Conversations in Management
Canning’s
start in life was inauspicious. His father died disinherited and
penniless on young George’s first birthday. Left destitute, his
mother took to the London stage to seek her fortune—with mixed
results. Fortunately for Canning, a member of the theatrical
company thought he showed promise. He wrote to the boy’s uncle
who, after some consideration, generously decided to act as
Canning’s guardian. What followed was an Oxford education, an
annual income and a career in British politics. By the 1820’s
Canning would emerge as one of the most influential statesmen in
all of Europe. Perhaps it was the influence of the theater
during his formative years that endowed Canning with his
legendary wit. His humor tended toward the ironic and
satiric—not necessarily a good combination for someone in public
life. For a while, he published his poems and opinions in the
Anti-Jacobin; a weekly paper dedicated to poking fun at the
French republicans and, by extension, the Whig party. Some were
put off by his jocularity and found it at odds with the
seriousness of his political work. To these people, Canning’s
humor raised questions about his trustworthiness and
gravitas.
Given the
nature of his work and the keenness of his wit, Canning is lucky
he didn’t ply his trade in the 21st century. If he
had, he just might have fallen prey to that most modern of all
plagues—email! During its brief existence, email has been
both a boon and a scourge; simultaneously improving and
impairing communication. The immediacy of the medium has
hastened decision-making and facilitated collaboration. But that
same immediacy has also caused problems. There’s something about
email that makes it hard to take seriously. Maybe it’s the ease
with which messages can be composed and sent. Perhaps it’s the
illusion of privacy that’s created when messages are written and
dispatched without any physical trace. Whatever the cause,
people who should know better regularly send emails containing
information that they wouldn’t dream of putting down on paper.
Questionable business practices, illegal activities, steamy
messages between illicit lovers all are committed to email
where, to the chagrin of the senders, they are often read by
unintended audiences. Yet, the most common of all email crimes
is when an aggrieved party decides to be candid.
Many
people feel empowered to be candid—or blunt—in an email
because they never actually have to face the target of their
blast. That lets them assume a tough, arrogant or condescending
tone that they otherwise wouldn’t have the nerve to take. The
receiver of such a missive—and in no hurry to confront an
angry sender—responds in kind. At that point, it’s off to
the races as emails of escalating intensity zip back and
forth. Both parties, of course, tell themselves that they’re
simply being candid or telling it like it is (no sugar coating)
or being assertive. Despite the high toned rhetoric, nothing
ever gets resolved this way. It’s time to stop the madness!
Don’t ever engage in an email duel. Email isn’t the place to
iron out a controversy. If there’s an issue, screw up your
courage and have a face-to-face meeting. That takes candor, good
will and the social graces necessary to look someone in the eye
when stating your case. As plagues go, email may not rank with
locusts and bubonic fever, but it can have a similar effect on
relationships. Take it from a friend; next time you’re mad and
furiously typing out an email, think twice. Instead of hitting
send, try a candid conversation. That’s the kind
of candor that might actually produce results!
—Ebert
Read More CM in the Archives! |
Find More In The Archives!
|
