Theatre Bloggers’ Social

April 24, 2009 • No Comments

Last (Thursday) night, Ken Davenport (www.producerperspective.com) hosted a theatre bloggers’ social.  I got there a bit late but I still had time to “social.”  It was great to see old friends, Jeremy Dobrish and Jill Duboff.  Surprising and fun to see fellow Texas Wesleyan University grad, Meredith Lucio.  There were about 30 people there – and that was the tip of the iceberg of theatre bloggers in NYC from what I  gather. 

There was a some interesting discussion around the power of the theatre blogosphere.  It was a very fun night with some tips on blogging that I spent last night toying with (anyone playing with www.tumblr.com?). 

I did find it very interesting that with the exception of a few (Davenport’s and Leonard Jacob’s Clyde Fitch Report) all of the bloggers dealt primarily with reviews or feature stories.  I was the only blogger that had a focus that included nonprofit theatre. I know there have to be more nonprofit folks in the NYC area who are blogging about theatre – so where are you guys?

It did give me some new ideas that I am going to implement over the next few weeks, so keep an eye out for some new features to come to Off Stage Right!

A smart e-blast…

Maybe I am late to the party, but I was very impressed with the message I got on facebook from a couple of friends. 

Give the gift of great theater – go to www.reasonstobepretty.com/share and send a customized e-blast to your friends. It’s that simple.

I was struck by not only the simplicity of this but the pure genius of getting instant word of mouth from a trusted source.  This is the third example I have found/discussed that asks an audience member to participate directly in the marketing of a show.  Long Wharf Theatre puts postcards in their lobby and asks audience members to address them and return them to the box office to be mailed – a “wish you were here” campaign and I have been having several conversations about encouraging audience members to tweet about shows during intermission or after a show. 

Of course the one problem with the e-blast campaign is that it is not immediate.  I have two friends performing in the show, worked at the theatre it was originally produced at, know most of the production team and producing team, and I LOVED the show off-Broadway, yet, I still haven’t made my own e-blast up.  Now I could tell you that I am seeing the show May 2, and I was waiting until then to send it out, but it would be a bit of a lie.  Frankly, I have been touting the show left and right on facebook and twitter – to the point that many friends thought I was working on it.  Unfortunately even though I see the box office grosses each week, so I know that I should have sent the blast the minute I got the message, the message itself didn’t imply any urgency to me. 

This is the issue with all three ideas.  If you are going to ask the customer to work for on your behalf, you need to make them feel needed.  Some how you have to get them to know that if they loved the show, they HAVE to tell everyone they know or the show won’t be around for them to see or their friends will miss out on something.  In the case of the Reasons e-blast you are asking them to take the time to type up to fifty emails.  That is a lot of work and time commitment (at least suggest they copy paste them too).  I have to wonder if it would have been a good idea to have hire a few people to stand outside the theatre at the end of the show with postcards with the link on them – with a message that implied “save this show.” 

For the postcards, what if they were handed out with the programs and the pre-show announcement asked people to turn them into the box office (and said where they could pick up more in the lobby). 

Certainly we can also think of ways to ask audiences to tweet their thoughts on the show through encouragement in announcements – I noticed at least one or two nonprofits must be using computers in their lobbies to send out tweets of audience responses on their institution’s twitter account. 

After all if I got an email, postcard or tweet from someone whose opinion I trusted, I would check out the show.  It certainly seems worth the cost of a bit of manpower to make it happen.

I have to go now – I have an e-blast to send out through www.reasonstobepretty.com/share.  In case I don’t paste your email in.  TRUST ME GO AND SEE THIS SHOW.  Don’t wait, buy your tickets now.

 

Jeremy’s Green Room

April 23, 2009 • No Comments

So if you haven’t checked it out – I wanted to recommend Jeremy Dobrish’s new site.  I ran into Jeremy at the first Theatre Blogger’s Social.  He is a wonderful director/playwright.  He is working on his blog with one of my absolute favorite sound designers and dear friend – the one and only Jill B.C. Duboff.  In addition to blogging, he has added video interviews (one with the incomparable Lorenzo Pisoni).  His latest post deals with all the types (and subtypes) of people working in the theatre. 

His post sparked some thoughts on the types of people who that fill our audiences and donor circles.  So, go check out the Jeremy’s Greenroom – especially Lorenzo’s interview and Roslyn Coleman’s upcoming interview, and I will go write up a post looking at the types of people we need to make a play move from rehearsals to performances.

Another Twitter battle in the making…Pogue vs. Marshelak

April 22, 2009 • No Comments

So, David Pogue whose column I read in the Times and have probably since he started it, had a great idea.  He is a twitter user @Pogue, and tends to send out questions or thoughts of the day as Tweets.  His idea was a book of Twitter questions and answers – whole post below because it is short.

The World According to Twitter by David Pogue

WATT Another Twitter battle in the making…Pogue vs. MarshelakIt all started with a live demo of Twitter.

During a talk, I was trying to demonstrate the real-time nature of Twitter. On stage, I typed: “Anyone got a pun that can fit in 140 characters?”

Your responses started flowing within 10 seconds. In fact, the one-liners rained in for days:

  • I used to work at an orange juice factory, but they canned me because I couldn’t concentrate. (@alancshaw)
  • She was only a moonshiner’s daughter, but I loved her still. (@matthewdooley)
  • Two TV installers met on a roof and fell in love. The wedding ceremony wasn’t so great… but wow, the reception! (@marqueO)

Man, this was AMAZING! Real-time feedback from the masses!

Next, I posted a picture of a squirrel in my yard, and asked for captions. You turned out to be the wittiest caption writers ever.

Then came my call for the best advice your parents ever gave you. This time, there was more than humor; there was practical information and real emotion, too:

  • Son, there’s a time and a place for everything. It’s called college. (@BarrSteve)
  • Never pass up an opportunity to go to the bathroom. (@_hillary)
  • Don’t let school get in the way of your education. (@Navesink)
  • If you caught a fish every time you went fishing, it’d be called catching. (@BruceTurkel)
  • If you buy the dress, the occasion will arise. (@haejinshin)
  • If someone offers you a breath mint—take it. (@dsr)
  • Two eyes, two ears, one mouth. Use them proportionally. (@pcz)
  • If at first you don’t succeed, we’ll still love you. (@zwb)

That was it. I knew my mission in life: to compile and edit a whole book of these responses, written by my 200,000 followers.

Every night for the next few weeks, I’ll pose another question on Twitter. For example:

  • What’s your greatest regret?
  • Sum up your life story in six words.
  • Tell us about your wedding proposal.
  • What’s the best toast you ever heard?
  • What’s the best Internet joke you ever got emailed?
  • Anyone seen any good bumper stickers lately?
  • Tell us about a Brush with Greatness (a celebrity encounter).
  • What was the most embarrassing thing that ever happened to you?
  • Write a haiku about your childhood.
  • Send me your best anagram of a current famous person’s name.

Each two-page spread of the book will contain the best of your responses to a single question.

“The World According to Twitter” will be a charming, irresistible, extremely hilarious little book, a book that couldn’t be written in any other way.

If I publish one of your tweets, I’ll send you a free copy of the book, inscribed to you personally. I’ll also credit your response in the book, using your Twitter name. (Don’t come crying to me if you suddenly pick up hundreds of new followers!)

So that’s it: a challenge, a ride, a crazy experiment.

Let the communal book-writing begin!

Now I thought this was a grand idea and that Pogue was the perfect person to write it as his field is well – technology.  But today, he tweeted the following post by Russ Marshaek (whose post in fairness I will put in its entirety as well.

@heywritemybookforme

April 22, 2009 at 3:41 pm by Russ Marshalek in Books, Pop Culture

Forget the Kindle vs. paper books debate — apparently the days of actually “writing” a “book” are slowly coming to an end. You know, craft, art, substance(s), the actual minutia that all go into making a book a piece of work — it’s all becoming as outdated as banks crash, attention spans diminish, and robots begin serving us dinner in capsule form (OK, that last one won’t happen ’til 2011). In this new cultural landscape, we will need leaders, like the Jonas Brothers, to rise up and, with a firm hand, guide us to new levels of social media interactivity. Fortunately David Pogue, New York Times columnist and author of many books that teach your grandmother how to check e-mail on her eMac, is here to save us via his forthcoming The World According To Twitter.

From the blog of Pogue (David Pogue, not the Pogues the band, because you know very well that I’d heap high praise on anything penned by Shane MacGowan):

It all started with a live demo of Twitter. During a talk, I was trying to demonstrate the real-time nature of Twitter. On stage, I typed: “Anyone got a pun that can fit in 140 characters?” Your responses started flowing within 10 seconds….

Wait, wait, dear Culture Surfer reader, don’t check out yet, it gets better (in the way that “better” means “worse”):

Next, I posted a picture of a squirrel in my yard, and asked for captions. You turned out to be the wittiest caption writers ever!

(Oh, sorry, I added that exclamation point up there. It just needed it, didn’t it?)

That was it. I knew my mission in life: to compile and edit a whole book of (Twitter) responses, written by my 200,000 followers.

In today’s collapsing publishing landscape this book screams both timely and vital. I’ll be greatly looking forward to Pogue’s well-thought-out treatise on Friendster soon!

No, really, all snark aside, this sort of attempt at an of-the-minute cash-grab really irks me. While publishers, authors and other various incidental folk in the book business are actually working, diligently and full of heart, to discover what it’s going to take to turn the sinking ship of books around, Pogue’s trying to ramp up excitement for 200 pages of @SomeGuy tweeting “hey I really like dogs.”

And speaking of @someguy — if you, lucky you, end up being selected to be a part of Pogue’s scam project, you certainly get compensated, right?

Of course you do. Per Pogue himself, he’ll send you “a free copy of the book, inscribed to you personally.”

Oh, wow, lucky day!

Meanwhile, he’ll certainly be charging at least $19.95 for the book.

Also, while Twitter may be the super-hot “this is going to save the world as soon as we figure out how to use it” topic on the tip of many a CEO’s tongue … well, that’s it exactly. In a matter of time, Twitter will be to to some new social network what Myspace now is to Facebook. Trying to document any social network, in any way, via printed text, reminds me of when I, as an undergrad, was paid far too much money to copy write for what was aiming to be the “first printed guide to web sites” — since, you know, websites tend to stay around forever.

I don’t think it ever actually took off the ground. Imagine that.

Anyway, it saddens me when I can genuinely say that I prefer Oprah and Ashton Kutcher’s manipulation of Twitter for their own gains over David Pogue’s “you guys can do my job for me and I’ll insert the hot social network of the moment into it to make it timely” approach, but I do. I mean, Oprah’s like everyone’s crazy aunt, so she’s forgiven to being late to the party.

Also, at least Oprah isn’t asking her Twitter followers to write a book for her.

 Another Twitter battle in the making…Pogue vs. Marshelak

Now here is my question – David seems to me to have presented an exciting idea that could result in a great book.  Russ seems to be a bit judgmental.  After all, it’s almost all pop culture of the moment?  And a lot of great art has been created in the moment.  Would Russ hate improv or poetry slams I wonder?

Relationships!

I don’t care about the economy there are some things we can’t afford not to do!  We can’t afford to stop communicating or planning during the downturn. Now is the time to build/strengthen relationships.

I was talking to a development director the other day who was saying that she didn’t even want to call individual donors or foundations directors most days because of the economy.  After lifting my jaw off the floor, I went into a passionate rant about how now more that ever it was important to strengthen relationships and build new ones.  Economy be damned here are five quick tips you can do to make sure you don’t lose donors during the downturn and more importantly you still keep attracting new donors!

1.  Take a donor out for coffee.  Not lunch, not dinner – coffee.  Conservative cost and much easier to schedule.  It is also easier to talk over a cup of coffee rather than dealing with ordering and eating.  

2.  Make it clear that you are there to talk about your relationship and your organization not necessarily to make an ask. Let them know that you have been wanting to build a relationship with them – a LONG term one.

3.  Don’t rule out making an ask.  A major donor once told me the worst thing you can do is ask for too little from a donor.  It is insulting.  If you ask for too much it is a compliment that you think they have that kind of money.  Same philosophy applies in downturn.  If you stop asking or ask for too small of an amount you could very likely be insulting the donor.  Perhaps that particular person isn’t experiencing any particular issues or perhaps he or she doesn’t want folks to know they are experiencing problems. 

4.  Be completely honest about the state of your organization, but walk the middle line.  Don’t be overly optimistic or too pessimistic.  Share action steps that have worked and share your concerns.  Perhaps the donor has a perspective that could be enlightening.

5.  Follow-up! 

Save money on employee benefits (and increase your coverage)!

April 21, 2009 • No Comments

Ken Davenport wrote a post last week about the outrageous costs of healthcare on commercial shows.  It created a lot of conversations in the blogosphere and beyond.  At last night’s American Theatre Magazine Benefit, I spoke to several people who were in the process of trying to cut expenses and worried about staff retention.

Late last month I had sent the below email to a few close friends, several who have taken action and will be seeing some savings coming their way!  So recent conversations made me think I should just put it up here for the world to see.

And, if you are in doubt as you are reading this remember that one company who followed this post save over $100K on their health insurance for the upcoming year!

During these trying times I have been talking with many of you about how to cut expenses, reward employees and retain what meager staffs we have at nonprofit theatres.   It keeps me up at night.  While complaining to my dear friend Greg Martin about the state of theatre in general he offered to help in any way that he can.  So I am teaming up with him to get the word out that you can sometimes accomplish all three.  And remember as you read this there is no charge for any of his company’s services.  It doesn’t matter where you are located or what type of business you run!

Now, first question who the heck is he?  Greg runs Manchester Benefits – a full service broker for health, disability, and life insurance benefits.  10 years ago, when I was at MCC Theater I became Greg’s first client when he started the company.  I have used Manchester Benefits at EVERY company I have been at since (and they all continue to use him to this day) and have recommended him to several other organizations since started working with him.  He is working with everyone from ART-NY to NYTW to TDF to HERE.  He can help any organization of any size – for profit or nonprofit.

Second question how can he help?  We all know dealing with benefits for our employees is a difficult process.  Greg is often able to work out a better set of benefits than the employees had before (dental, optical, long term disability) and he works with you on what is affordable.   I have always been conscious of multiple bids and Greg has always found the best coverage for what the organization can or can’t afford.

Third question, why him over any other broker – aren’t they all the same?  Actually they really aren’t all the same.  At three organizations, I inherited a different broker and none of them showed the caring or the customer support that Greg does.  Greg takes time to meet with your employees and explain the coverage to them.  His office when notified will follow a claim from start to finish.  Those of you who know me, know I am pretty accident prone, well, last time I was at the ER, I emailed Greg to let him know, and he followed up immediately to make sure everything that was done was covered and I didn’t have to do a thing.  He actually encourages clients to include his staff and him in the process.

Fourth question, why does he do it?  Frankly, he is just a really great guy who cares about people.  He is actually passionate about insurance coverage and employee benefits (I know crazy, huh?).  For example, I once complained to Greg about how none of our off-Broadway electricians and carpenters had insurance coverage because they couldn’t afford it and weren’t full-time at any theatres.  He actually went out and started a program for them to get emergency coverage at an affordable rate.

Fifth and final question, why does this seem just too good to be true?  Well, we are so used to being treated as second class citizens by most vendors.  Sad but true.  So stand up for yourself and your employees and demand a little more just call him and tell him that Jodi told you too (212) 986-9339 x 114.  If nothing else you can just let him review your current coverage – no strings attached to see if he can help you.  Trust me you won’t regret it.  Check around with other companies that use him and you will see how much they adore him.

Embrace Technology!?!

The Wall Street Journal featured a wonderful take on digital books by Steve Johnson, that is both realistic about embracing technological advances and fascinating about exploring the possible positive advances to the literary form (and some of the negatives). How the E-Book Will Change the Way We Read and Write also is a perfect example of the kind of thinking we in theatre should be doing about integrating technology further into the art form and what are some positive results we can achieve in the digital age.

I find it much easier to think of the wonderful possibilities to enhance and improve the production process. Dramaturgical possibilities are endless. The support for collaboration is obvious. The impact that technology has had on lighting, sound, etc is apparent, but I imagine it is the tip of the iceberg. We talk a lot about the marketing and social media implications – certainly areas we haven’t even begun to dig into, but I would also love to hear more about how people are integrating technology into the creative and collabortive process (other than the very real question – how did we ever make it through tech without the Internet?).

What I find interesting is that in Johnson’s article the fundamentals of the art form are not lost. In fact several of his predictions would require a tremendous amount of precision and decisiveness in the writing process. In many ways, this holds true the technology in theatre. Digital control of lighting instruments certainly makes dimmer check easier (among other things), but it doesn’t eliminate the fundamental knowledge a designer must have about light interacting with space, color, costumes, and actors.

To think about the implications to performance or performance delivery (can’t think of a better word despite how cold distribution or delivery feel) is, at first, much scarier. The idea of theatre not being about gathering people in one space for a performance is challenging to imagine. Opera and dance are using simulcast and recorded performances at movie theatres and economically these are seemingly paying off. However, the visceral experience of being in the same room with the artists can’t be replaced. Can it? Should it? How/can we enhance the performance experience by utilizing technology? These might be some of the most important conversations to be had about the art of theatre.

I have repeatedly stated since starting this blog that keeping theatre we create relevant and current is key to everything from community engagement to survival. Embracing technology and looking for the opportunities it may bring could be a key tool to these endeavors. It doesn’t have to be a obstacle or hindrance.

Mike Daisey

April 20, 2009 • No Comments

So for the last year or so I have missed each opportunity I had to see Mike Daisey – How Theatre Failed America. I had read the essay that originally inspired it, and I found that there were things I agreed with and things I didn’t. Missing the performance didn’t really bother much until now. Reading Todd Olsen’s (AD from American Stage Theatre Company in Tampa Bay) open letter to Daisey’s response has left me quite frustrated with myself that I didn’t make time to see the show when it was a the Public (I was in tech and in a run for a show where I thought the actors needed me around during the performances – but still I could have slipped away one night), or I could have missed whatever it was I did at the TCG conference instead of seeing the performance.

I am a bit sad because I feel that some of his frustrations are things I have posted about and have been trying to solve – espeically RELEVANCE in theatre today. But more so, because I think I would love to see his show and have a discussion with him about it – I am sure we would find plenty of things to agree upon, however, more importantly I think the heathly debate where our opinons might diverge would be informative and thought provoking.

Mike – since I assume you have a google alert going or at least I hope you do – I look forward to catching the show and following you more closely. Sorry it took me so long. I also look forward to agreeing and disagreeing on varying points! Whatever side folks find themselves on, it is a conversation we should be having.

No matter where you stand, you should read the Olsen letter and response here.

Regional – the word

April 18, 2009 • No Comments

David Dower at the New Play Blog (Is “Regional” A Pejorative Term?) examines my post, Why I hate REGIONAL theatre, which was about the word “REGIONAL” and some of the negativity attached to the word within the theatre community. David suggests I embrace my inner regional-ness (although I think we are more on the same page than David’s post implies).

As someone who USED to work in New York and similar to David, I chose to leave the City so I could have a certain kind of life I couldn’t get in New York (have a yard, be able to garden, and live near New York but not in it). I also wanted to see more clearly the impact of the work I was doing. I started out in my career in Texas working in regional theatres while going to school and then worked in North Carolina as an Outreach Director for a multi-arts organization, so I wanted to create great work like I did for 10 years in NYC, but be able to know the folks that were in the audience and my community more intimately.

In my post, I was lamenting that the term “regional” has become “pejorative” to many in the industry – especially the New York marketplace (which does consider itself center) – and that as David himself points out, in a really wonderful way (love the term) that some theatres are acting as “satellites” to several centers.

As I said late in the post to MANY (not myself) the word “regional….has come to mean something less than … agents don’t want their clients doing ‘regional’ theatre. But in reality isn’t most of what is being done in New York on commercial stages coming directly through the nurturing and development of these so-called ‘lesser’ regions… “

This is why I now find myself cringing when the word is used. I hear the negativity or worse the self-depreciation that is often underlying. I have been surprised by who I have heard this from including often the folks who work at regional theatres. This wasn’t the intention of most of the artists who built these theatres from the ground up in communities across the country as the quotes in my post from Joe Dowling, who was quoting Tyrone Guthrie stated and as David Dower reiterated beautifully when he said…

I think what people are reacting to, fundamentally, in this call to re-regionalize the regional theater, is a sense that many regional theaters, those which established the movement and those which followed to sustain and build on it, have somehow become more satellites than regions. That they are, as Jodi implies and many others assert directly, now orbiting the New York marketplace like moons, reflecting its heat but generating none of their own. I hear from artists, ensembles, and small producers all over the country (including that micro-region: Manhattan) that they feel we’re in a period where, to paraphrase one of the responders at the Humana Convening, “we’re shipping the same ten plays around the country and every theater’s season looks more alike than distinct.” This sentiment is particularly acute among new play practitioners, whether playwrights, play labs, ensembles, or new play producers. Of course this is overly general. And in the earlier post I started to try to spotlight examples where different models and artistic priorities hold sway. But there’s no denying it’s a widely held and frequently expressed frustration.

I would add that unfortunately the economics of producing have added to this homogenized programming at many theatres. Certainly co-productions have become a fiscal life-saver for many companies and for some a necessity, but when a large group of theatres are working together to present a show, naturally their seasons, slowly start to look like each others. (Before anyone thinks I am against working together – I am not, I actually think co-productions have much value beyond an assumed expense savings and should be looked at first for those values).

As I stated in my post, I celebrate the work David was talking about in his post Putting the Regional back in Regional Theatre. I think it is wonderful when local artists are championed, even if they have moved on to other areas. Without regional theatres, there would a drastic decrease in new work and we would eventually have no audiences for theatre. The later can’t be valued enough to the entire art form. If you don’t ever experience theatre you won’t miss it, and without audiences there isn’t any theatre, just rehearsals. Most of the amazing work being done in theatre – on stage and off – isn’t happening in New York (or London – but let’s not even go there) which is why I don’t like that the word is used by some in an unfavorable way or the implication that there is a center for others to revolve around. The argument could be stated perhaps in the terms of nonprofit vs. commercial theatre but as David pointed out the negativity does sometime emanate from New York regional theatres – the majority of which never use the word.

I also pointed out our transitory society in my post to illustrate how a theatre can have a lasting and larger impact. David brings up an interesting point that theatre-makers have long been living this life. Unfortunately with the loss of many (the majority) resident companies across the nation, it has created as David states, “the annual march on New York that fans out from the graduation ceremony of nearly every theater training program in the country.”

I can agree with David that in definition of the word regional doesn’t demand a center.

…the term doesn’t so much assume or require there to be a center. If we were talking about satellite theaters, I’d be more convinced there’s an implied center of greater importance than its off-shoots. Think of regions more like segments of the brain, “regions” of the brain, and you’re closer to the way I have always felt about the term. It takes all of these regions, healthy, communicating well, firing on all cylinders to reach the full capacity of the human body.

However, I wasn’t talking about the definition as much as how the word is used by others and the resulting impact of the word. Similarly I think theatre is a great tool for community building, but the word “community” in context with theatre implies non-professional.

I do believe that many people have had a part in some of the negative connotations associated with the word. Perhaps David it is right that it is “self-inflicted.” But I would assert that whether there is a center or not, there are some other factors at play in the friction around the word – all surrounding the future life of work whether through publication, other regional productions (including New York) not the organization’s work within its community. The factors include: (1) a renewed pride from theatres about creating new work or new interpretations of classic outside of New York, (2) the increasing demand for credit for that work, (3) the lines between commercial and nonprofit theatre being more blurred that ever before, and (4) an increased dependence/pressure for commercial producers (and even New York nonprofits) for regional nonprofit theatres to develop work before it comes to New York. When it comes to this future life for work, I think those who were there in the beginning should be championed!

Most importantly, I think there are so many theatres out there doing so much great work in their local communities/regions that no one should diminish the impact they have locally, nationally and in many cases globally, because of another.

Hopefully all theatres will re-regionalizing (if they need to) to serve its audiences, community and “act locally, think globally,” — a brief summary of David definition and what I have been championing in this blog since the day I started writing it, I just refer to it in terms of mission and community. Post after post, I have said this is key to survival and future sustainability, but I am not sure it will change the negative associations with the word “regional” by others.

So David as you ask – personally, I embrace my regional-ness – as you defined it, however, I still hate the fact that, to many folks out there “regional” still has other meanings that aren’t so positive – and I refuse to accept those implications for the theatres I know are making a huge impact on the American theatre, but you are right about us all being on the “bus” together whether the bus is the A Train, a bus, or Metro North.

So from one former New Yorker to another, thanks for the conversation!

Harvard Business Publishing Management Tip of the Day, April 15, 2009

April 15, 2009 • 2 Comments

Great tips and article link below. In times like these we forget how impactful our words can be to our staffs, boards, and other constituencies. These are some good rules to live by!

Harvard Business Publishing Management Tip of the Day:

APRIL 15, 2009

4 Ways to Talk Tough Without Creating Panic

While you may be tempted to use words like “Armageddon” and “disastrous” when talking about your business these days, now is not the time to tell people the sky is falling. In times of crisis, leaders need to choose their words wisely and convey calm and confidence. Think about these four things when addressing your team:

1. Pause before you speak. A well-used pause conveys calm, thoughtfulness, and seriousness. It also gives you time to think before responding.

2. Don’t blame. While certain senior managers may be more culpable than others, singling out individuals does not instill faith. Instead of pointing fingers, honestly address the situation and describe a plan of action.

3. Avoid exaggerations. Using words like “catastrophe” and “meltdown” can cause unnecessary panic. To de-escalate tensions, use words like “serious,” and “tough” to make your point.

4. Tell it like it is. Tough times demand tough talk and you owe it to your people to be honest and truthful. Don’t gloss over serious concerns, but do focus on facts.

Today’s Management Tip was adapted from “Cut out the Gloom and Doom talk” by John Baldoni.