True Customer Service

Have you ever been absolutely “wowed” by the quality of customer service? I have recently, after years of suffering appalling web-sites offering no ability to talk to anyone or, if a phone number is offered, being subjected to many minutes and often hours of heavily distorted “musak”. Familiar? So how does you/your company’s customer service measure up?

Why it matters

I recall that in the early days of document management systems, a car manufacturer had worked out that the likelihood of a customer repeat buying was less geared to a customer having had no problems with a previous purchase, but rather more when they had experienced problems that had been resolved particularly well by the company. So they put focus and investment in problem resolution – i.e. customer service.

So, my recent wonderful experience was, sadly, not a UK utilities company, nor a UK mobile phone company, nor a UK broadband provider. I don’t think the UK is a good place to find excellent customer service! It was a US-based electronics product supplier. But before telling you about how great they were, let us think about what good customer service is.

Accessible people (really)

There should be easily accessible and available customer service people to talk to. Better if this is a real i.e. telephone conversation. This is rare these days, particularly with mobile/telecoms providers where you will be hard pushed to find any telephone number. But thankfully this kind of support is available from the excellent facility provided by LCN, the ISP and website hosting company – I rate their service highly.

A problem is that call centres based in other countries – often adopted by telecoms providers – may be apparently cost-effective but can cause great difficulty for customers not used to the accents, styles and speeds of delivery associated with those countries and languages. I have observed that this is particularly true of Southern Asia based call centres.

Speed of response

Clearly, the type of customer service methods used will affect the speed of response. But the aim of a fast response should drive the choices offered. I recently tried to get some basic information from customer services of a major European car manufacturer. There was an on-line form to fill in. No acknowledgement. No response after over a week. Thank you Seat for nothing (as yet).

Real “chat”

If not a live telephone conversation, a satisfactory substitute is an on-line “chat” facility. Please note though, I do not mean one of those limited automated response systems parading as a live chat but actually being a voice activated routing system which leads one nowhere – so common these days.

Continuity

If you have started an interaction with customer service, you should expect continuity – information you have supplied being carried forward and, preferably, the same named person dealing with your issue. So often, I have found, I have been handed from one agent to another having to explain everything again from scratch – even to the extent of going through security questions again.

Sympathetic and constructive response

Those familiar with “ego-states” will recognise that “Critical Parent” (that is – it must be my fault) is not an attitude to create goodwill.  A “Nurturing Parent” style perhaps with an element of “Natural Child” to provide energy towards resolution is likely to be the most empathetic and effective. My recent example of brilliant customer service through a live chat (my award) was conducted by someone named as “Sunshine”. Perfect! That’s exactly what they brought.

Clarity about process/next steps

Wherever we are in an interaction with customer services, we need to feel that our problem is owned and the steps to get resolution are clearly described.

Aiming high

Excellent customer service is not about delivering just against contractual terms and small print. It is about delivering above reasonable customer expectations. A company I used to be a part of – Capgemini – measured “On-time and above customer expectations” feedback. I believe they still do. This must surely be the aim of any quality service provider and their customer services team.

So, my award goes to…

A recent interaction (via chat and then email) with Doxie (a US based portable scanners provider) was exemplary. They exceeded my expectations in all aspects when dealing with an issue with a product 4 years old and well out of warranty. Provided immediate friendly response, continuity, and went well beyond contract/guarantee. I still cannot quite believe how good they have been. Thank you Doxie. Loyalty earned!

When to admit you are wrong

Sometimes we need to re-evaluate tenets and beliefs that we may have held for years. And it is often serendipity that triggers that re-evaluation. One example of this occurred while listening to radio 4 late at night a few weeks ago.

The programme Think with Pinker was broadcast on 3rd February 2022 and is available on Apple Podcasts. If you are a “supporter” or intrigued by critical thinking, this is well worth a listen. Julia Galef and David Willingham are participants in the discussion.

The provocation Pinker gives us is “Why getting it right might mean admitting you’re wrong”. And the programme explores this and many related concepts and fallacies.

Context

Most of what I learned or initially absorbed about rhetoric and the art of spoken word message design came from my mentor William Macnair during the late 1990s and early 2000s. The ideas he put over were compelling and always backed up with evidence. One of these he called the “Rule of Best Evidence” drawn from general and criminal law.

He, and then I, used this to demonstrate why, in convincing someone of an idea, only one piece of evidence was necessary and sufficient. Offering more than one piece of evidence (examples, data, quotations, credentials etc) would be self-defeating. I am fully aware that the Rule of Best Evidence is more properly associated with the hierarchy of evidence – for example an original vs a copy. But it seemed to me to be a helpful concept to which I signed up.

It was self-evident to me that people in my primary market – technology and consultancy – tended to over-explain, to provide multiple reasons for why their idea or assertion was correct. But the more they offered, the less credible they became. So the “Rule of Best Evidence” became part of the Kipper® methodology which I have taught – use only one piece of evidence in support of an idea.

A little epiphany

I still hold to this general principle of “less is more” but something that was touched on in the radio programme swiftly gave an insight into how people can react to and be really persuaded by evidence.

The observation made in the programme was that if you explain an idea with one example it might, but might not always, be convincing. But if you provided 2 examples, it would force people to think about what the two have in common – “how are both illustrations of the principle being put forward?”. This is what might create both belief and, importantly, memory. It follows that the two pieces of evidence must be of different types – it could be a survey statistic matched with a credential. It could be a return on investment alongside a staff survey.

Result

So, I have re-evaluated that tenet held for 20 years and tweaked it  – along with the advice I would now give to my clients. By the way, I still believe that credentials (e.g. “we have done this with a major retailer”) are the least persuasive types of evidence. And I also still believe that over-egging evidence – using many pieces – is counterproductive.

But I now would encourage the selection of up to 2 types of evidence to support any proposition or idea.

The other pay-off

The other benefit of this thinking is to do with behavioural types and styles that may be present in your audience. It is always a challenge if your target audience consists of both rational thinkers and those more persuaded through feelings and intuition. The “double evidence” approach will allow you to have two pieces and different types of evidence for each idea in your argument – therefore potentially satisfying the needs of these two distinct personal styles.

Summing up

So, thank you serendipity and thank you Steven Pinker. You have caused me to check my own evidence and as a result I have changed my perspective. Getting it right has meant admitting I was wrong.

It’s not about how much you know or how funny you are

Photos of people applauding – they are a classic representation of excellent public speaking and presentations. Indeed, I have one on my website homepage.

The challenge

But what are these people applauding in the real world? It is usually because a speaker has been entertaining or funny, or appealing to peoples’ prejudices, or maybe a teller of excellent stories.

Ask people in a large corporate who the best speaker in the company is and the response is invariably something like: “Oh, that must be Ian – isn’t he fantastic? Great stories – and those jokes he comes up with….!”

But is that effective communication?

Purpose and memory

It depends on what the speaker is trying to achieve – a ‘feel good factor’ for the listener, a deep understanding of something, or getting action. Many people are unaware that these different outcomes need different message design.

In this context, let us consider the professional environment. The purpose of a business presentation is (most commonly) to persuade them to do something (or not do something). Not “in the moment” as an after-dinner speaker or comedian would want – creating immediate emotional response. And not just laying out facts or data which are historical.

Of course, for a listener to ‘do’ what you desire, they must remember what you asked, after you have said it. The often-ignored fact is that persuasion is about affecting the behaviour of your audience in the future.  And if you are going to affect someone’s behaviour in the future, you must create memory – that is memory of the proposition, and memory of having been convinced through the evidence provided (and the credibility of the speaker). So, it is all about creating memory.

But that begs the question of how memory is indeed created. And it is not straightforward – particularly when we are dealing with both auditory and visual pathways in the listeners’ brains. They operate on entirely different bases – which is why the message design structures for spoken word messages differ from the written word. It also explains why asking someone to look at a complex visual whilst you are talking is so ineffective in creating memory. And when people do not remember your message a few moments after you have shared it – the norm – they will not undertake the action you sought.

Action

But do not be downhearted! If you and your team want to learn the craft of persuasion – particularly in this new, virtual world – you can. By understanding the theory of how your listeners’ brains work and how you can structure your message to leave a lasting memory, you will know how to affect behaviour in the future. Influence and persuasion at your finger-tips – and all encapsulated in the Virtual Kipper® technique.

Or you can accept that people will continue to forget your messages instantly 😊.

As one of my delegates said about the Kipper® “It has changed my life!”

When you are ready to fish, contact me at: www.garethbunnconsulting.co.uk or Amanda MacAuley at www.influenceandpersuade.net

Eyes vs Ears and muscles

Our world

We live in a world suffused with all kinds of messaging – from Tweets to worthy legal documents and spoken word interviews and the like – and everything in between.       

The question is – do we understand how different media demand different styles and structures of communications?

Context

I was contacted by someone in India recently who had come across a version of the Kipper (a tool for the design of spoken word messages the IP of which I happen to own) and she had assumed I think that it could be applied, without adjustment, to written word design. Not so, it does actually require significant adjustment.

So, I thought I should create a mini-blog post focused on this matter.

My mentor and teacher Willie Macnair used to say:

“Eyes have muscles but ears don’t”

The difference

Exactly! The major difference between designing messages for the spoken word and the written word hinges upon understanding of how the human senses and brain work.

In the spoken word, the speaker is in control over the sequence and speed of delivery of the ideas – the argument. In the written word, the reader is in control, over the speed and sequence in which phrases are read and understood. An obvious example of this is that a reader of a document may (and often does) choose to read the end of the document first.

This fundamental difference means that the structure of spoken word messages is different from written word messages. Let us touch on one of these key differences.

The Kipper® tool

I want to focus on 2 components of the Kipper® structure for spoken word messages:  the “Eye-opener” and the “Big idea”. In the spoken word Kipper®, the Eye-opener represents the first few words you say that gives your audience a compelling reason to listen and generates goodwill. The Big Idea is the fundamental proposition you are making in order to drive the behaviour you seek and in the Kipper structure are the last words you say.

People who do not fully understand spoken word message design will sometimes say that you should proclaim your “Big Idea” at the beginning of your message. This is usually wrong. The whole idea of the deliberative Kipper® is to take your audience through an emotional, logical, and psychological journey to buy in to your main idea. Remember as a speaker, you are in control. So, in most cases it would be quite wrong to advertise your “Big Idea” at the beginning.

Clearly  though, with the written word, the reader is not constrained by the sequence in which ideas are delivered – so it is probably essential that the main idea is articulated at the outset (before the eyes move off) – the subsequent ideas and evidence simply designed to support your contention.

Observation

It is not surprising that political debate and argument in the UK is so lacking. I understand that most political speech writers are journalists by training – brilliant at the written word. They will give you a headline, then a succinct expansion of the headline, then an overview of the argument of the case, followed by more detail of the case. This is good journalistic style.

But real spoken word persuasion comes from a different construct based upon capturing your audience through interest and relevance and then taking them through the journey to buy in to a final conclusion or Big Idea. It is, if you like, the craft of inspiring to action – or as the ancients would say – “deliberative rhetoric”.

Summary

So, please remember – if you are dealing with the spoken word, you as a speaker are in control over delivery and receipt (even if you are you being interviewed on the Today programme!) If you commit something to writing, you have given away control to the reader. Know which you are designing your message for.

Eyes have muscles; but ears don’t!

It’s becoming a bit of a habit!

Expectations

In talking with senior executives recently from a global Systems Integrator, the discussion was full of “I want my people to be able to….” and “I want my people to stop reacting badly or panicking when faced with….”

We had started our conversation on more familiar territory – exploring classroom-based skills development that had worked very well previously. “We liked what you did for us previously around relationship development and want something similar for our current teams”.

But what was now intriguing was that these executives were sharply focused on extending the capabilities of their highly technical experts in non-technical areas – in particular the areas of empathy, listening skills, resolving tensions and clear influential communication. All those so-called “soft skills”.

“They know the technology inside-out. They are the industry experts. But they lose people as soon as they dive into that technical detail. They don’t connect with, let alone excite, the other people in the room.”

Specific goals

More than once they explained their goals along the lines of …

“I wish my technical people knew….

• how to tune into another person’s wavelength more naturally. “
• how to adapt their style to other people”.
• how to feel comfortable managing tensions and conflicts in the professional context.”

It should come as no surprise to us that the skills and behaviours they seek have become essential in the virtual Covid19 world. There have been many case studies and scholarly articles that articulate this permanent shift.

The solution

Getting into new habits. Habits that promote meaningful relationships. 

Having collaborated previously, we – namely Gareth Bunn Consulting and Influence and Persuade – joined forces to evolve our on-site training courses and materials into virtual bite-sized sessions, each delivering a specific relationship development outcome.

By reframing our thinking and starting from the point of: “On completion of this module, you will be able to….”, we have moved the learning of business relationship management skills on to ‘hard’ outcomes. As you would imagine our Kipper® methodology figures in a number of them. In fact, when combined, the new modules lay the path to achieving the 5 habits of mastering business relationships:

• Manage perceptions
• Drive to action
• Communicate clearly
• Diagnose effectively
• Deliver strongly

This “turning things upside down” has created a suite of ‘virtual modules’. With all sessions only 90 minutes long or less, and very interactive, building up the 5 habits can be done at the speed of, and to the right level for, each individual team.

A “Pick and Mix” approach

You select the specific outcomes you want from a current list of 30.

It’s the new ‘Pick & Mix’ approach to personal and team development.

30 modules with clear outcomes that can be packaged into highly customised programmes for specific team needs.

And as we continually seek further outcomes we can enable, let us know your suggestions.

The result

Say goodbye to the days of technical experts struggling to connect with non-technical people.

Say hello to technical experts being able to master business relationships effortlessly.

If those executive concerns mirror your current people development challenges, contact us to see how the ‘Pick & Mix’ approach can work for your organisation in a virtual world.

Gareth Bunn: gareth@garethbunnconsulting.co.uk

Amanda MacAuley: amanda@influenceandpersuade.net

Transforming real to virtual

The change

When we set about changing our classroom training courses into on-line versions, we assumed it would be relatively straightforward – that it would be simply a matter of re-packaging the material to be presented on-line.

However, our experience over recent months suggests that it is much more of a transformation, but one which does draw upon very similar design and delivery principles.

A recent experience

We (working with Amanda MacAuley of Influence and Persuade) recently ran some on-line (Zoom based) training on the subject of “Presentations” for a group of MA students from a London university. They were “young”, bright, and diverse. The participants were from 9 different countries and 8 different mother tongues.

Our approach is to avoid limiting our training to “how to present well”. The art of good presentation, oratory, speeches, lies in meticulous design. It is about understanding how to design and structure what you are going to say to have the impact that you intend.

Surprisingly, the theory of communication and the tools available do not change. The three styles of rhetoric drawn from the Classics have just as much relevance today – you need to choose the style (or combination) that is appropriate to what you are trying to achieve: detailed understanding, emotional response, or persuasion to future action.

And, given how important the creation of long-term memory is to affect future behaviour, we spent some time on understanding how the brain works in the creation of memory. It does not matter what culture or language we are talking about, the process of the creation of memory to induce action is always the same. – and there are many points of failure. That is why we teach the Kipper® method for the design of presentations, meetings, and workshops. And we use the Kipper® to design virtual training sessions.

Differences

So, where are the differences? You will be aware that virtual environments like Zoom and Microsoft Teams do not provide the same experience as a real meeting or classroom. One of the aspects that I find particularly difficult is the inability to read gestures and expressions. You can scan a real audience very quickly and accurately – and because participants can see when you are looking at them, they immediately react with facial and body language signals. This is not possible in a virtual environment with many participants. As well as interactions being much harder, so also is the setting up of exercises and practical sessions. Individual follow-on tutorials are one of the best ways to ensure consolidation of learning.

Similarities

Let us return to similarities. We have found that all the things you would choose to build into a traditional classroom training course need to be adopted in virtual sessions – it is just that the means of achievement changes. A few examples:

• To be effective and “click” with your participants, you need to know as much as possible about them so that your examples are relevant to them and your participants can make memory connections.
• You need to build in frequent breaks – because concentrating on a Zoom session is hard and draining. 3-5 minutes break at the half hour point is a good aim. You should keep the maximum length of a session to 1 hour.
• Give participants the right to disable video for periods to give them a rest from continuous gaze.
• Encourage participants to use the chat facility if anything is unclear or an unfamiliar term used.
• Build in interactive sessions – we find that Mentimeter is a very good tool for enabling interactions and for testing understanding through mini-quizzes and surveys. There are other more sophisticated services which can embrace tools like Mentimeter. CoCreate is an example.
• Where English is not the first language of participants, you might wish to increase the word content of slides used – but always segue to the new slide by giving the idea beforehand and telling them what they are going to see.
• Ensure you provide a clear Introduction to the session. Those familiar with the Kipper® tool for designing presentations will recognise this as the “Head” of the Kipper®.
• Ensure participants understand the objectives and structure of the session – so that at any point, they know where they are and where they are going.

Conclusion

You need to put a lot of time and effort into preparing and designing a virtual session and then in technical and “dress” rehearsals. We have reckoned that for every hour of virtual training some 25-30 hours will be required in prep and design even if the core material was already available from previous classroom-based courses. It really is not as simple as taking PowerPoint supported training sessions and running them through Zoom. And please do not ditch things you would naturally do in a real environment just because they are hard – find ways to replicate or substitute for them.

The sound of silence – 25%

If you thought that persuasion was geared to words only – think again! But please avoid the well-debunked Professor Mehrabian formula (and refuted by him himself). See previous blog.

I have done a couple of posts about silence and its role in persuasive communication. Pauses matter. I can quote Mozart [“The music is not in the notes, but in the silence between”], and Churchill’s speeches as visualised by Paul de Monchaux in his sculpture Song [“the spaces around words can amplify their meaning”]

The above photo is taken from a workshop run by Amanda MacAuley and me about Compelling Data Storytelling. The whiteboard background is how I proved that 25% of any presentation should be silence.

Food for thought? Space for thought!

Silence is not always golden

Silence. Something I have recently been pondering again – but this time about how silence has a double edge. My blog “Silence is Golden” at https://garethbunn.wordpress.com/2012/09/ covered the positive side. A distillation of this follows.

The power of silence

Communication is an event in your audience’s mind. The purpose is to affect behaviour of your audience in the future. This relies upon the creation of memory. Memory is created in silence – “the power of the spaces around words”. If you keep on talking, memory is defeated.

So, we know that good oratory – if it is to affect behaviour – relies on the frequent use of the pause (at least 3 seconds). If you want to hear an excellent example see Obama at his best. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHAkDTlv8fA

The abuse of the power of silence

The other “edge” of silence is the refusal to respond. This is a form of abuse and has become pandemic in written communications – perhaps because of the worry about legal/contractual implications – a reason why no-one now ever says “sorry”.

I am sure I remember when I was a Civil Servant that if I received a letter from a member of the public it was my duty to reply. But that obligation is rarely honoured in business these days. We have all done it – ignored someone’s letter or email. I remember when I was a senior person in corporate life, I did not respond to several emails from a colleague who had left the company. He eventually sent me a message which started out “Have I done something to offend you?” That shook me out of my rudeness. I replied straight away.

However, I am finding that this type of rudeness (or ignorance as they might say in Wales) is becoming a disease.

Senior staff in companies which espouse collaboration and honesty frequently show complete disdain (if not contempt) for their business partners and suppliers; by not responding to messages which clearly require a simple response, advice or information. This is an arrogant abuse of power – the negative aspect of silence.

As a client friend put it “It is easier to do nothing than to do something”.

So, I decided I would so something – by at least getting my own house in order. Included in my Email signature block is a commitment which reads:

“Whenever I receive emails from individuals requiring a response (excluding unsolicited messages and SPAM) I aim to respond within 24 hours.”

And I commit to living by this aim. I am not asking for much – just a reciprocation of common courtesy. Perhaps you might do the same?

 

So nothing has changed….

Last year’s post

Below is my post from January 2019. I don’t think much has changed when it comes to truth and lies. And the comment about railways needs no update. (But apologies to Caroline Lucas if I misrepresent her current view).

So I repeat it all. I have changed “two years” to “three years”. Otherwise the same.

A wish for 2020

I thought a lot about my own company and what I do. I train and coach others to be more compelling, more influential and persuasive. But there was precious little in my marketing materials or course overviews which really focused on truthfulness and integrity. The conclusion dawned on me:

• Influence without sincerity is tyranny
• Persuasion without honesty is manipulation

So let us do what we can in 2020, each in our own way, to demonstrate sincere influence and honest persuasion.

Our recent past

The last three years have been communication shockers. Debate on political and social matters have become shouting matches. Reason has by and large been trashed by the shouty people and replaced with unsubstantiated assertions, enthymemes, and mendacity.

This is a pretty black picture – but whether one looks West or East or across many European countries (most notably the UK) – the pursuit of truth and considered argument has been put under intense pressure, and often attacked as being a conspiracy of fear. This is a tactic used for example by Climate Change Deniers and by ardent Brexit campaigners to undermine the arguments and amassed evidence of their opponents.

False argument

Particularly discouraging is the use of false (or at least incomplete) argument. Caroline Lucas – of whom I am normally something of a fan – seemed to me to do this when tweeting about the state of the railways this week (the 3.1% fare increase). https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas on Jan 2nd.

It is clearly true that the last year has been, for some railways users, chaotic and unsatisfactory. It is also self-evident that a national transport infrastructure needs appropriate investment. It is also arguable – but probably right – that the structure of the industry is not optimal. And the failures in the franchising process points to a need for radical overhaul/replacement.

Some facts

It is a fact that the industry was privatised in the mid 90s. A further fact that the infrastructure management component (Railtrack) was brought back into public ownership as Network Rail less than a decade later.

The solution

But I can see no root cause analysis which would point to the re-nationalisation of the railways as an obvious way forward. British Rail – the state owned predecessor – was no advertisement for quality, cost-effectiveness, reliability or investment. In fact, quite the opposite. “We’re getting there” was the most optimism it could muster. And would you put the future of the railways in the hands of a Department and Secretary of State who puts the entire blame for this year’s 3.1% fare increase on the unions?

The thing is, I do think there is benefit in having a considered assessment of different structural and investment options. But boiling everything down to a question of state or part-private ownership loses most or all of the flavour.

Why rhetoric has got a bad name

My subject and interest is communication and persuasion – what I have always thought of as the noble art of rhetoric. It upsets me that the term is most commonly used now as a put-down – “just rhetoric”. I am not surprised though, because many of our politicians do not even try to substantiate their arguments, relying instead upon disingenuity and appeals to prejudice – the “as we all know…….” statement. Assertions without a body of proof are indeed “just rhetoric” and that makes up most of what we hear from our politicians and read in our newspapers. In fact it is much worse than the bland “just rhetoric” label – it is actually sophistry. The passing of Paddy Ashdown, a politician who took pains to explain and exemplify his arguments, paints the appalling quality of the current political stock in high relief.

A wish for 2020

I thought a lot about my own company and what I do. I train and coach others to be more compelling, more influential and persuasive. But there was precious little in my marketing materials or course overviews which really focused on truthfulness and integrity. The conclusion dawned on me:

• Influence without sincerity is tyranny
• Persuasion without honesty is manipulation

So let us do what we can in 2020 each in our own way, to demonstrate sincere influence and honest persuasion.

State of the oration – a wish for 2019

Our recent past

The last two years have been communication shockers. Debate on political and social matters have become shouting matches. Reason has by and large been trashed by the shouty people and replaced with unsubstantiated assertions, enthymemes, and mendacity.

This is a pretty black picture – but whether one looks West or East or across many European countries (most notably the UK) – the pursuit of truth and considered argument has been put under intense pressure, and often attacked as being a conspiracy of fear. This is a tactic used for example by Climate Change Deniers and by ardent Brexit campaigners to undermine the arguments and amassed evidence of their opponents.

False argument

Particularly discouraging is the use of false (or at least incomplete) argument. Caroline Lucas – of whom I am normally something of a fan – seemed to me to do this when tweeting about the state of the railways this week (the 3.1% fare increase). https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas on Jan 2nd.

It is clearly true that the last year has been, for some railways users, chaotic and unsatisfactory. It is also self-evident that a national transport infrastructure needs appropriate investment. It is also arguable – but probably right – that the structure of the industry is not optimal. And the failures in the franchising process points to a need for radical overhaul/replacement.

Some facts

It is a fact that the industry was privatised in the mid 90s. A further fact that the infrastructure management component (Railtrack) was brought back into public ownership as Network Rail less than a decade later.

The solution

But I can see no root cause analysis which would point to the renationalisation of the railways as an obvious way forward. British Rail – the state owned predecessor – was no advertisement for quality, cost-effectiveness, reliability or investment. In fact, quite the opposite. “We’re getting there” was the most optimism it could muster. And would you put the future of the railways in the hands of a Department and Secretary of State who puts the entire blame for this year’s 3.1% fare increase on the unions?

The thing is, I do think there is benefit in having a considered assessment of different structural and investment options. But boiling everything down to a question of state or part-private ownership loses most or all of the flavour.

Why rhetoric has got a bad name

My subject and interest is communication and persuasion – what I have always thought of as the noble art of rhetoric. It upsets me that the term is most commonly used now as a put-down – “just rhetoric”. I am not surprised though, because many of our politicians do not even try to substantiate their arguments, relying instead upon disingenuity and appeals to prejudice – the “as we all know…….” statement. Assertions without a body of proof are indeed “just rhetoric” and that makes up most of what we hear from our politicians and read in our newspapers. In fact it is much worse than the bland “just rhetoric” label – it is actually sophistry. The passing of Paddy Ashdown, a politician who took pains to explain and exemplify his arguments, paints the appalling quality of the current political stock in high relief.

A wish for 2019

I thought a lot about my own company and what I do. I train and coach others to be more compelling, more influential and persuasive. But there was precious little in my marketing materials or course overviews which really focused on truthfulness and integrity. The conclusion dawned on me:

• Influence without sincerity is tyranny
• Persuasion without honesty is manipulation

So let us do what we can in 2019, each in our own way, to demonstrate sincere influence and honest persuasion.