. The dispatcher in the home office greeted the first several callers who asked for him by telling them:
"Cook's DEAD!" with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. After the first several such calls were overheard, the owner of the business asked him if he might be a little more delicate in breaking the news. After all, the people calling for him were mostly just making a standard check call as they would any morning to let their dispatcher know they were loaded and rolling. To suddenly be told the man was dead certainly must have come as a shock. So, the man changed his explanation.
"I regret to inform you, MR. COOK HAS MET HIS DEMISE!" his voice rose as he explained it each time. Most of the time the drivers had to ask what on Earth that meant. That elicited his initial explanation, "Cook's DEAD!"
What did I learn from this exchange? Well, I learned that sometimes it might make more sense to break things to another person slowly, especially when the information is completely unexpected, such as with a death or accident. Taking a serious or grave tone can prepare the other person to receive difficult news, and tact is a must. Mostly, I learned that some people are just not meant to answer phones for a living.
-- Robert
"Don't explain why someone is unavailable. One time someone asked when the boss would be back and the secretary told them he had gone to the bathroom with the newspaper under his arm, so it might be a while. Some things, just don't need to be shared."
I learned a lot about phone etiquette on that job. If I ever let my boss's phone ring more than three times before answering it, I knew he was coming out the door of his office to have a talk with me. If I ever let a call drop by putting someone on hold too quickly, I would get a talk. There are certain things you do not do when you answer a phone. Now, fast forward to a year later at my trucking business, while I was still in college. We had a dispatcher working in another area who had passed away suddenly in the night. Out of courtesy to the family, the home office explained to his wife how she could forward his calls so she did not have to answer them. The dispatcher in the home office greeted the first several callers who asked for him by telling them:
"Cook's DEAD!" with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. After the first several such calls were overheard, the owner of the business asked him if he might be a little more delicate in breaking the news. After all, the people calling for him were mostly just making a standard check call as they would any morning to let their dispatcher know they were loaded and rolling. To suddenly be told the man was dead certainly must have come as a shock. So, the man changed his explanation.
"I regret to inform you, MR. COOK HAS MET HIS DEMISE!" his voice rose as he explained it each time. Most of the time the drivers had to ask what on Earth that meant. That elicited his initial explanation, "Cook's DEAD!"
What did I learn from this exchange? Well, I learned that sometimes it might make more sense to break things to another person slowly, especially when the information is completely unexpected, such as with a death or accident. Taking a serious or grave tone can prepare the other person to receive difficult news, and tact is a must. Mostly, I learned that some people are just not meant to answer phones for a living.
-- Robert
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)