Eckhouse - Sample Data from Carnegie Project

• Analyzing 203 responses.

• Presentation generated on February 4, 2010.

Q.Experience

• In a recent assignment, I was responsible for technology project management of a major relocation. My responsibilities were to ensure that resources were managed, leveraged and focused so that the technology infrastructure was in place and functioning they day of the move. Like many people, my client manager viewed LAN connectivity and telephone services as a utility, available at all times, and requiring no preparation. Part of a project manager’s roll is to deal with that myth in a delicate and effective manner, and when presented with unreasonable time lines I did what every good project manager should do. Manage the client. However, managing the client turned out to be something akin to wrestling with a 2000-pound alligator. Nothing that I said seemed to be acceptable to the manager. I could not gain control of the situation and I really didn't understand why. It was after listening to my manager explain the issues that I realized where I had gone wrong. My sentences all had the word can't as opposed to can. Apparently it was my presentation of the issues that suggested to the concerned manager that the desired results were unattainable.

• Recently I met with a client at their work site to discuss our rate/price increases for the 1999 contract year. I had prepared for the meeting by researching the account's history (last 5 year's rate trend, customer satisfaction survey's and benchmarking status) and developed a presentation which I felt outlined concisely the value my organization brings to this client. I also brought information which justified the 1999 rate increases. I was prepared to go into detail on what I thought were going to be pertinent issues for this client, especially in the areas of quality and service. The client however, was only interested in talking about price and did not seem to care about quality or service. The client frustrated and angered me by making statements such as ""because of your unwillingness to negotiate price, we don't feel that you are acting like a partner with us and we don't want to do business with companies which do not act like partners"". I clearly and calmly explained that the reason we do not negotiate prices is because we do not build in profit margins and ""fluff"" to our rates. Our competitors do, and therefore that is why they are more willing to drop their prices down. Competitively, we were still the lowest cost vendor. Therefore, the rates, they receive are honest rates which reflect our true experience with this employer. I also presented our 5 year rate history which showed that the 5 year average rate was a decrease of 1%. I also thought to myself that they were not interested in acting like a ""partner"" in the years where we presented no rate increases and therefore this was a lot of nonsense. There were also political reasons behind their unhappiness with my company. One reason is because my company stopped purchasing products from my client's company, and therefore I believe this also caused some friction with the client. All in all, this was a very frustrating experience because I felt that the client was not being reasonable and I felt powerless to affect a real change in their position.

• Trying to train an employee that had been with the company for 10 years at a new position . She became defensive and thought that I was trying to be her boss. I was offered the opportunity of being her surpervisor but I turned it down because I did not want to be in a management role. I believe that because she had been in her previous position for so long she was not used to having direction. Plus her mother had recently passed away and she under a lot of stress.

• I have run a multi functional project team over the past year make up of marketing, regulatory, packaging, and product development colleagues. Often times I am responsible for briefing senior management on new learnings,recommendations, and next steps. I have found that easiest means to effective presentation is through talk sheets in intimate groups, i.e., 5-6 individuals. I typically distribute my talk sheet and then walk my audience through the information, all the time soliciting questions and discussion. I have found this to be a very effective organization tool and means to prompt ideas. These discussions make me feel very good about my position/career, empowered and successful.

• I work at the Pacific Exchange as a specialist making markets in 70 stocks. We essentially lease equipment from the exchange for a monthly fee. We use this equipment and software to recieve orders from customers . The software is constantly being upgraded to improve reliability and efficiency. This means that problems arise from time to time and when a problem arises that means somebody has lost money. I had a situation in which I thought that I had acted properly in the execution of an order only to discover later that in fact only part of the order had been executed. When this was finally brought to my attention the market had moved away and a $1000 loss was involved. I was unsuccessful in my attempt to convince the system's manager that it was the Exchange's responsibilty to make up this loss and rather then continue to argue I accepted the $1000 loss and went back to work. unable to convince the system manager

• A typical experience that I have encountered concerning challanges of communication have generally been developing combined written and oral communications advocating telecommunications public policy positions for presentation to the California Public Utilities Commission. In those instances, presentations have to combine legal and regulatory case history and perspective, quantitative facts, qualitative analysis of stakeholders, and in some cases, discussion of alternatives and ultimately advocacy of a recommendation. Verbal presentation skills, ability to negotiate, succinct written communications skills are all necessary in order to succeed. More importantly, knowing ones audience, and the perspective that they are comming from are critical to communicating effectively

• Christopher Roke - Assist. Athletic Director/Director of Camps,SMC. As the Director of the Athletic Summer Camp program here at Saint Mary's College, I have over 2,000 children participate in the various sports camps offered during the 7 week period. As you can imagine, this program creates a multitude of communication problems. On any given day I could probably tell about 10 good stories about communication, or maybe I should say ""lack there of""... However, there was one that seems to stick out in my mind. This past summer I had a mother accuse my staff of being unprofessional. The comments that she made came from her 8 year old son's interpretation of daily activities at camp. I say accusations because the things she was talking about were simply untrue. Things like a counselor was showing campers porographic web sites, and that coaches let campers fight, etc. She called on a daily basis to voice her concerns about anything and everything. And each day, we (either myself or my office staff) would resolve all of her questions. However, two weeks after camp ended she sent a threatening letter of complaint to the Director of Athletics, and the President of the College. The letter was filled with many of the same concerns that we had already spoken to her about, and at least from my end, thought to have moved beyond. None-the-less, it was very frustrating to have to go through these same questions again. And it was even more upsetting having to explain to not only my boss, but the President of the College as well. I know I have support from my department, and that I am well respected around the college community, but sometimes these complaints stick with me. And to be honest, it's hard not to take them personally. Anyway, I ended all speculation by responding to each situation in writing, and then discussed each of these points with the Director of Athletics. He in turn has sent forth my response(s) to the President of the College. When I was eight, my grandfather told me ""believe none of what you hear, and half of what you see."" And although I didn't understand it at the time, it has been one of the most valuable pieces of advice that I have ever received. I am completely confident in my staff, and feel that this mother believed everything her child told her...true or false, right wrong or indifferent.

• I met with a vendor after the vendor met with my Materials group's representatives to discuss procurement issues. The purpose of my meeting was to go over some technical issues for the new product we introduced 4 months earlier. I worked with this vendor to design and produce this product exclusively for my company (an 18 month process). A 30 page pricing agreement, or contract, was negotiated between the vendor, a representative from the materials group, and myself. The vendor was so upset by the meeting with the Materials group, that he began venting his frustration at me, and making veiled threats as to our future relationship. As the Product Manager, I desire a strong and honest relationship with the vendor and plan to continue doing business with this vendor for an extended period of time. The vendor had 2 major complaints: 1) purchase orders for less than anticipated in the first 12 months, 2) and our requests for changing requested delivery dates outside of the pricing agreement provisions. Having 18 months experience with this vendor’s personality, I know how to handle him in this situation. I listened to the vendor actively, asking questions in such a way as to understand specifically what the vendor’s concerns were, but without taking sides. Finally, only having one side of the story and realizing that I could not solve the problem right then and there, I strongly suggested the vendor put his concerns in writing to the Materials Manager with a copy to me. This accomplishes 2 things: 1) empowers the vendor to further communicate his concerns to the appropriate party, 2) allows my relationship with the vendor to remain intact and discreet from the procurement issues. We went on to complete our meeting very successfully regarding the technical issues we were scheduled to talk about. I later had an opportunity to mention to the Materials Manager, who was one of the representatives present at that earlier meeting, that the vendor had some concerns and that she should expect to hear from the vendor.

• My experience involved a mutual interview session between myself and a prospective integrator of my company’s equipment. My responsibility was to evaluate the quality and viability of their organization, while presenting the company in the best way possible. I found communicating with my counterpart difficult for two reasons. First, he gave me short answers to my general questions and did not take the opportunity to elaborate or volunteer information. Secondly, during my presentation he would wait for a long period of time after asking a question. This caused me, on several occasions, to ask if there was additional information he was expecting or needed. My expectation of an interview session, based on previous encounters, is one of informal dialogue and information exchange. During this interview I felt as though I had to draw him out and that we were playing a cat and mouse game of communication. I believe that he was trying to use the ""first person who speaks loses"" tactic on a number of occasions to obtain information regarding my company. Although I was uncomfortable with the situation I was able to tell him that I was not at liberty to divulge details regarding some of his questions.

• Our company was recently acquired by a Dutch bank. I worked very closely with our CFO on much of the due diligence work associated with the purchase. We were fairly aggressive in our estimates of future earnings, which became a factor in determining purchase price. Subsequent to the purchase, it became evident that we would have to do our best to control spending in order to reach our targets. It also was evident that my work load was increasing at a dramatic pace, and I would need to hire someone to help me. Obviously, this need for additional staff presented a problem because senior management was not likely to support additions to staff at a time when money was tight. I knew that I would need to present some compelling reasons to hire another person. Somehow I had to convince our oversight committee that this individual was going to be more than just another drain of resources. Fortunately, I have a close relationship with one of the members of the committee and I decided to approach her with my idea. I felt that if I could convince her we needed another person, she might have some influence over the other committee members. I started by describing the new issues resulting from the recent purchase that needed to be handled. I demonstrated my awareness of the many serious consequences of the transaction, and that I was very willing to work hard to get the job done. As I continued to describe issues that needed to be settled it became obvious to her that I was going to need some help. I finished by saying that I was thinking of presenting a proposal to hire someone to help me, and she was very supportive. If I had started the conversation by stating that I wanted to hire someone, I’m not sure if I would have received the same response. This person actually gave me some advice on how to present my ideas to the committee so that they would have a better chance of being accepted. I used her ideas and wrote a proposal to the committee, which was accepted.

• My organization is beginning negotiations with a similar organization in our local community. We are currently in the middle of a two year contract with this other organization and the negotiations for the contract that would take effect at the end of 1999 are beginning. The complicating factor is that we have three mutually exclusive strategies that could be followed in order to reach our 10 year goal. And the decision about these strategies determines what offers will be made during this impending negotiation. Last week, the three most senior individuals in the local section of our company (myself and two others) presented our recommendations to the CEO and his staff. This represented the culmination of months of background work and three previous meetings on the same general topic. All of these preceding efforts had funneled down to the core decision: Which strategy should the organization commit to ... and ... thereby, what offers should be made during the upcoming negotiation? I met with the other two presentors and we discussed various presentation styles as well as our desired outcome from the meeting. We were aware that in order to obtain approval to proceed in the direction we prefered, we would need to persuade the CEO to change his already stated opinion on some of the specifics that would come up during the negotiation. We ended up crafting the presentation such that, following a brief summary of the facts to refresh everyones' memories, we offered our view of the 10 year goal along with a menu of possible strategies designed to faciliate accomplishing this goal. The conversation was framed so that we obtained agreement on the final goal before we began the conversation about the methodologies needed to accomplish this goal. Having reached this agreement, we were then able to insure that the conversation about the negotiation followed our preplanned direction. The meeting ended up with the CEO and his staff agreeing with us on issues that had previously been points of contention and a general agreement in priniciple. We are now awaiting the formal approval to proceed with the negotiations and hope to be allowed to proceed using the bargaining position we prefer (rather than the one it had earlier seemed we would be forced to use).

• A challenging communication situation encountered at work involves the food safety training of non-English speaking, poorly educated, and underpaid temporary employees. To add to the complexity, there is not one, but three language groups to deal with, and a continual turnover of personnel. The initial training event involved a technical person (myself) posting bullet-point overheads on food borne diseases, introducing the company programs to deal with their prevention, and the correct procedures in the plant. A translator would then painstakingly repeat the information in Spanish. Other native speakers from India and Russia were on their own as far as the degree of comprehension. There are never any questions.

• The superintendent of one of the terminals that my company loads bunker fuel at was upset that the barge was not on time and no one had called to inform him of this. I had to explain to him that at 3:15 AM the tankerman on the barge had called and explained that the barge was running late at the loading berth and that they would be late. The tankerman continued by saying that he would call once the barge departed the berth. Once I had explained that we had called, and the superintendent verified that the tankerman had called the issue was dropped.

• Our company is a consulting engineering firm. We often have to provide written recommendations of highly technical work (telecommunications network designs, for example) that must be read and understood by both technical and non-technical readers. It is important that all of the readers can understand without having the feeling that the writer is being condescending. Where buzzwords or acronyms are necessary, the terms are explained at the first occurrence. Our goal, as communicators of technical issues to non-technical individuals, is to allow them to develop an intuitive comprehension of the concepts and details.

• Until my move to California last week, I directed an intensive care nursery in South Carolina. For the last 9 years, I have worked with the same physician partner and together we have run the unit. Our relationship is close and very synergistic from the point of view of interacting with the staff in the nursery as well as managing the medical needs of the babies. In February, 1998, we began looking for a third physician partner, and in July we hired a woman to join us who neither of us knew but she came highly recommended, including personal recommendations from people we knew and trusted. At this same time, I announced my eventual leaving to come here and begin business school. Donna Cothran joined our group on December 2, 1998. I was scheduled to depart on December 16, 1998 so our overlap was short, but the transition was mine to accomplish given the schedule (my partner was away) and given my role as director of the unit. The nurses and therapists in the unit have an average longevity of 8-10 years so turnover is very low and job satisfaction is very high. In our unit, the doctor certainly determines the ""ambiance"" of the unit, and our new doctor during her first week in the unit with me as back-up created an ambiance that made all of the staff either want to quit or pack her up and send her back to Omaha, Nebraska, where she came from. The staff talked to me all week about this and I listened and offered excuses like----this will be Victor's (my partner) to fix when he gets back from Washington. I never talked to the new doctor about this situation and should have. On my last day at work, before flying to San Francisco, this new physician offered up to me that she was very happy that I helped to bring her here to her new job and that everything would/should work out well. I think back and am upset at myself for not directly addressing this situation with her during her week in the unit. I think that if properly addressed it may have made a smoother transition for the staff in the unit who I am very close to, and who are very upset that I have left.

• Currently I work in an office with three males that have been in the office substantially longer than I. These fellows are used to working together and have adopted ways that are not only testosterone based but fundamentally limit growth and cause inter-office and inter-departmental separation. We do not work well as a team. Over the past year or so I have been able to penetrate the group of three marginally and have gained the respect of my boss and another senior person. I have not however, been able to successfully gain ground with my direct colleague. For example, when asking his input or assistance with a research tactic he is very reluctant to participate if it, in any way, may need him to be involved. Since I do not have authority over him I can not cause him to be involved. He does not want to participate in any assignments. He will ONLY do work when directly asked by our boss who then must, generally, micro-manage his progress. Not only do I find the situation unfair but I feel it holds us back as a group. I have communicated my thoughts and feelings to my boss who, although empathizes, is limited in his ability to remedy the situation. I fear he has become part of the problem. I think he sees the situation as 'easier to work around' than to address. This more fits his character. Confrontations are very very difficult for him. He is more the type to duck and cover.

• In a conference call to China, I had to defend a logging program that I wrote, to a person (or people) that has (have) significantly less knowledge about the subject matter of the logging program than I am. Off course there was not enough time to explain the details of my proposed procedure, because there were other operational things to discuss. The drilling manager in China and myself argued for some time without arriving at a conclusion that satisfied all the key players in this operation. I could not communicate my ideas, thoughts and feelings effectively because of the limited time, and relatively I was not prepared for the discussion to defend my program to this set of people. The following day, I wrote a memo to all concerned in this Chinese operation, which in a simple fashion explained the details of my reasoning. Before the afternoon operations meeting we had all reached a consensus about what to do based on the memo written through electronic mail. In our exploration program we wanted to keep our expenses to the barest minimum. The drilling manager spends most of the funds available so he has the most power and he wants to cut down of every other expense. However, in addition to other explanations, I put up an argument that if the well is not evaluated effectively for reason of lower costs, then why drill the well. This is the basis on which I had to defend my logging program.

• One of my primary roles with Levi Strauss & Co. (LS&CO. or the Company) is to minimize the amount of products available to the gray or secondary market - we define the secondary market as non-authorized companies buying and selling our branded products which we view as detrimental to the brands. In part, this objective is met by establishing retail policies or conditions by which an approved customer may sell products purchased from the Company. Once established, the retail policies must be communicated to customers and enforced by LS&CO. Non-compliance with retail policies may result in the loss of the customer’s account with LS&CO. Gross employee mismanagement may result in termination. My communication challenge was the sales organization - a group of seasoned veterans who are inherently hard to motivate on policy matters. I was given this opportunity to present sales’ new gray market pay for performance objective supported by their roles and responsibilities to achieve it. The forty-five minute presentation was to an audience of 250 people during a week long, highly organized, mind numbing endurance marathon of a sales meeting which included almost twenty-five other presentations. I firmly believed that to make the information stick, I needed to tell the gray market story and then tell it again by using a mixed media presentation with many chances for sales to participate in their own learning. I believed I needed to reach these veterans by hitting an emotional cord, sort of a call to arms. In a way, they needed to believe, as I do, that managing brands means more than products, programs, presentation and promotion - it also includes protection, and they were on the front line. When I walked into the hotel’s presentation room, I was disappointed. The room was long and narrow with the chairs tightly packed. The overhead and projection systems were inadequate and could not be seen from the room’s back half. The ventilation system did not work properly and the room was hot. The communication system was stationary and I needed to walk among the audience. In short, it was a nightmare. I realized that I had spent my time focusing on everything I was going to say and do to ensure people got the salient points, but had not given enough attention to the environment being planned for me. The environment was going to undo the preparation and reach the audience I had worked so hard to capture. The result? I was rattled by the challenging environment. My presentation met legal and corporate objectives but significantly missed my expectations.

• My example is based on a telephone conversation with an unhappy client. We had decided to no longer support a computer system that we sold to this client over 5 years ago. In June, this client received a letter and a telephone call explaining our decision to no longer support his system after November 30th. He called me in November and said that we should have known about the Year 2000 issue when we sold him his system and that we should write-off his outstanding balance ($1,000). He asserted that he was a member of an influential organization that would severly damage my company's credibility in the future.

• I remember so clearly the apprehension and dread I felt the first time I had to discuss with an employee their poor performance. I had never given a verbal warning before and was quite ignorant about the process. Although I had been managing people for a couple of years, I hadn’t encountered any situations where I needed to understand the steps involved with the verbal and written warning process. To make matters worse, I had never taken pen in hand and actually documented the situations where the employee under-performed. Once it became clear that my only option in dealing with this employee was to confront the performance issues directly, I immediately undertook the task of documenting everything I could remember (lucky for me my memory served me well). Finally the day arrived when I had scheduled our one-on-one meeting. Throughout the morning, I continued to rehearse all of the issues I was going to discuss. I couldn’t help wondering if I was objective enough in my assessment, had I given the employee enough feedback over the last six to eight months to allow them to change their behavior, how much of this problem may have been caused by my own shortcomings. I just wanted to ensure that the whole process was handled fairly and objectively. The employee and I went to a private office to begin our meeting. I began first by getting some feedback from the employee on their own assessment of their performance. The employee felt as though they were performing at standard, just that things had been a bit demanding over the last six months. My stomach dropped at this point because it seemed like this whole conversation would be a surprise, despite my timely and earnest feedback during and after project completion. I began by explaining what I wanted to discuss with them-the fact that their performance has been below target. Since I had clearly organized the issues and documented examples, I went through this information with the employee. Initially, the employee was stunned and quite distant. They accepted what I said without comment and just listened. I finally inquired whether they felt the information was fair and accurate. At this point, the employee admitted that they knew they weren’t performing at standard, that none of this information was a surprise. In fact, they admitted that they were contemplating looking for a new job because they felt this position required too many long hours. Since working long hours was contrary to their personal values, the job wasn’t an accurate fit. I was prepared for a battle and was surprised when the employee concurred. What seemed like an ugly situation turned out well. We talked very candidly about values, job expectations, and finally about next steps to get the employee a more appropriate position either inside or outside the company. This whole situation just strengthened our communication and allowed us both to fix a problem situation. I learned a great deal about my own approach and how I would handle this situation differently the next time. My initial style was a bit harsh and my posture indicated that I was afraid and uncertain. I was finally able to get out of this mode once the employee started interacting with me. Although I’d prefer not to be in a situation like this again, I was grateful for the experience.

• The communications situation I would like to describe was the opportunity I had to esxplain my sales area business plan to our Chevron Dealer Affairs Council. This council is made up of representatives from the seven sales zones in my sales area, which entails most of northern California and Salt Lake City. The coucil's representatives have varying levels of knowledge of our business, have somewhat different retail store opetations, represent different markets and have different dealers they represent in those markets. My objectives were to present our business plan and enable them to gain an understanding of what Chevron is trying to accomplish, to get input from them on our plan, and to dialogue with them on how we could together grow our businesses in the upcoming year. Based on input from others prior to this meeting, I decided to open the meeting with a discussion around the council members roles and responsibilities. This set the stage for a broader, higher level discussion during the meeting; in that, they are to represent all the Chevron dealers in their area and address higher level strategy and policy issues that could impact many dealers versus more detailed operational issues unique to a few. After this discussion, I then presented the plan in a less formal roundtable discussion, with hand-outs of the material I covered for their review and notes. The meeting and discussion went very well. This was based on feedback I received unsolicited at the meeting as well as feedback I received after the meeting when I polled each council member. It was apparant that each understood the plan, and were committed to do their part in implementing it and growing the business with us.

• I was part of a task force team to explore the viability of using teams across departments to accomplish our organizational goals. Management never completely defined expected products or results. Team members doubted management support in completing the project. The team members became hostile because of the mixed messages. What results did surface were never completely documented or used. The project floundered and died. The former team members are still resentful of the time and energy volunteered and devoted to this project.

• Communicating needs and requirements between team members on a project. As each project-team is composed of members from different functional areas and with different agendas, the communication between them is and will be a big challenge. An example of that is the following situation: On a project to implement a business system for an accounting department, the functional team did not communicate to the project management their concerns about the effect the new system would have on their internal processes. Another miscommunication was when it turned out, only too late, that the functional team did not have the time to functionally implement the system and also do their job. The way they communicated that fact to the rest of the team was not in a timely fashion. The concerns was valid, but neither the project management nor the technical team could foresee this problem as this did not affect them directly. This begs the question if the Project Man. should have been more proactive in their communication to the F.Team, in order to find out these snags before it was too late. The basic problem I ran into here was to effectively communicate between different groups with different agendas, and different perspectives toward the same project. My problem was lack of content knowledge pertaining to the functional area, and the way they prefer to do things. Another problem was the lack of communication from the functional group, about their other internal challenges and priorities, to me.

• One of the most difficult communication experiences I've faced is our division's weekly Architect's meeting. In our systems organization the programmers for each of twenty applications meet weekly to discuss upcoming projects and miscellaneous items. The programmers are spread across seven states and the meeting is held via conference call. The most annoying aspect of the call is protocol. While we follow an agenda, generally everyone responds to the issues and unless you've participated in calls before, it's very hard to tell who is speaking. At the start of each meeting, we go around the call and everyone identifies themselves. We also have a facilitator and recorder for each call. Also, reading materials and technical documents are distributed via email before the calls. Still, there are times when multiple conversations occur and the facilitator needs to bring the conversation back to one issue. While all the calls have seemed to run smoothly, I personally miss the subtleties of face-to-face or even video conferencing. It seems that points need to be made a number of times to assure everyone understands the issues. In addition, there have been times when geographic differences, such as dialects in certain parts of the country, have hampered our ability to communicate effectively. After the meeting, the recorder distributes the minutes by email. Sometimes this generates more discussion if a point wasn’t captured correctly, but usually there aren’t any major revisions. In general it seems to be an effective way to communicate when participants are scattered across the country, but I personally find that face-to-face meetings and email are better methods of communication.

• At my company I am trying to ""lean"" out our enterprise or ""re-engineering"" our business processes. I often find myself trying to persuade executive management of the need to change the way we do business along with the benefit of such changes, not change, not for change sake, but ""value added"" change. I recently made a presentation where I was ""grilled"" with questions of how many saving, and how much better quality, and how soon would the benefits be realized. Although the data they had requested was in the charts presented, I found that until I delivered the message with conviction of my personal commitment to make it happen, the reviewers where not satisfied. I found that bite size pieces of information delivered with conviction work best.

• I do budget/expense support for an AVP, whom has 15 Directors that report to him. One Director may have as many as 10 Technical Directors(referred as TD in the future) in the organizational structure. I was told that one of the TD's was transferring from one Director to another Director. There was one small detail left out of the message, it was not the whole group going to the other Director. I transferred the appropriate budget and then did a history reorganization for that TD. The Director that was losing this group was very upset after the reorganization since his budget was reduced more than he thought. As it turns out, part of the TD group stayed within his group. The Director and his budget coordinator call to complain that I screwed up his budget, I touched HIS budget without consulting him and I don't know what I am doing. Naturally, I am a little defensive since those are the first words of the conversation. I ask what he is referring to, then describe the action I took and the reasoning behind it. I also informed him that I do not confer with every Director prior to changing the budget. After the emotions had calmed down, I told him that he needs to communicate to me the exact transfers that take place in his organization and I will consult with him before I reduce his budget.

• Summary of how our finance organization reorganization have impacted our communication skills in a group that was once a very effective group communicating to one another. Our finance organization has gone through a re-organization to align our finance group within the company from a functional group environment (mktg., sales, R&D, etc.) to a Business unit environment. This change has made it extremely difficult for our group to adapt because some of the people in our finance group have new expanded roles and some people with the same experience were unchanged in the reorganization. These changes have made it extremely difficult for our group to work together because of the resentment towards certain groups and people within the finance organization. A result of this has been the day to day challenge to communicate effectively within our group, because it is essential that the finance people communicate budgets, forecasts, results, etc. on a daily basis. Listed are some examples of my past experiences: 1) In our new environment, I am my old boss's peer and she seems to be having a hard time accepting that role. (She is the FP&A manager and I am one of 3 business unit controllers). When we have meetings, they tend to be brief and to the point, and at times very tense. I have been trying different approaches to overcome our current working relationship so we can communicate more effectively (professionally and personally). q Examples: q I confronted her to talk about how our relationship used to be and how it is different today in the new environment. q I tried to be more sensitive to her needs and have given her time to adjust. 1) How the uncomfortable feelings have impacted our communication: q The open door policy of communicating between my old boss and myself no longer exists. q Whenever an issue comes up it is always difficult to address because you don't want to confront it with her because it is always unpleasant experience. q We would rather avoid one another, or there is a perception of avoidance. 2) What I must do regardless of what is going on personally between the people in our group: q It is my job to communicate and make sure people understand the issues and results, and that is my primary goal in a professional manner. q I want to build teamwork when communicating items, because to be successful we need a variety of people to help address the issues as well as the successes. q Work proactively to resolve the tensions that exist, because they do impact communication within the group.

• When giving a presentation, How do get all of the audience to listen effectivley? With out fail, one or two people from every presentation will not listen to the information being conveyed. They will later pass on wrong information to other employees and create confusion.

• Submitted by Matt Mazzuchi, Saturday EMBA class I have been employed for the last twelve years by companies involved in the manufacture of thin film deposition systems and components used by the optical or semiconductor industries. I changed jobs about 5 months ago. My new employer uses technology similar to that of my previous employer, but the applications of the technology are very different. Recently, I was called upon to conduct a technology seminar for about 25 engineers and technologists from one of my new key accounts. The key purpose of the seminar was to impart to those engineering technical staff, an overview of our thin film deposition capabilities, in layman’s terms understandable by most of the audience, such that the audience develop a feeling of comfort with the depth of technical processes available to deal with their developing coating needs. A secondary goal was to establish myself in their eyes as more than just ""the kid"" I sometimes appear to be. The challenge was to distill fairly complicated thin film deposition process technology (e.g. Ion Assisted Deposition) into some reasonably basic mechanical concepts. I decided to use some symbolism to explain Ion Assisted Deposition (IAD), which is a process used to create very hard thin films. During IAD, and ion gun adds energy to the electron beam-evaporated stream of material in a vacuum. The molecules take the extra energy, and instead of just landing on something, they wiggle around and find the best ""fit""-i.e. the strongest chemical bond, thereby creating a very hard, very dense thin film. To explain this concept, I talked interactively with the audience about TETRIS, the old video game where falling multi angle shapes are manipulated into fitting the shapes below. The use of such imagery not only drove home the concept, but served to let the audience know that it was OK to have a little fun while we discussed these technical matters, and it made me more approachable in their eyes. It also gently mocked any sort of ""kid status"" thoughts in the audience. The seminar was a great success. I received multiple compliments from the audience on a clear and helpful presentation.

• Difficult Manager Situation: I was a new hire as product marketing manager at a new company marketing products with which I was not immediately familiar. My hiring manager and I got off on the wrong foot and I found myself in the position of being 'summoned' frequently to his office and harshly criticized for a variety of things ranging from the way I filled out my expense reports to the quality of my work. During one such encounter, after only 4 weeks on the job, he was shouting at me that he could have written the brochure I was working on ""in 10 minutes at my kitchen table! Why is this taking you so long!"" Since every encounter was a confrontation, I found myself avoiding him as much as possible. But I knew this situation could not continue. I didn't like the idea of quitting or being fired, but it was apparent that he was not going to initiate any training activities or rapport-building efforts with me. Finally, I knew I had to stop focusing on myself and how I was feeling and think more clearly about my manager's situation and extenuating circumstances going on within the company. I decided I needed to be proactive and initiate productive, non-confrontational meetings with my manager. I was able to do that after one well-planned, initial encounter. I rehearsed how I would ask him for his help on how to be successful in my job, what things he would recommend for me to be working on, how he would handle such-and-such, etc. Then I LISTENED carefully. And took notes. Our relationship changed dramatically after that, and I sought him out frequently for advice. Basically, I recruited him as a teacher and mentor. I was promoted twice in a 5 year period at that company, and when I left, this same manager said I was the best hire he had ever made!

• An elderly patient was brought into the emergency room for vague complaints by her family. After an extensive evaluation including blood tests and x-rays the patient and family was informed that no serious abnormalities found were found but the family still wanted the patient admitted to the hospital. The on-call physician for the patient's regular MD declined admission, stating there was no medical indication for admission (I also felt that this was the case). This was explained to the family but they still complained to the hospital administration that it was my fault that the patient was not admitted.

• An elderly patient was brought into the emergency room for vague complaints by her family. After an extensive evaluation including blood tests and x-rays the patient and family were informed that no serious abnormalities found were found but the family still wanted the patient admitted to the hospital. The on-call physician for the patient's regular MD declined admission, stating there was no medical indication for admission (I also felt that this was the case). This was explained to the family but they still complained to the hospital administration that it was my fault that the patient was not admitted.

• An elderly patient was brought into the emergency room for vague complaints by her family. After an extensive evaluation including blood tests and x-rays, the patient and family were informed that no serious abnormalities were found but the family still wanted the patient admitted to the hospital. The on-call physician for the patient's regular MD declined admission, stating there was no medical indication for admission (I also felt that this was the case). This was explained to the family but they still complained to the hospital administration that it was my fault that the patient was not admitted.

• I was the team leader of a cross functional group of professionals made up of geologists and engineers. I was aware of a conflict between an engineer and geologist who were working together on the same project. Together they were building a geologic and fluid flow model of a reservoir with plans to recommend infill wells. Prior to working together, I had given clear direction to each of them (individually) in their performance evaluations that they had to work together as a team. We discussed what it meant to be on a team, and to be a team player. There was clear agreement on what the expectations were. I followed their progress regularly and coached each one individually in order to support them and encourage them to work together. Despite my efforts, their working relationship was tenuous at best and non existent at it’s worst. I knew that one of the people did not have much experience at working on a team. He also did not show any indications of trying to do things a different way. In addition he had a repuation as being a difficult person to work with. I wanted to fire him long before this issue came to logger heads, but my supervisor would not allow that to happen. I coached this individual on what he had to do to perfrom in this new environment. I was going to give him time. I was also aware the affect he was having on the other person who was a top performer. A “communication event” was required to bring both parties together to discuss the issues and make plans to resolve them. I took on the role as mediator. I used the opening few minutes to describe why we were meeting. I presented them with the approach that I wanted to find out how things were going between the two of them and see if there were some things I could do to help them with the project or determine if there were things that they could do together to improve the progress of the project. I wanted to find out from each one what the issues were. I directed my attention to each one separately. I tried to keep any interruptions from the other to a minimum until each one had a chance to voice their views. I asked general unthreatening non accusatory questions such as on how each thought things were going on the project relative to specific phases of the project, were they getting enough support from his partner, have you had any problems and if so how did you solve them, etc. I wanted to find out how each person saw the situation. I knew that once each persons views were out in the open we would have a basis for a dialogue. I knew that each one had issues with the other and this was the place for them to put them on the table. I knew also that if I didn’t get the interaction I wanted , that is, if they held back concerns, that I would use the lack of progress of the project and places where I thought things could have gone better to niggle it out of them. I also asked questions regarding what they saw as their responsibility. To my knolwedge all of the issues were brought out onto the table. They worked through a number of misconceptions, they identified different expectations, and they agreed to ways to resolve issues and ways to improve their relationship. They took responsibility for what had gone on in the past and what was going to happen in the future. I acknowledged the importance of the meeting and the agreements they made, and reiterated to them how their performances as a team were critical to the success of the project and to them. Both parties seemed satisfied with the outcome. I wish this had a happy ending, unfortunately it did not. One of the two people in question did not change his performance while the other tried desperately to make it work. As staed previously I wanted to fire the poor performer before it got as bad as it did. A company downsizing a few months later resolved the issue. It should be noted also that I documented this and other incidents such that had the downsizing not occured the problem would have been resolved anyway inspite of my supervisor.

• About 8 months ago, a situation occurred were I was informing my boss of an opportunity to hire a new member into our group, even though we did not have an official position 'open'. I outlined the benefits this person would bring to our group as an established and well know individual in our industry. I also discussed what I considered our current and future business potential and how this individual would address an upcoming need within our group. My boss did not share my optimism about our future business growth, which either concerns me or he just doesn't get it. Based upon on year-end revenues and 6-month sales projections, I believe I was correct and our business warrants this additional hire.

• As a service group member, my job was to provide project management consultation to the client. This effort included assessing the existing situation and establishing the necessary management methodologies for the success of the project. During one of the client's projects, I have challenged my ability to communicate the establishment of the project management process by utilizing the web based tool in an oral presentation. The purpose of this effort was to inform the executives and project managers about the project status. The results of project tracking were provided as feedback to the Project Managers, Company Executives, keeping them informed of significant and potential problems to take corrective action and influence resolution of issues. Due to the following reasons I was not able to successfully communicate the process completely through my presentation: · Very low attendance to the presentation · On line connectivity at that site was very slow; therefore, it slowed down the presentation and created disruption · The presentation material was prepared for management, however the attendees were manager aids instead of actual users · The attendees had no experience with this kind of process discipline; therefore, the basics needed to be covered besides the presentation material · Project managers did not want to be measured and outside assistance was not welcome · Proper decision making and follow-up on the effect of the decision were missing in the company culture · Essential project information elements related to the business were not considered in the company · Basic analysis concept of any differences among the baseline, current and actual, did not exist · I did not know the champions within the company to utilize them to market the presentation

• One situation in which I experienced difficulty in communicating effectively was in supervising a difficult line supervisor. The line supervisor was resistant to taking direction from me. I had recently been promoted to the supervisory position responsible for managing shift supervisors in a 24-hour a day operation. The supervisor was not directly insubordinate, but was instead sullen and non-communicative. I considered him to be unprofessional and felt he was setting a poor example to the union workforce. I had not experienced this type of behavior previously in a person holding a supervisory position. My reaction to his attitude was complicated by my evaluation of his technical ability as sub-par. The line supervisor was very careful not to act in the above manner when in the presence of my manager. I attempted to directly confront his behavior in one-on-one conversations, which on one occasion degenerated into a yelling-match. The culminating event occurred during a production emergency in which, in my evaluation, the line supervisor reacted incompetently. I directly took over management of the situation. The line-supervisor refused to take direction from me, and I responded by sending him home. Although my manager supported my decision, and the line supervisor left the company soon thereafter, in retrospect I believe I could have handled the situation in a more professional manner.

• Survey: Challenging Communication Experience In my line of work I acquire investment real estate on behalf of institutional clients. This process involves identifying the property, negotiating the purchase, performing due diligence and closing the transaction. Although all aspects of the deal require various levels of communication, the most challenging seems to be during the negotiation phase. I will briefly describe a recent experience that challenged my ability to communicate effectively. Most project negotiations are conducted in a professional manner – low key and ""business polite."" During a recent project, I came across a seller’s broker who had a very aggressive and combative negotiating style. His style was irritating and at times not very logical. The strange thing about it was he represented this particular seller for over ten years and was quite successful by most measures. I found myself taking his style too personally, and frequently I became annoyed and stopped thinking rationally. My theory was he adopted this strategy on purpose to throw his adversaries off balance. As the deal progressed, I eventually learned to ignore how he presented himself and focused more on the content of what he was saying. I certainly learned I was not adequately prepared to deal with individuals with this type of aggressive style.

• My situation involved an important oral slide presentation given to a group of 300 managers at Pacific Bell. I am functionally accountable for the department Business Plan and the presentation was designed to communicate the importance of the Plan as a strategic planning tool for the organization. The presentation was designed to: 1) gain support for the Business Plan as an ongoing process; 2) educate managers on how the Business Plan is developed and used to track department performance on a monthly basis and 3) illustrate how the Management Review process helps to maintain a focus on departmental priorities and activities. The challange for me was in how to construct and communicate these messages effectively in a 15 minute oral slide presentation. The topics are very strategic and it was difficult to make these messages meaningful for my audience of managers.

• I recently had a meeting with a physician and two colleagues that challenged my ability to communicate effectively. My company has undergone a complete reorganization and my responsibilities have changed as a result. Specifically, I am responsible for management of several payor contract accounts and facilitation of Advisory Board meetings of physicians who are paid under these payor contracts. The reorganization has also prompted an internal audit of the financial status and/or viability of each of the accounts. One account in particular was significantly overfunded by my company since the inception of the payor contract. After much research as to the many reasons for the overfunding, the bottom line was that my company had made a unilateral decision to reclaim all funds owed, regardless of circumstance. Relaying this information to the physician(s) who would be effected was very difficult. Primarily, my company has positioned themselves in some accounts as both an advocate for the physicians, as well as a champion for the payor. This can prove to be a thin line because often times the endeavors of the two parties is diametrically opposed and my company is often in the middle. In addition when unilateral decisions are made, sometimes the enforcement of them may mean that there are some parties that are more adversely effected than others – as was the case of the physician with whom I met. The physician was going to receive a significantly lesser paycheck for the next three months due to mismanagement on the part of his peer physicians, and, most difficult for me be explain, my predecessors. Herein lies the difficulty in communication, I had to explain how my company was going to recoup the funds, and assure that I did not hold my company harmless for mismanagement - even though there was still a question/dispute as to what exactly happened to cause the overfunding. My approach was to relay every bit of relevant information I had uncovered and explain clearly what was going to happen. He of course was not happy, and in fact we went in circles a few times over other solutions he proposed that my company (nor I) was not in a position to offer. I feel that although the outcome had not changed for him, and there were still some unanswered questions that only the people who previously managed these accounts could explain, I felt that relaying information, primarily as a means to better understanding difficult situations, was a positive outcome of this difficult meeting.

• Our department manager uses weekly staff meetings as a forum for the introduction, discussion and approval of new ideas, procedures or departmental initiatives. As a member of the six-person leadership team, I received the ""go ahead"" to develop a new marketing communication emphasizing our price competitiveness. At a prior meeting, I built conceptual agreement on the objective, message and broad content of the marketing piece. When I brought the ""finished draft"" to a subsequent staff meeting for final modifications and approval, the leadership team suddenly rejected the entire concept. Instead of offering suggestions to improve the draft, the ""consensus"" was to drop the whole concept. I and another staff member wasted several hours in developing and producing the piece only to have it tabled. Ironically, about one year later, a similar piece was drafted by someone else and ""accepted"" by the same cast of characters. Nevertheless, the ""new"" price competitive piece has not been implemented in our day-to-day marketing communications portfolio.

• Setting: A meeting in the Senior Pastor's office with the Senior Pastor (who supervises me), Associate Pastor (myself), the Youth Director (who I supervise), and the Youth Committee Chairperson (who is also the church bookkeeper). Situation: Communication between the Youth Director and myself had grown difficult. The Youth Director had been asking for a significant increase in the youth budget, but the reporting/accounting for current year was not clear, and I had been asking for clarification. (The president of the congregation had been asking me, and I couldn't answer). After sharing my concerns with the Senior Pastor, the Senior Pastor called the meeting since he wanted clarification too. (The congregational president wasn't at the meeting). The meeting: The meeting was challenging because it was difficult to keep everyone focused on the issue. Very early on, questions were asked about the lack of attendance (their perception) of my daughters at youth events and activities, indicating from their perspective lack of support from me. I tried to communicate (without defending) that my daughter's attendance or absence had little to do with the quality of the program offered and support, but had more to do with their schedule and desire to choose which activities they wanted to participate in at church. Eventually, we got to budget issues, the need for a regular meeting between the Youth Director, the Youth Committee Chairman, and myself to clarify budget questions, the need for the Youth Director meet with me after a youth outing to inform me of the event, and finallly the need for the Senior Pastor to support my work with the Youth Director who is to report to me and not the Senior Pastor.

• I am responsible as the Year 2000 Project Manager for the Department of Energy (DOE) Oakland Operations Office (OAK) and its contractor sites. As the Project Manager, frequent interaction is necessary with internal and external agencies. Currently, OAK and its laboratories are on target to meet all congressional imposed Year 2000 milestones dates. However, the DOE has received ""D's"" and ""F's"" for the past two (2) years. Congress perceives that DOE will not meet the imposed milestone dates. This has resulted in many audits and reviews by external agencies interested in OAK and its laboratories regarding Year 2000 readiness. One particular review that proved to be a challenging communication experience was one held by DOE Headquarters. The scope of the review was to validate the documentation of the mission essential systems identified by OAK and its laboratories. The duration of the review was five days. Prior to the review, the Review Team Leader stated that we had until the close of business of the fourth day to provide additional documentation requested by the reviewers. During the review, the Review Team requested for additional information from the various sites. All sites were responsive and cooperative, except for one (1) site. To facilitate the process, I scheduled a telephone conference with the Laboratory Manager and the Review Team. The Review Team Leader requested additional documentation from the laboratory to support the information previously reported to Headquarters as ""completed"". The Laboratory Manager became upset and felt that the information provided was sufficient and it was unnecessary to provide additional documentation. It was apparent that he was resisting the request and he became abrupt and rude towards the Review Team Leader. The telephone conference ended abruptly and it was unclear at that time if the Laboratory Manager was going to cooperate with the Review Team.

• Approximately two months ago I interviewed for a management position with my current employer. The interview was conducted by a panel of six individuals from different constituencies within the organization. While I anticipated most of the questions that would be asked, I was asked one question which I did not expect. This one question was so unexpected that it affected my concentration and, I believe, caused me to appear less prepared and perhaps less able to perform the duties of the position. I did not get the position.

• As the project leader for my company's Year 2000 Compliance Project, I was responsible for communicating our plan to address the computer related Year 2000 agenda to our brokers, insurance customers, vendors and business partners. The written communication needed to provide a status report that effectively expressed the following key points. First, that the project is of the highest priority, led by a senior officer, adequately staffed and budgeted. Second, that the project is broad based and covers all areas concerning our company's ability to continue doing business today, in the Year 2000, and beyond. Third, that the project addresses both internal and external Year 2000 issues in doing business after December 31, 1999. Finally, without creating an undo company legal liability, the letter needs to provide the status of our Year 2000 compliant/remediation effort. One of the most important functions of the status report was to convince all concerned parties that the business functions and services our company provides their companies are being addressed. The letter also explained any responsibilities the recipients must assume and stated my company's project status. This letter also identified the key person in our organization to contact if they should have any questions related to the Year 2000 project.

• My communication experience was one in which I had to change sales direction and strategy for 11 sales people which was met with some resistance and frustration. Eventually all 11 sales representatives adapted to the new strategy, but the adjustment took a bit longer than anticipated.

• Annually one of Bay Alarm Company's ten Branch offices is selected as the ""Branch of the year"". Typically, the financial results have been used to make this selection. During 1998, the management team of decided that each branch would select a project that would involve all members of their staff, and would be completed during the year. The program was handled like a ""Science Fair"". Each manager presented their hypothesis for their particular project early in the year and then set out to prove the statement. The details of these projects were presented at our December managers meeting and the results would be considered as one element in the selection of the annual award. My project was titled ""One Stop Shop"". We developed a series of procedures that would ensure customers were touched one time. We also provided information to the customers so they were clearly directed to the department that could solve a particular problem or concern. Lastly, our project created efficiencies within our Branch. On December I presented the results of our ""science project"" to the management staff, and the officers of my company. The presentation includes statistical information demonstrating that we had reduced customer complaints, improved the level of service and customer satisfaction. I also reviewed and distributed detailed information for the procedures were implemented during the year. The presentation lasted approximately thirty minutes.

• A challenging communication situation occured when I was directed to layoff an outstanding, long-term employee. This employee was not my direct report, but someone I worked with as a peer until my promotion. We analyzed the facility operations and justified that we could not afford this particular position. The employee's supervisor felt it was more appropriate for me to relay the information since I had a stronger relationship with the employee. I had prepared notes for the meeting and was very nervous. I had a witness participate as is customary with my organization when laying people off. The employee entered and took a seat across from. We started by making small talk about how things were going with our families and acquaintances. I began by discussing the current operating/financial decision of the facility. The employee nodded in understanding. I went further and discussed my ideas for reducing cost. I asked the employee for suggestions. The employee suggested that some overhead be reduced. I was not surprised as this employee had an excellent understanding of the business and finances. I agreed with the employee and then explained that it had been decided that their position be eliminated. A smile crept across the employee's face and he agreed that it would be the best decision at this time for the facility. I was totally relieved as we completed the discussion and finished the paperwork for the layoff. I had felt tremendous and unwarranted anxiety about the outcome of the meeting. In the future, I still prepared notes for these types of discussions, but I believe that employees understand the whole picture and why decisions are being made, they are much more agreeable to the final outcome.

• An ongoing communication challenge is to be able to effectively communicate our benchmarking process and tools to internal company customers without being able to meet face to face. It is too complicated of a system to expect to communicate effectively over the phone or through materials, yet that is often what is expected from senior management, and therefore it is seen as a failure when confusion still results. The type of customers range from those that should regularly work within the process to those that occasionally need access to the results or data of benchmarking. In either case, it is difficult to explain and train across cities and oceans to other offices. The most successful attempts at training have been trips made to train in person how the tools work on the computer. However in each case the cost of the travel is weighed against the rewards, and only those with regular access needs opt for this training. There is an additional barrier of there being inconsistent communication from Senior Management that this is a priority process throughout the company. The process must be seen as a priority for the customer in order to approve the costs. Therefore, until Senior Management decides on their commitment to benchmarking, I have developed training materials that address the different levels of interaction and most recently have developed an introductory brochure to introduce the process and tools to the general company population. I believe the training materials now provide enough information for those users with limited access to become adequately acquainted with the process and tools to get some value out of their use.

• Correctly interpreting the behavior of one's boss. There are too many situations to share here regarding one person and my lack of ability to communicate well with this person. I will give one example though for brevity. My ex-boss and I had an argument over the way to design a technical test. As I am a salesperson, I had invested 5 months into a test to help a customer to reach a resolution on a problem, for lack of a technical person with time to conduct a test for this customer. When I showed the results to this boss, he criticized the test as being too complicated. I explained that in order to anticipate all the details that I knew he would, that it was necessary to cover the details involved. The alternative was that he would have suggested the other alternatives I had included and considered the test incomplete. He was angry at how I responded to his criticism and I was angry at not being appreciated for handling a technical request when that was not in fact my position with the company. The level of the discussion grew to an uncontrolled and uncompromising moment when he said ""fine, do what you like"" and stormed out of my office, only to call later and express his apology for being incorrect in his assessment. I was still angry because this was typical behavior for this supervisor to critique in the ""11th hour"" when he inspired employees to take initiative, then would criticize the independent results that the employee found.

• I recently facilitated a business management team at work through a strategy update session. We needed to accomplish a significant amount of work in a very limited amount of time. It was important that all participants agreed with and supported the results of the session. I clearly communicated what we needed to do, proposed a process for our discussion, and facilitated the group to successfully achieve the desired objectives. We started the meeting with a diverse collection of thoughts and ideas, and we ended the meeting with a specific area of focus that all team members supported.

• I had an experience with a former supervisor that had problems communicating. She would constantly put her staff on the defensive by stating things that were incorrect and accusatory. She never gave any kind of praise and treated her staff as insignificant workhorses. Most days we would need to ask her for work all day, she kept saying there wasn't anything pressing. Then, at 6pm she would come in with a ""pressing"" matter that would cause us to stay until 12 midnight. I had trouble communicating with her and telling her what I thought. I think at the time I was scared of her. So, instead we would all talk about it amongst ourselves and our hostilities would rise. It created a very unproductive work environment and our self confidence was lowered daily. Another problem was that I had been hired with the intention of becoming the supervisor. This could have created hostility from her. Also, she would say things that I found to be discriminatory and sometimes racist. These wouldn't be blunt statements but rather inferences. For example, she would make fun of someone's name or say they needed to shower more. I should have quit then when my gut feel told me something was wrong but I wanted to work for the company. I thought I could ignore it. It ended up getting so bad I quit with a very low self esteem. It has taken a few years to work it back up and I still feel hostility toward that place. I spoke along with my team members to the HR department of that company but the person is still in that position.

• I work as an Assistant Portfolio Manager for a real estate investment firm in San Francisco. As part of my duties, I am required to regularly present information on proposed acquisitions to the Investment Committee. The presentations involve an executive summary of the transaction, a description of the property, a description of the market and a discussion of the relevant financial information pertinent to the deal. The outcome of this meeting determines whether or not the company will proceed forward in the acquisition process. In preparation for the meeting, I am responsible for writing an Acquisition Proposal which is distributed to each member of the committee as well as other key individuals within the company. The Acquisition Proposal is used as a guideline for the discussion. Questions related to both the written and verbal presentation are encouraged and discussed during the meeting.

• I needed to present a space plan and schedule for the delivery and installation of office furniture for the City of San Francisco. Potential office layouts had to be presented along with their individual strengths and weaknesses in design.

• Two months ago, I began to work in a company closed related to Internet, mainly, web design. I was hired as a contractor to do a brand audit. When they hired me, they scheduled a meeting in which they explained what the job was about. After that meeting I signed a contract. One doubt I had was how log would it take to receive the check. They said two weeks after the job were received. The problem began to come up after those two weeks when I call my supervisor asking for my payment. She said if I could wait just one more week. I waited, waited until the forth week. Then I ask again to my supervisor. She told me that she would ask the accounting department again. By that time, I was a little annoyed, so I decided to send an email to the general manager. During the same day, the GM answered my email and, the next day, the accounting department called me asking for a social security number, which I do not have because I am a foreign student. In view of this, they asked me to fill a form explaining why I do not have social security number. It is supposed that once they receive such a form, I'll receive my check. In conclusion, there was a problem from the beginning because they read my curriculum. They could perfectly realize that I was a foreign student and I would probably have no social security. But they did not ask for it at all. If they wanted to hire me, despite of this fact, they could ask from the beginning for this number and not wait until I got angry and called the general manager for help. Another problem was that the supervisor did not know the way that the company used to pay, creating uncertainty about the payment.

• I was responsible for coordinating a ""cause"" marketing event involving a police dog donation to the Scottsdale Police Department. The donation was a joint effort on behalf of Nabisco Milk-Bone and Safeway. I was approached by local television, radio and newspaper media for an interview explaining the event. While I felt comfortable delivering my planned speech to the crowd, I found it very difficult to answer the media's spontaneous questions in an effective manner. As a result, although the event itself was a tremendous success, we did not get the full benefit of the media coverage.

• Most recently my ability to communicate effectively was challenged at a customer meeting. My company was asked to bid on 2 million dollars worth of business for a certain customer. In order to get that business we had to identify what services we were willing to offer. During the course of the meeting several questions were asked and answered. During this process it was identified that several different people from the customer's side had different definitions of what certain key points of the presentation had to offer. I tried to isolate those questions and come to one definition but everyone agreed to diagree, this was not the desired outcome. The end result was, we tried to answer each persons question individually so that each person got the answer we wanted them to have, but there was a lack of consistency.

• Effective communication in an organization is a critical element for success. I recently experienced a situation where communicating with a co-worker about a process for delivering proposals to customers became a challenge. The co-worker had decided a quality proposal (from his perspective) needed to be comprised of some essential elements. Without those elements, the proposal would never deliver the needed results (a buying customer). It was also decided for these essential elements to be part of the proposal, a very “rigid process” must be followed. This “rigid process” was a long drawn-out process. I approached the situation not knowing what my co-workers goals were. Coming into the situation where I saw my co-worker as a helper, I brought my own thoughts about what should be included in the final product. Our two ideas about what needed to be included in the final product as well as the process for creating this product were conflicting. In the end we delivered a quality product to the customer. However, this did not come without pain. We were forced to compromise. Had we communicated a little better from the start, the pain could have been avoided.

• My (ex) boss is running a 10 person sales rep firm. He had planned on retiring and selling the business to me and my collegue. When the anticipated time arrived his wife did not agree with him retiring. She's much younger than him and he wants to move to the boonies and run a horse farm and she's a city type of person. My (ex) boss began acting like he was retired. He seldom showed up to work and seldom returned calls. He was not strategic in the manner in which he ran the company and ""things were falling apart."" I became very concerned for several reasons. First, the reason I was at that job was for the opportunity to buy it. Second, I don't want to be associated with a loser type of company. Finally, if he's running the company into the ground, I do not want to buy it. Because of my concerns, I approached my boss. We had lunch together where I explained that it is fine for him to be absent but he needs to delegate decision making to someone who is present on a day to day basis. In addition, I felt there was no cohesiveness amongst the employees. I suggested someone be in charge of coordinating principal's visits and copying us on emails so we know what is going on in the office. His reaction was to hold Monday morning meetings at 7:00am, everyone must attend, no exceptions. I work remotely so to be there, I must leave at 5:30 and daycare does not open until 7 so it put me in a bind. In addition, he failed to show up to half the meetings and never put out the notice that he would not be there. After 3 months of this, I confronted him regarding his lack of disrespect. We came head to head in confrontation and I left the company two weeks later. He managed to make my life extremely miserable during those two weeks, slandering my name and threatening people he knew in the industry if they hired my away. I am now three weeks into my new job and I love it. I am working for one my prior principals and my ex-boss is still fighting me.

• I have a hearing impairment and read lips to understand what someone else is saying. I am now a full time student. The most common experience that I have when I was working and as a student is understanding someone who speaks with an accent, doesn't move his/her lips when talking, or has facial hair that cover his lips. I also have difficulties understanding what is being said in groups. This situation is common for me and very, very frustrating. I usually tell the other people about my difficulties. Some people get it, some people don't. When that happens, I just nod my head and make it a point to communicate with that person as little as possible.

• A challenging communication event This event happened about two years ago. The Brazil Health authorities had put in place a new decree governing the import of biological medicinal products. We analyzed their requirements and found them to be a quick-fix amalgamation of European and American guidelines, that had been put together without in-depth analysis. We had set up a lunch meeting with Professor Dalton Chamone (the brain behind the new Brazilian regulations) and Dr. Mario Ivo (one of his coworkers). The meeting took place in Miami, where they attended an international conference. Our goal was to convince them of the need to delay the implementation of the decree, and to give the concerned industry a chance to provide feedback on the proposed new legislation before its implementation. A major reason for our company to delay this decree was that it included a requirement for two viral inactivation steps in the manufacturing process of a particular type of plasma derived product. Our company had such a product in development, but not yet on the market. We wanted our single-step-inactivated product to qualify for the major state tenders in Brazil. There were three representatives of my company: one person from Quality Assurance, the business manager for the Latin American region, and myself as representative of international regulatory affairs. Since my colleagues were Chilean and Spanish respectively, part of the meeting was handled in Spanish, which is a language I can handle to some extent, but I would not quote myself as really fluent in it. This was an additional challenge to me. We mainly discussed the safety of our products. For human plasma derived drugs, 100 % safety does not exist. In spite of all the safety measures that the industry takes, the risk of a viral transmission can never be totally excluded. We argued back and forth on the need to implement local controls of the finished product, while the products are already controlled in the USA. It is impossible to guarantee quality by controlling the final product. The quality is built into the product through a sequence of overlapping safety measures. We argued that only specialized laboratories could perform the complex tests that are required to detect viruses in the final product with acceptable reliability. What we did not know, was that Prof. Chamone was part of the international network of specialists in this field. So when he told us, we had to take a little step back in our argumentation. It became a rather difficult discussion with little room for negotiation. Then we discussed the double viral inactivation. I was presenting all possible scientific and statistical arguments supporting that our product was safe enough with only one inactivation step. What happened next was something that I will probably not easily forget. Prof. Chamone asked me a very personal and emotional question: ""If your son were a hemophilia patient and would need this treatment, would you give him your company's product?"" I started with ""I am not sure… I don't know …,"" or something along those lines. I answered this question too honestly. I was too much surprised to come up with a good answer right away. My expression could not hide a certain embarrassment. I knew that the products with two viral inactivation steps in their manufacturing process have a higher theoretical safety margin. I was thinking, ""On the other hand, our company's product has an unblemished historical safety record, but still, the theoretical risk is always present, …"" Obviously, I was thinking too much about an objectively balanced scientific answer to negotiate effectively in face of this type of questions. I do not remember how the discussion exactly ended. I seem to remember that this event had strongly affected the rest of all our argumentation. Obviously this was a great lesson to me to reflect upon what I could have done differently. I could have replied with more confidence and could have found ways to turn around the question or neutralize it by disqualifying the question as an emotional one that did not fit in the scientific type of discussion that we were having. This event reminded me how important it is to prepare for meetings. I now spend more time thinking about possible questions that can be raised, including political and emotional ones. I discuss with my colleagues, and ask their input and advice for giving the best possible reply in confidence.

• In my experience, dealing with one specific person has challenged my ability to communicate effectively. That person tends to put work on my desk that is ""below"" their level. This angers me and thus I have a hard time dealing with this person. Given that, communicating with this person is difficult. I have to let my anger and annoyance with this person pass in order to communicate.

• The most challenging communication experience I have in my workplace is with another engineer, ""John"", who has very dogmatic views about business and social issues. John is a very competent engineer and is able to discuss technical issues civilly and reasonably. As we are a small consulting firm, however, business issues often arise, as do other topics. I am normally an articulate and persuasive speaker, but am usually at a loss to discuss non-technical issues with John because he so easily dismisses opposing points of view and supporting arguments. In addition, he often adds disparaging, personal remarks. The frustration which results from this completely saps me of both my desire and ability to communicate with him. As many of these conversations are only of incidental importance to our work, I simply avoid or walk away from them. For the ones that are important, I often try to engage another person in the conversation to act as a stabilizing element. I firmly believe that communication is important in all aspects of life. I am frustrated and concerned about my inability to have reasonable discussions with John, even if we do fundamentally disagree on some issues. On the contrary, I have many acquaintances with whom I have strong disagreements, but still communicate with easily and clearly.

• My job depends upon the ability to communicate effectively. I am negotiating contracts on a daily basis. Recently, I negotiated a $75,000 contract that I had submitted to my company and had thought was confirmed. The other party was new to the position of working with my company. I followed the proper procedures and discussed over the phone with the other party the particular's of the contract. When I called to check on the status of the order a few days later the other party responded that the order was not yet ""officially"" confirmed. When she had told me it was confirmed all she ment was she had submitted the order for approval. In my every day dealings when I am told an order is confirmed that means I can consider it booked, the order has gone through the proper channels. Now I have learned with this individaul I must request if the order has been confirmed on alllevels. It has also made me more cautious with the confirmation of other orders I am placing. (My job is as a media Buyer. I buy commercial air time from television stations)

• I work for a company that encourages community support and charitable giving of money and time. Each year there is a campaign during which employees raise money and donate their personal funds towards the good of charitable organizations. This past year, I was selected to be the team leader for our group during the campaign. This project required many forms of communication including:  Informative and inspirational memos used to get the employees ready for the campaign  Oral presentations to explain the campaign and keep the group informed and motivated  Flyers/ reports and follow-up memos to keep the group on track for meeting the goals we had set. The challenge was twofold. First, many employees have been through this campaign for years and some have even come to resent what they see as forced charity. Getting these folks to buy into the campaign, and even get excited about it requires creativity and contagious enthusiasm. Second, the window of fund-raising is relatively short and, for the most part, during work hours when the employees are very busy. This challenge required impeccable planning and organization so anytime spent was used efficiently and productively.

• A situation that I have experienced that has challenged my ability to communicate has been when I entered into a company environment where newly graduated college students had not been employed for several years. There was immediate tension directed from the veteran employees towards the newly hired employees. This environment made it tough to be properly trained and welcomed into the work environment. There was a feeling of resentment directed towards new employees and the environment made it tough for new employees, such as myself, to voice their questions and ideas. Many people did not want to be open to new ideas or thoughts on improvements and training. This caused feelings of powerlessness and exclusion from the mainstream. This experience definitely proved to be a very challenging!

• The small software company I work for has a partnership agreement with a very large computer corporation. In the agreement, we receive a certain amount from them as co-op marketing dollars. As Director of Marketing/Communications, it was my responsibility to develop the marketing plan/budget and submit it for approval to the large corporation. This task was assigned the second week in December 1998 and was completed before Christmas. I was given the names of five people in different departments in their corporation from which I was to seek approval. Since they all handled different aspects of the marketing plan, I was required to obtain all of their approvals before proceeding with the plan and receiving the marketing money. I diligently called each one, only to receive voice mail, and let them know that I was going to send the proposal to them via e-mail and regular mail. The plan was send out on January 6, 1999. Since the people were scattered over the continent (from Canada to Dallas) and I was in California, it was impossible and not cost-effective for me to personally meet with them. My only option was to contact them via e-mail and phone. When I called, I either got voice mail (and no returned calls) or was told that it wasn't their responsibility. I began to accumulate names of people whom others in the corporation ""thought"" were responsible for the marketing plan. Each conversation was met with the same excuse, ""We are going through a reorganization and I am not sure whom you should be talking to."" Seeing the long road ahead of me, and no money from them, I adjusted my in-house marketing budget to reflect the lack for funds from this corporation. I talked to the our Channels Manager responsible for the agreement and even he received the run around with only more names for me to submit the plan to. Realizing if we didn't use the money allocated to us this year, we wouldn't receive funding for the next year, I called our agreement contact at the corporation. I, once, again left a message, telling her that we would have to cancel our partnership unless we could get the marketing plan approved and the funds allocated to us. She had never returned a call so I had little hope of hearing from her. However, this time she did return my call. She immediately found out who needed to approve the plan and obtained their permission, in writing, for me to go ahead. This was the worse example of lack of communication I have ever experienced. Not only did they not communicate outside of their corporation, but they didn't even communicate inside of it. I don't like having to give people ultimatums, but the year is half over. I hadn't received the monies promised to me by this corporation and therefore a large chunk of my marketing budget was missing. Ultimatums should be the last form of communication after all other avenues to open a dialogue have been attempted. The small software company I work for has a partnership agreement with a very large computer corporation. In the agreement, we receive a certain amount from them as co-op marketing dollars. As Director of Marketing/Communications, it was my responsibility to develop the marketing plan/budget and submit it for approval to the large corporation. This task was assigned the second week in December 1998 and was completed before Christmas. I was given the names of five people in different departments in their corporation from which I was to seek approval. Since they all handled different aspects of the marketing plan, I was required to obtain all of their approvals before proceeding with the plan and receiving the marketing money. I diligently called each one, only to receive voice mail, and let them know that I was going to send the proposal to them via e-mail and regular mail. The plan was send out on January 6, 1999. Since the people were scattered over the continent (from Canada to Dallas) and I was in California, it was impossible and not cost-effective for me to personally meet with them. My only option was to contact them via e-mail and phone. When I called, I either got voice mail (and no returned calls) or was told that it wasn't their responsibility. I began to accumulate names of people whom others in the corporation ""thought"" were responsible for the marketing plan. Each conversation was met with the same excuse, ""We are going through a reorganization and I am not sure whom you should be talking to."" Seeing the long road ahead of me, and no money from them, I adjusted my in-house marketing budget to reflect the lack for funds from this corporation. I talked to the our Channels Manager responsible for the agreement and even he received the run around with only more names for me to submit the plan to. Realizing if we didn't use the money allocated to us this year, we wouldn't receive funding for the next year, I called our agreement contact at the corporation. I, once, again left a message, telling her that we would have to cancel our partnership unless we could get the marketing plan approved and the funds allocated to us. She had never returned a call so I had little hope of hearing from her. However, this time she did return my call. She immediately found out who needed to approve the plan and obtained their permission, in writing, for me to go ahead. This was the worse example of lack of communication I have ever experienced. Not only did they not communicate outside of their corporation, but they didn't even communicate inside of it. I don't like having to give people ultimatums, but the year is half over. I hadn't received the monies promised to me by this corporation and therefore a large chunk of my marketing budget was missing. Ultimatums should be the last form of communication after all other avenues to open a dialogue have been attempted.

• I work for an insurance company that provides professional liability coverage for physicians and hospitals; as such, our customers are primarily physicians. A couple of years ago, when I was an investigator for evaluating and assessing claims, a predominant part of the job included personally interviewing defendant physicians in malpractice actions, or in cases where there was a potential for litigation, in order to assess the nature of liability and/or potential exposure. Cooperation by the insured in this regard is essential in completing the workup as his or her participation is required for the disposition of claims. Most of the time, physicians understand the importance of this request and comply. However, one in particular wanted nothing to do with the interview process absent any formal litigation. This was a special case in that the allegedly injured patient had contacted me directly, requesting evaluation of the claim, rather than retaining counsel. As such, we had a duty to investigate her claim and render a denial or engage in settlement negotiations, neither of which can be accomplished without the involvement and consent of the insured. When I called this particular physician to set up the interview, he refused to see me because he felt the patient was engaging in an act of extortion and he didn't want to cooperate. Thus, it became incumbent upon me to impress upon him his duty to cooperate, as well as to convince him of the merits of the investigation. We went round and round - he citing the injustice of the claim, the interruption of time from his practice to see me, and that he was blameless. In response, I offered him repeated explanations of the process, the purpose of my meeting with him, the intended use of the information I would receive from our meeting and the fact that I, as the insurer's representative, had a duty to investigate the claim and that I would be organized and systematic in our discussion so as to minimize the amount of time it would take from his practice schedule. Initially, this wasn't persuasive enough and we continued to debate back and forth. I explained that doing this now might prevent future formal litigation against him if we could reach a resolution, but had to acknowledge that it might not make a difference if we determined that we wouldn't settle the claim and the patient sued anyway. He was extremely unhappy, argumentative, and resistant to anything I said. I'm not sure if I wore him out with my persistence, or if it was citing the policy clause stating his duty to cooperate in the investigation of claims, or that he finally understood I was on his side and doing my part to facilitate the process as expeditiously as possible, but he finally relented to the interview. The meeting was about a week later and I dreaded it. When I arrived at his office, I expected a confrontation and a defensive nature. Immediately upon sitting down, I expressed to him my concern that, although he had agreed to see me, I still sensed at the end of our telephone conversation that he wasn't altogehter accepting and comfortable with my being there. I told him I wanted to reassure him that this was being done in order to best protect his interests and either stave off litigation or, at the very least, have a jump on our defense of the case if it progressed to suit. I stressed that I wanted him to be comfortable with the process and asked him if there was anything I could answer for him to make it clearer. I got a blank look, a change in posture and tone, and ended up with a productive interview.

• As a manager of people, I frequently complete performance appraisal and communicate business goals and objectives both to the team and members external to the team. This has challenged both my written and verbal communication skills. Recently, I sent e-mail to convey the product release strategy for the development organization and in that e-mail I had a few typos. One major typo resulted in a reply for a peer to clarify information I had written. Based on my observation, typos generally take away from the effectiveness of message. (I'm not sure if my response is exactly what you're after. But I hope I'm close.) BTW: I am not on the class roster, but plan to join the group for the first class session. I am changing my elective for this quarter.

• One work experience that challenged my communication skills was when I had to present an investigative report to a committee of twenty-five people. I was assigned to investigate the potential causes of a defective product lot. I was required to write the report and present it to the committee within two weeks. The challenge was not doing the report or the presentation, since I had experience in doing investigations for my own production area; however, the challenge was that this investigation was a high priority to the company and that I was also inexperienced in the area of manufacturing in which the investigation was to be done. The reason I was assigned to this particular investigation was because of my past performance with investigations done in my own area. So, in order for me to start the investigation I had to learn that part of the manufacturing process. After one week of learning the process and finding a possible cause, I was ready to start writing the report. Unfortunately, due to a surprise visit by the FDA that day, I was called by a member of the committee who told me that I had to be ready to present my report in thirty minutes so that the investigation could be closed. With this urgency, the challenge and stress increased tenfold. I now had thirty minutes to produce slides and think about what I was going to say in front of all these important people on a subject I had little or no experience. In the new time frame I had to prepare the presentation, I managed to make a few slides with only the important things to be mentioned and ideas I did not want to forget. Up until the time I started the presentation I was very nervous, but once I began talking I felt better. When I finished the presentation, the committee, as usual, asked several questions about the investigation. One thing that I discovered during the questioning was that I did know more on the subject than any member on the committee knew about the subject. The one thing I did not like about this type of situation was that I felt I was unprepared to go in front of the group. After all was said and done, the presentation turned out better than I had initially thought.

• First, I'll explain the context at the time of the experience. I am a Director at a major California Corporation. I report to the Managing Director who then reports to the CFO. Since, April 1997, the corporation has been adjusting to the merger with another major US corporation. I started working in this organization in September 1997. Shortly after the new Managing Director arrived on the scene (February 1998), it was clear that some ambiguity existed in the roles and responsibilities of several groups. From February 1998 to October 1998, I and most of the other people with whom I work spent hours upon hours at the office working on completing the 1999 Business Plan and preparing Senior Management to present and argue for the plan financial levels. We completed the Plan in early October after which I took 4 weeks vacation. Before leaving for vacation, I met with the Managing Director about his plans to reorganize the organization to eliminate or minimize the ambiguity. At the time, the Managing Director told me that he was planning to combine my group with another and he wanted me to head it up. I told him that I would look forward to the challenge. On the second day back from my return from vacation, the Managing Director asked to meet with me at which time he informed me that things did not go as planned. That he and the CFO had miscommunicated and that I and my group were going to be essentially layed-off. I was shocked to say the least. After spending almost 11 weeks looking for a new job (I had 90 days to find a new job), I was offered a new position within the Controller's organization in the CFO group. I decided I was not going to accept the position until I talked with the CFO. The communication experience was my conversation with the CFO. I wanted to give him the opportunity to be open and honest with me to make certain that if he had any concerns about my performance, that I knew them up front before agreeing to stay in his organization. The Managing Director had created an expectation which did not come to fruition and did not provide (nor did I press for) an explanation of what changed.

• test - delete later

• I am a Business Analyst for an Electronic Manufacturer. This position was created in July 2001. The management team has not been provided performance numbers in the past. This week I was asked to present the numbers for fiscal 2001. It has been quite awhile since I had to report financial results to non-finance people. I found I was a little rusty in some of my laymen explanations. This was apparent by the “deer in the headlights” look I was receiving by my co-workers. I sense I need to improve my presentation techniques based on my audience.

• While I was performing one of my daily walk-throughs of a production lab, I was responsible for, I notice a problem with a chromatography column. Liquid was surging out the column, (this is not suppost to happen), the intenal presure was much higher than the column was rated for. I immediatly shut the system down and check the computer record, in order to determine both the cause and the responsible party. I discovered that an technitian Jerry had mistakenly started the wrong program method for the cycle. He did not notice his mistake because he did not follow the correct procedure. To compound the problem, he falsifed the production record. When I asked him about the situation, he lied to me. I don't know if he did this to save face with the other technicians, divert blame, or if he actually believed he performed his job correctly. But, at this point, I decided that I would make an example of him and the situation. This only made things worse and the situation esculated into a shouting match. Later, I regetted the way I handled the even. I decided I would handle all disapline type situation in private, first to get a thoughrough understanding of the situation before I envolve the entire group, if at all. Jerry was a friend of mine, who I wanted to help up the corporate latter, but ever since I went from his peer to his superior we could not connect like before. Jerry went from an above average employee to a problem case. This was not due to this one even, but over time with conflicts with many coworkers. However, I do feel that I could have help him and handled our conflicts in better ways.

• The response I was receiving from the group was mostly stern stares. As I continued to speak, I could vaguely comprehend Dr. XYZ aggressively stating “you’re not answering the question”. I could feel the heat in my temples starting to rise as I continued to talk but realized that I was not telling these doctors what they wanted to hear. The difficulty I encountered in communicating with this group developed from my desire to provide a thorough answer to what was perceived by the group as a simple question. However, given the demanding tone in which the question was delivered, I believed a simple answer would be taken out of context and would not be technically correct.

• Ryan D. Thompson GMAN 502 September 14, 2001 Re: Challenging Communication Experience In my profession, I am constantly challenged to be an effective communicator. As an investment consultant with Morgan Stanley for 6 years, I consider myself fortunate to have participated in an incredible stock market (one that a majority of my clients have benefited from). However, with the deteriorating technology sector and a slowing economy, the year 2001 has presented a number of challenges. Recently, a very good client has seen her assets diminish with the downturn in the markets. Difficult markets typically cause clients to ask two questions. The first question the client asks is, “Are my assets allocated/ invested properly?” The second question is, “Does my advisor have to financial acumen to guide me and manage my assets?” Money is a very emotional, sensitive subject, and to a person experiencing a decline in their net worth it can be scary. This client was very scared as she watched a portion of her portfolio that was allocated toward technology drop sharply. The NASDAQ had dropped approximately 65% from its highs last year in May and her investment experienced similar declines. My client wanted an explanation. An explanation could only be given when the original intent of her investment strategy was examined (i.e. speculation, growth, stability, etc.). Initially, the key to being a good advisor is to really listen to a person’s goals and objectives. If you listen carefully, the person will dictate the types of investments they need. It is an advisors role to take the information from the client and develop a financial plan that is “suitable”. Part of a suitable plan is one that accurately assesses a client’s attitude toward risk. In the case of my client, we thought we had taken a moderate risk that was commensurate with her goals. The unfortunate result was that any exposure to risk in the technology sector meant an unprecedented downside exposure to her money. The difficulty in communicating with the client revolved around explaining the sudden decline in her assets, in light of her moderate stance. It is true that initially she wanted part of her money invested in technology, but she also wanted to limit her “downside”. Historically, technology had very good long-term returns and very few years where it lost money. It seemed like the perfect fit. A disclaimer in the industry that is often used is, “Past performance in not a guarantee of future results”. Although the client knew the validity of that statement, her expectation was that her investments in technology would have similar performance to the historic figures. The result was quite the opposite. A 65% decline in assets was very severe, and it deviated significantly from the historic performance data. The difficulty was sorting out perceptions (i.e. making money) and the reality of her investments losing value. The client was upset at the decline in her assets. She thought that a 65% decline in the value of her technology investment was beyond the realm of chance. She had depended on my advice and guidance and felt somewhat victimized by the decline. The reality of the markets was very different from what she had imagined and she wanted someone to blame. While I’m sympathetic with the client, I felt like I had provided quality service and advice that was congruent with her wishes. She wanted exposure to a technology investment using an approach that was well thought out. I believe I helped her accomplish that goal with my experience and the best data available to me. We made the best decision that we could. No one could have anticipated a decline in the markets that we experienced. The difficulty in communicating stemmed from the gap between perception and reality. The client and I started working together with the intent of making money in the markets and experienced just the opposite. My job now is to re-assess the client’s goals and try to make better decisions, while dealing with an individual who frequently calls into question each new investment idea. However, the individual continues to be a client of mine and frequently conducts business with me. I believe she continues to transact business because I have tried extensively to explain her investments and their risk in difficult markets. I have learned that these situations warrant more conversation, driven by a sincere desire to act in the client’s best interest. Those actions solidify a relationship, regardless of investment performance, and ensure that we will continue to invest together when the markets become more favorable.

• I found it very challenging to explain to my superior (the company CEO) why I was resigning as the CFO of the company I had been with for 15 years. I was resigning because of differences with my CEO's business decision-making and the direction of the company. I was very close to the former owner of the company who was also the CEO's father and I had worked with the CEO for 10 years. To sit down with and tell the CEO I was resigning effectively because of him was extremely difficult. I not only resigned but explained in detail why I was resigning, trying to keep it on a professional basis.

• The instance that immediately comes to mind occurred in a recent executive offsite planning meeting. Part of my responsibility was to lead a discussion surrounding the growth of the sales department. The sales group consists of three separate job functions. It includes the Account Manager, Territory Manager and Research Assistants. The discussion progressed to a point of defining the ideal ratios between each of the three job functions. Out of the eight participants in the meeting it came down to a disagreement between myself and one of the founding partners of the company. I thought I gave a compelling business reason for my case. There was an opposing opinion by the co-founder and the rest of the group was neutral. The conversation was put on hold “to be discussed at a later time.” I would have thought there would have been a groundswell of support for my opinion. The CEO later said that I unfortunately saw things from my perspective and that was the reason for the disagreement. In my mind I was looking at this from a company-wide perspective. I felt that I had failed to adequately communicate my case.

• We have two sales teams, one for private label (PL) and one for brand. The PL team requested a product ""dump bin"" which would hold several cases of product. The display bins would be shipped to to the customer, they would assemble the unit and fill with product. This project was a breeze. After several weeks of dialogue, this easy ""dump bin"" for one PL customer became a huge project. Now, it was a self contained shipper that would be available for all PL and branded customers. The units were required to hold a certain number of pounds, hold a certain number of products, have printed graphics, packed and instantly ready to be set up in the store. The marketing product manager worked on this project frantically knowing that time was of the essence to get these units in grocery stores by Thanksgiving 2001. A vendor produced prototypes of the unit, co-packers were explored to stock the display units prior to shipping, pallet patterns were developed, graphics completed and costs determined. In the midst of this work, coorespondence by e-mail was happening primarily between my product manager, our PL sales manager, our branded sales manager and one of the PL salesman. There was a one specific e-mail that contained ten or so back and forth messages between the PL manager and his salesman. At the end, my product manager was forwarded this e-mail with a question. As she ready through it, she noticed a comment by the manager that said, ""Marketing is really dragging their their feet on this one. That's not like them....yeah right!"" My product manager was frustrated since she had worked very hard on this project. I was well aware of this project's level of difficulty. It was obvious the sales team wasn't. I was made aware of the e-mail comment and took a moment to think how I should approach this. I knew that the sales manager had no idea he had carelessly forwarded this comment. I decided to gather all of the facts on the project from my product manager and learn exactly what progress had been made and when. I gave myself about 1/2 day to cool down. I decided that I would not take this up with the PL sales manager, but would discuss this situation with his manager, the V.P. of Sales, who is in my office and at my level in the company. The discussion was very fact based. I made it a point to talk about the professionalism of this manager and how this didn't help the teambuilding between sales and marketing. Discussing this with the V.P. of Sales prompted an immediate response. The next morning, he had a conference call with the sales manager and his salesman to figure out why they thought marketing was dragging their feet. He was armed with the schedule of events. Come to find out, the V.P. had asked the salesman several weeks back for information to move the project along. He never reponded. The V.P. was aware that sales was not providing enough feedback and information as required by marketing. The end result was all about communication. The sales manager admitted to the V.P. that he made the comment to manage the expectations of the salesman. This particular salesman is difficult for this manager to handle and instead of making him understand all of the project details, he took the easy route and agreed with the salesman that marketing was moving slow. After the call, the V.P. explained. He truely felt that marketing was not dragging their feet and confirmed that the sales manager felt the same. The V.P. thanked me for coming to him with the situation first so he could handle it. I later received a phone call from the sales manager to appologize for the comment. He also called my product manager to appologize. I was completely surpised when I saw the e-mail comment. Through this situation, I learned that well thought out communication provides a much better result than a quick emotional reaction that may be off base.

• As a senior member of our sales team, I was asked to deliver a presentation to my peers coering a new group of products. It was the first time I had presented to this group. Many of the members had a year or less with the company. Certain individuals within the group made it known that they were very interested not only in the content of my presentation but also the way in which I delivered it. This is a pretty competitive group of individuals and as the senior person, my knowledge and presentation skills were being challenged and evaluated. I prepared dilligently for the presentation and had the facts down cold. When they day came to present, delivering the content of the message was not the challenge. The challenge came in dealing with the audience. I had to use subtle skills gained in presentation/communications classes to keep my audience with me. I particularly remember two members of my team that were being somewhat disruptive (talking during my presentation). I was able to shift my attention to them by standing near them and asking questions about the presentation. They quickly got the message and fully participated in the meeting. The whole thing went off very well but handling the somewhat hostile audience was a challenge.

• The small business department is reponsible for the follow up and processing of customer applications for small business loans. As the manager of this department, I work closely with all the account officers of the bank that refer small business leads. The bank lost a customer referal which could have resulted in a $3,000,000 small business loan. The loan officer indicated that the SBA department was reponsible. I responded by providing facts based on the initial call by the account officer and his customer. My correspondance to the account officer and his boss pointed out the lack of communication to the SBA department, based on three months of tracking. This proved that the SBA department was not reponsible.

• My greatest challenge as an executive, in the area of communication, has clearly been the challenges surrounding an uncooperative team member. I have an employee who has worked for the organization for 18 years. She does not adjust well to change, and based on her ethinic background, has varying veiws on her career and what should be expected of her. She is difficult to communicate with because of the language barrier, coupled with her poor attitude.

• The following is a work situation where my inability to document appropriately challenged communications with an employee. I was the Program Director at a nonprofit organization that provided case management and homecare services to the aging and disabled. I supervised 16 staff. Most of the staff were above average to excellent workers; evaluations were a joy and suggested improvements were taken well. I have terminated several employees and documentation was thorough and accurate. However, there was one employee that was doing marginal work. Although he did not meet all the job requirements he was eager to learn new skills and I believed he had the ability. In addition, he spoke Spanish fluently and the agency needed someone with that skill. He did not learn quickly but he tried hard and was well liked by most of his clients and homecare workers. His productivity was lower than his five coworkers and he was frequently late for work. I spoke with him on numerous occasions but never documented our discussions. His coworkers began to verbalize their frustrations to both of us. For one month, I researched his productivity trends, and found that he was not meeting standards. Again, I did not document this finding. Shortly after, I accepted a new job. I needed to evaluate the staff before I left. Knowing that I did not document his deficiencies well, I decided to give him a better evaluation than he deserved. But I did discuss the areas that needed improvement. After reviewing his evaluation with him, in protested he stated that I did not have clear evidence to warrant this evaluation. Since I did not document are conversations well, he had several valid points. I agreed, and offered to modify the evaluation. Again, he protested, arguing that I should not change the evaluation. After reminding him that I do have that discretion, I also, proclaimed that this was not a bad evaluation and that it explicitly identifies areas needing improvement. I attempted to explain that evaluations should give people goals but since he did not have any experience with evaluations he was not in agreement. After he left my office, he went to talk to a coworker and saw her evaluation lying on the desk. He noticed that her evaluation was much better and he became enraged. He left the office, and refused to talk to me when he returned. This was definitely one of the worst communication related experiences I had as a director. The worse part was not that he was angry with me, but that my actions were a disservice to him.

• - In a previous job experience as Marketing Director, my VP would give projects to one of my direct reports without my prior consultation, resulting in a confusion over priorities and resistance from my direct report about accepting my orders. If I were to accept my VP’s involvement in managing my staff, it would create disrespect or a perception of weakness among my staff members. Discussing this delegation problem with my boss resulted in the declaration that this work relationship (behind my back) was a so called teacher-student relationship. Another unfortunate circumstance was that it happened in a start-up environment where structures and processes are not as rigid as in larger corporations and where such problems could find an ear with HR and senior management more easily. The powerful personality made others in the company uncomfortable and reluctant to confront my VP. My discussions with HR and members of the (junior) corporate management team were fruitless. In the end I decided to document my concerns with my HR -- of which my VP received a copy -- which ultimately created a very uncomfortable atmosphere in the office.

• I recently had a conversation with the CEO of the company to inquiry about the next level of authority/position within the company. I'm currently a Vice-President among a team of 5 other Vice Presidents. The company brought in a Vice President about 1 year ago, and I feel that top-level management was grooming this individual for a top-level position. I needed to make my intentions clear to the CEO that I should be the next in line for a top-level position. I'm able to be very open to the CEO about business issues and strategies. However, when it comes to discussing my employment, salary, and other career aspirations, I become timid. I prepared myself for this converstaion and felt that I had my thoughts in order to clearly communicate my feelings. Yet, when the actual time came to have this discussion my voice became very shaky and I was unable to convey my thoughts clearly. I felt that I wrapped to much emotion around this conversation and did not portray myself in a manner to which a senior level individual would exhibit. The CEO was very gracious during our conversation and noticed that I visibly terrified discussing this issue. When the ocnversation was finsihed, I felt I should have done a better job communicating my thoughts.

• The biggest challenge that I have ever made in my experience is that I initiated a turnover of the network architecture in NTT DoCoMo. It was a drastic change from a traditional architecture in telecom world to the latest architecture with up-to-date Internet technology. It was an unusually difficult task to undertake because most of our R&D members had long been working with traditional telecom technology, which is conceptually different from Internet technology. Moreover, their experience in developing the former 2nd generation mobile phone system was too successful to want to adopt the unknown Internet technology. However, I felt strongly it was worth me making the efforts effect a change. I had an ambition that, once my idea prevails, I can play leadership in planning the architecture. NTT DoCoMo is a very typical traditional company. NTT DoCoMofs R&D consists of approximately 700 people, most directly out of universities, and few from other companies. As a result, senior engineers tend to be technically conservative. They attempt to create new systems by extending current systems. Furthermore, people freshly graduated from universities are usually obedient to seniors and faithfully follow their seniorsf approaches and ideas. Therefore, NTT DoCoMo has little chance to bring in the external expertise, such as state-of-the-art Internet technology. On the other hand, I would say that I am an Internet-generation engineer who loves changes. When I first touched Windows95 5 years ago, my technological curiosity was focused on Internet. I realized its potential. I learned Internet technology skills mostly when I was a university student. When I came to NTT DoCoMo, I was one of the few TCP/IP experts. At the same time, NTT DoCoMo was developing Internet-connection feature. I wondered if they could develop such system without understanding the nature of Internet. As I anticipated, the plan was obsolete. For a typical example, NTT DoCoMo was promoting an architecture which compels users to make traditional Dial-up procedure when they want Internet connections. This architecture just followed the fixed public line architecture in that when there is no data to be sent, the connection should be disconnected. I insisted on introducing an always-connected architecture instead, because I have had an instinctive belief that always-connected environment is the essence of Internet and will soon become the mainstream. The persuasion was a trial. It was a tough job. I asked many members in various departments to listen to my consideration. Some opposed because it was unprecedented. Others were skeptical about unknown Internet technology. I always explained the details of Internet technology and its reliability, but the discussion would not achieve consensus. It seemed that I had met with failure, but I refused to give up. I was convinced that my proposal was worth accepted. After a few months to refine on my idea, I prepared a concrete report, and again set a series of face-to-face meetings with core members. I brought my report and repeated my proposals, but in different way. Discussing the topic with my report, more people started to agree with my proposal. Some were even surprised at the current Internet trend from my report. Finally, I once again talked to the key person who can make the final decision on the architectural argument. I explained the market trend and mentioned that more members agreed with my ideas. Finally, major modifications were introduced to the architecture plan, which included some of my proposals. Since then, I am often invited to meetings which involve fundamental decisions in NTT DoCoMo.

• The job I held prior to Cetrus was a Geotechnical Engineer. When comparing the writing requirments for the different engineering disciplines, Geotechnical easily ranks the highest. I spent most of my day writing reports for clients or communicating with team members. Reports would consist of several hours of field time and research then about 10 hours of writing and revising. Over a period of 3 years I prepared hundreds of letters and dozens of formal lengthy reports. Team members consisted of peers, city engineer, civil engineer, client, contractor, support staff, and supervisors. Verbal communication consisted of quick moments where information was passed. Conciseness made for efficient communication and a fun, efficient work place. I remember clearly an instance where the communcation between the word processing staff and myself was insufficient. The report was past due. I had made it clear that the client was important and we needed to perform. My insistance irritated the staff and the project was not completed. I needed to be clear, concise, and understanding in this situation. I was not. Communication is the backbone of every company. It has been a weak point in my education, I strive every day to overcome this weakness.

• I work in the media field as an Advertising Account Manager. As a media representative it is beneficial to develop long term relationships as the selling cycle can take years. A few months ago I called on two media planners at an advertising agency. The purpose of the call was to learn more about the account objectives and share relative information about our product. After only a few minutes I found that our demographics didn't match the target of their client. I mentioned that we were not a perfect match for this particular client at this time. I then proceded to update them on our product information but left on a somewhat negative note. Although I know them well, I felt like I has wasted their time. I should have taken the opportunity to make it a productive experience for all of us.

• Recently I have had to write a persuasive letter to a target customer to grant us 30 minutes of their time for a presentation of the product we have developed. It has been a challenge because the situation we are in. We have a customer who is trying to get business of our target customer based on our technology offering. In addition once they acquire the customer, we wish to upsell our additional product capabilities to this company to provide a winning solution for all the parties involved. The communication is especially challenging as we don't want to sound as if we are trying to upstage our existing customer and alienate them and at the same time we want to ensure that the target customer buys not just the portion of our solution which our existing customer is interested in, but our complete solution. Besides the challenge of not irritating our existing customer, we also have the problem of target's attention span as he is busy looking at the technology piece proposed by our existing customer and getting him to think from multiple angles might cause the target customer to loose focus and none of the deal might go through.

• My company, GuinnessUDV, is a regionalized organization with five seperate profit centers. Working in the Strategic Accounts group, I manage national customers with interests in every part of the country. The structure of these customers is opposite the structure of my company. Essentially, I am servicing centralized national customers from a regionalized sales & marketing organization. About 8 months ago a major customer with approximately 45% of their units in the West IMC (IMC is a term used to describe our five in market companies on an individual basis, eg- West IMC, Southeast IMC, etc.)had a cost of goods issue in Florida. Our souitheast region or SE IMC had taken a price increase on a critical product for this customer. The increase was not communicated to the customer, the account manager (myself) or the West IMC. This is a critical breakdown as this customer, based in Emeryville, is managed out of the West IMC. All decisions made by corporate in Emeryville, impact this customers business nationally. The customer was concerned about managing their margins in Florida and upset at the lack of communication. I placed several calls to the wholesaler and local market managers in Florida to try and diffuse the situation. I became frustrated as I realized these contact points could not remedy the situation. Finally, I spoke with the Regional Director for my company in Florida and solved the problem in three minutes. Reflecting on the situation, much time was wasted between myself, my colleagues in Florida, the wholesaler and the customer. If my company had a communication process for things like price increases, all of the miscommunication and frustration could have been avoided with a three minute phone call.

• Myself and two of my managers, both of whom having limited political and public speaking experience, had to make a politically sensitive public presentation to two members of the Board of Supervisors, a hostile public, and County Counsel. Approximately 55 were in attendance. My staff’s presentation was marginal, if not confusing, only because they were very nervous and never made a presentation in such a hostile public forum (although we practiced the presentation several times). Subsequently, I had to ferret through their presentation, resubmit the salient points, and try to reconcile a very politically tenuous situation. It was a tough meeting with marginal results.

• Last year I had a series of informal discussions with my manager about a new software product that he wanted our group to develop. I felt the proposed product competed with another of our products and that it did not offer any unique functions or features. He felt the new product would appeal to a slightly different audience. I was not convincing enough in my arguments and the product was built. Three months after it was built, upper management decided to discontinue it because it competed head-to-head with another of our products and our company could not support the cost of marketing and sales of both products.

• During the calendar year 2000, our organization changed its business model to reflect rapidly occurring events that were shaping the market in which we do business. As a result, we faced many challenges communicating the ramifications of these changes to our providers and clients. One of the key differences in the shift in business models was the mechanism for paying our service providers. Our previous method of payment was based on a per capita amount that was paid to a risk bearing entity that in turn was delegated to pay its downstream providers for services rendered to members of our health plan. In the shift to a fee for service method of reimbursement we assumed a greater responsibility for paying claims for health care providers resulting in a backlog of unpaid claims from vendors and providers. As a result, we were inundated with calls from irate vendors who had provided services and were asking to be reimbursed for those services On a Friday afternoon at about three o’clock, I received a call from the billing manager at one of our facilities. She was extremely angry about the delays in payment and accused our company of using unethical business practices in order to delay reimbursement. In addition, she demanded a cash advance to cover claims that were outstanding or she would make sure that none of our health plan membership would be admitted to their facility. With each accusation and threat, I could feel myself getting more and more angry. I wanted to lash out and defend the company but I knew that she needed to vent her frustration with someone at our organization who would listen. I let her vent until she asked for my response and then I began to speak. Four words were uttered before she began to berate me again with the accusations and threats. Again I let her vent and asked that she let me speak in order to address her concerns. The second attempt was more successful as I reassured her that her facility was a valued part of our health care delivery system and that we had a process in place for getting her the monies she wanted and apologized for the delay in payment. After she heard me say that she calmed down a bit more and seemed ready to listen to details. I asked her what it would take for her facility to continue admitting our members. She paused and said that she needed to speak with someone at the corporate offices in order to get an amount. I asked her for the name of the contact at corporate and told her that I would call this person directly and find out what it would take to improve their cash flow. She took me up on the offer and seemed relieved that I had offered to help. During the exchange between our two organizations, I facilitated the communication among three internal departments and two external ones in order to arrive at a number that was satisfactory to both parties and would allow the facility to continue seeing our members. Since the logistics of such an advance take time, I also faxed a letter that afternoon committing to the advance payment in one week. As a result the provider continued to admit members to their facility over the weekend once they were assured their monies. In conclusion, I think the hardest part of the communication was allowing the billing manager to vent her frustrations and make threats without engaging her in that behavior. In the end, she left the exchange feeling that she had been successful and that her frustrations had been heard. Our company left the exchange with more organizational credibility and with a high quality cost-effective provider remaining in our network.

• Experienced a difficult time communicating with another manager and coordinating a internal job transfer of a new employee between 2 departments. An employee, Liz, applied for an internal job requisition that I had open for our department. Liz submitted appropriate paperwork to allow her to interview for the job. We interviewed Liz and she was an excellent candidate and excited about our position. We made her an offer using the companies internal hiring software tool. Her manager, Jake, refused to approve the transfer even though Liz met all the requirements. The job transfer situation occurred at a time when our company was ramping and highly qualified people with new Oracle experience were at a premium. I first talked with Jake one-on-one to negotiate a transfer date (company guidelines were with-in 30 days), I was willing to accept 45 days. Jake would not agree to a date, citing that it would take several months to train someone to take over for Liz. In the mean-time, Liz was anxious to move on to the position with increased responsibility. After my first meeting with Jay failed, I held an informal conference meeting with Jake, me, and my manager who was at the same grade level as Jake. We brought up the needs of the employee and discussed how employee (Liz) was excited about the new position. That meeting failed. We then called in HR to meet and Jake again refused to comply. We were frustrated with the whole situation and needed a person to fill our position quickly so we dropped the offer. Several weeks later, we learned that Liz was very upset that the job offer had been dropped. She was anxious to move to a position of increased responsibility. She then gave notice to Jake that she was going to leave our company. That finally convinced Jake to let her transfer. HR pleaded with us we had another job requisition created to accomidate Liz.

• Trying to revise business processes/ new software implementation. Today, most of us are thinking about how to optimize performace and improve efficiencies. Often there are process changes (for example with specialized software/ automation) which must be implemented in streamlining efforts. The success of implementing these process changes directly relates to how effectively the utility of new systems are communicated. I have had this challenge recently with the implementation of electronic purchasing systems (using SAP) in R&D. The largest hurdle is really describing all advantageous aspects of the system to be adopted, and appealing to a diverse spectrum of users. Besides the functional bents of different employees in different areas of the company, there are personality differences in approaching tasks. Careful thought is needed to encompass all stakeholders.

• Last winter, an independent third party asked me to write a proposal for some consulting services that would address the needs of a social services agency. The independent third party reviewed my proposal and he in turn, was trying to reformulate my offering as his own ability to deliver on the consulting work. He asked for several revisions, so that my proposal would fit into his “Master Plan”. After reviewing the “Master Plan” (which contained my proposal), with the social services agency, it became apparent that the “Master Plan” was being crafted on the fly. Subsequent discussions raised the question about the value of having the third party involved in the overall process.

• A challenging communication work experience. Employee Review: I had prepared an annual employee review for an hourly non-union employee. Goals and expectations are set up for the operation as a whole, as well as individually. Each goal is rated on a system of 1-5, with 5 being the highest rating. System works as follows: Below a 3, not doing the job. 3. Doing the job 4. Exceeding job expectations 5. Superior performance This employee was a “3”. Both the writer and the employee’s immediate supervisor rated and agreed to the rating before the appraisal. During the review, everything went sideways! The employee could not understand why he wasn’t getting a top rating, a “5”. Even with documentation, such as productivity numbers, he was unyielding in his belief of being a super performer. No amount of discussion, examples, or review of goals, would Change his belief in his performance. I ever had such a distance between a review rating that I prepared and the employee perception.

• I had challenges speaking and presenting in pubic. I would get extremely nervous and spend weeks preparing for the presentations. I would get more nervous when I presented to my colleagues and peers than to the customers.

• My situation is one surrounding the termination of an employee for of all things, excessive telephone usage. The feeling of her co-workers, and of other department staff was that her constant use of the phone negated her ability to complete tasks assigned to her in a prompt manner. I had the task of attempting to articulate the feelings of her co-workers, and other senior management that although we enjoyed her personality greatly, that the abusive telephone use had to be eliminated. I had several meetings with the employee in question, and in the beginning was very informal, stating that I had noticed some issues with her work etc, but that I was sure she could change her behavior. The employee was very understanding, a little shocked, and she indicated the willingness to change. Meeting took perhaps 20 minutes and I was happy with the way I had stated my feelings, not bringing the comments of other staff memembers into the discussion at all. The second meeting was more tense. I had seen her many times abusing the phone, and company time, and had asked her or given her ""looks"" to indicate my unhappiness with her actions. The meeting was much more confronational on her part. I indicated what I had noticed, informed her of the written warning I had typed, and what others had noticed. I gave her time to respond as well, documenting her comments later. In addition, I had requested the phone records and consulted with our Human Resources Department. The employee broke down, cried, and said she would change, and that she would sign the written review. I once again indicated that everyone liked her, and I certainly had nothing against her, she was a very good person, but her social life was affecting her ability to do her job. I think if anything my personal relationship as a friend with her was affecting my ability to make business decisions as a manager. Her behavior continued to be substandard. Finally, I was forced to let her go, primarily b/c upper management was furious with her lack of attention to projects. My superivior, her and myself all had a meeting. Once again she cried, told my superivior that he abused the phone more than everyone else, had some other very umpleasant things to say to each of us, and stormed out the door.

• I was working as a consultant for a major energy producer. My client was the type of individual, that in meetings and one on one situations, spoke to review his own thoughts and points of view. If an associate or myself was in the process of answering a question or attempting to make a point, he would begin talking over you, when you were about half done. How do you communicate with a person that isn't taking input?

• I was assigned to manage a project that involved a blend of independent contractors and company employees. We were down to the wire of bringing the project to completion (on time). For budgetary reasons, I made the decision to require the company employees to work overtime (they were salaried), whereas the independent contractors were allowed to go home on time (to get them off the clock). Approaching the two groups (which since the beginning of the project had worked as a team) differently created resentment amongst those workers required to stay overtime. This resentment led to a tangible decrease in productivity. I had to sit down each of the employees (separately) and describe why I chose to do what I did. This was initially very uncomfortable, but through thoughtful communication I was able to get their 'buy-in' on why they were being treated differently from the independent contractors and with that buy-in as a team, we were able to bring the project to completion on time and within budget.

• Background: In a small 20 person planning/design firm, management determined that it was time to implement some long overdue employee terminations. I was responsible for the terminations as well as the follow-up meeting with Dept. Managers. The follow-up meeting with Dept. Managers was the real challenge. The purpose of the meeting was 3-fold: 1)quickly inform managers with details of what had occurred; 2)begin to contain the office gossip fires; 3)provide the information so it could be relayed to all the employees. I focused the meeting on the long term benefits of the actions, managements decision-making process as well as projecting a secure and healthy outlook for existing employees. It was a lot to accomplish in one meeting. Even though many of the manager were aware of the potential for lay-offs and had endorsed the plan many seemed unsettled. The meeting felt flat, with the managers being somewhat unresponsive and disengaged. At the end of the meeting I wasn't confident that the meeting had accomplished anything at all. -up ma

• My sales team consists of four members. Typically, my team has one inside support person for every two outside salespeople. We recently lost one of our inside support personnel and the second inside support person was promoted to outside sales. At this time, my company also was going through layoffs and therefore neither of our inside support positions are likely to be replaced. This has caused problems in my sales team and is making my team unable to make customer calls as we spend our time in the office taking care of inside matters. My sales team met with our manager to discuss this situation and try to come up with ideas as to how we can cope with this reduction in force and also meet our numbers for this year. We tried to petition for additional bodies to be added. Due to the current economic situation, we were told that our company will not be adding inside support in the near future. Next, we discussed how to better handle our market given our current resources. Ideas were thrown out, however we did not reach consensus. Our manager told us to think things over for a week and meet again to discuss our ideas. We have calculated the increased amount of time that we spend in the office and the effect that this is having on our sales dollars, however our pleas fall on deaf ears.

• I held a meeting to counsel an employee whose productivity was unacceptable. The meeting was to cover the following four items: * Discussing her productivity and why it was unacceptable * Goal setting * A plan for reaching these goals * Provide formal written notice that her employment with our company would be terminated if the goals were not met. While my purpose for the meeting had been very clear going in, the meeting quickly took on an emotional tone and was unproductive. As I brought up her productivity level, she became very defensive and went on the attack. I tried to bring the meeting back to discussing the topics on the agenda, but to no avail. Before long, my frustration had turned to anger, and I stopped the meeting realizing that both of us were now communicating from emotion and that nothing good would result. To the contrary, the meeting now held legal risk. When I stopped the meeting, none of the items except her potential termination were covered, and I had not covered that in the manner intended. I turned the matter over to the corporate HR department to handle, realizing that the situation had escalated to a point where the employee and I could not professionally deal with the issues.

• A very typical kind of communication that I do regularly is the monthly operation review to upper management. In this forum my objective is to update the status of the projects that my group is working on. I am to communicate both the progress as well as the setbacks. To be successfully, I have to be well prepared and organized. It is not enough just to have the facts clearly presented, but I must also craft my presentation in such a way it will address the anticipated questions and concerns. You must have a respond ready for every question that you bring up.

• Selling through distribution has many challenges that involves my organization as well as another organization that may not always have the same agenda. My organization recently closed a large contract, at very low margin, to supply chemicals to a large institution using our main distributor. On a particular occasion we find out that the distributor is promoting our competitor's material which they can sell for three times the margin. I confronted the region manager and conveyed my feelings about the situation, explaining how unethical it is to perform such practices. I also explained to him how counter productive it is to continue to promote our competitors just to gain more margin. He just gave me a blank look and double talk but refused to listen. I had to step it up a notch in intensity. I then informed him of the severity of the situation. ""We were the only company that stepped up to this deal and guaranteed you a certain margin, if we do not get a certain volume of sales we will not renew the contract with you,"" in my stern voice. That pretty much got his attention.

• I recently had to advise two employees, seperately, that our company was initiating a Reduction In Force and that their positions were being eliminated. The RIF had been the subject of many rumors and several members of the department had predicted/discerned the actual date. The notification meetings were handled on a one-on-one basis between the employee and myself. The meetings were held in an office that did not belong to me. I personally went to each employee and asked them to come with me to the office. I'm sure they understood what was happening as soon as I approached them. Prior to the notification, training was held for all managers that would be involved in the notification process. The training covered the severance benefits package, outplacement services, employee exit requirements, security information, legal information, and training from a consulting company on how to handle the notification meeting. A script for the meetings was developed by the HR team and we were asked to follow it during all of the notification meetings. The script called for an initial announcement of the RIF and notification that the employees position was being eliminated. This notification was followed by a pause to guage the employees reaction. In both cases the employees reacted in a calm matter and seemed to accept my explanation for the action. The meeting continued on with an explanation of the severance package, the employees status for the an interim period of 60 days, notification of information meetings to provide more detail on the benefits package, and the signing of several legal documents (confidentiallity disclosure, intelectual property, stock options, etc.). The meeting concluded with an inventory and retrieval of all company property from the employee. We were directed to avoid wavering from the script and to direct any questions to an HR representative. Following the script made it easier to conduct the notification meeting but it also made it an impersonal meeting. The script was used to convey the necessary information and avoid any possible legal problems. This was the third time this year I had been involved in these notification meetings but I was still a little nervous prior to the first meeting. Once the first meeting started the nervousness went away and I was able to follow the script and ""check off"" the notification requirements. The same script had been used for all of the actions this year and I found it easier to follow this last time.

• I had an experience when conducting a meeting. I was presenting data that was taken just prior to the meeting. Some of the data was misleading because of the hardware that was used to take the data. There was a component of hardware noise that was introduced and it made the trends inconsistent. One of the participants starting asking pointed questions. In addition, he started making assumptions on the meaning of the data. He became rude and obnoxious. I froze up and was not able to defend the data because I did not anticipate the questions and behavior. From then on, I always asked myself, what the potential questions would be. I spoke to the person after the meeting and asked him to be more considerate. I also became more selective on what data I would present.

• barry - test on new TSV

• In my capacity as a Regional Appraisal Manager for a leading financial institution, my most important role is risk analysis. I serve in the capacity of being the eyes and ears of the risk division, which may result in an REO (foreclosed property). There is constant friction between loan origination and quality control. If a risk analysis is rated high or excessive, the loan is virtually denied. The lender is location sensitive, so this aspect of the collateral is equally as important as value. In this capacity, I have the ability to re-evaluate a transaction if origination can provide supporting documentation that would support a change in risk or value. The company does have policies and guidelines that each department is aware of. The manager (my counterpart) in the loan origination department made an appeal based on reasons that were insignificant to the transaction and risk because they were contrary to policy. The problem began when she went to my immediate supervisor, and he caved in and changed policy! I feel undermined by the way things occurred, and I feel as though my authority has been undermined. There are clerks involved in this scenario, and they now that I have lost in regards to corporate policy. The transaction level has been decreased, and I am sure that this was a business decision. How do I redeem myself in front of staff?

• Barry Test

• My challenges in communicating effectively occur primarily during oral presentations. During training seminars, for example to our sales force or to customers, I tend to become nervous and lack confidence in conveying the information effectively. Due to my anxiety, I often ""ramble"" or give wordy explanations where only a brief statement or concise description would be most effective.

• I am a Purchasing Manager and manage a staff of seven Purchasing Buyers. One of their weekly responsibilites, is to review all open purchase orders of their delivery date commitments from our suppliers. One of their performance metrics is to not have more than 3% of their open purchase order line items past due. Every Monday morning around 8am, a report is generated (sorted by buyer name) by one of the purchasing assistants, identifying all open purchase orders line items and those items that are past due (and percentage past due). I have one employee who had the following performance metric over a 3 week period: Week 1: 5% Week 2: 11% Week 3: 7% In week one, I had called in this employee into my office and requested root cause and corrective actions on the past due items. In week two, I again called in this employee into my office and requested a much more detailed explanation of these new past due items. The employee tried to provide explanations for the past dues but acknowledged that the metric was not being met and that ""it would not happen again"". I explained to this employee that this performance was unacceptable. The employee's response was ""what do you want me to do"". My response was something to the effect of ""get the job done""! On the Monday morning of Week 3, the report was generated as normal. Some of the same line items from the previous week were not updated and again past due. As you might imagine, I was quite upset and disappointed. After about 10 minutes trying to gather my thoughts and my composure, I called in the employee into my office, and ask for an explanation. The employee said that a request was made to the suppliers of these past due line items, to provide updated delivery commitments so that the database could be changed to these new dates. Unfortunately, the employee did not get the supplier response until after the report was generated Monday morning. At that point, I again replied that this was unacceptable and gave a verbal warning. The employee then said that this was the first verbal warning at this company and then left. Since that time, the employee's performance has been satisfactory. I still feel that there is need to remind this employee of the Corrective Action process and that this could lead to termination but I have not made the time to do so.

• I have a coworker who is a fellow supervisor in the same department. One morning while I was waiting for a print job to complete at the shared laser printer and he was reproducing copies, I said, ""Good morning"" to him and two of his workers. They responded, but he continued to use the reproduction machine. I turned and spoke to someone else and in that exchange I mentioned that it always makes the day go better when I start off with a greeting. Well, he spinned around, red-faced and with a raised tone of voice said, ""Well, everyone isn't a Marine!"" I asked him what that had to do with speaking. He said that he only had a few hours sleep because he was working on a presentation and that he was late for the briefing. I told him that it was a personal problem and something that he had to work out. He told me to leave him alone and go away, but I refused to leave until my print job was completed. I told him that he needed to work out his issues and better manage his resources. The two men who worked for him came to my office and apologized to me for his behavior. I only spoke to him when professional business required it during the next 6 months.

• While working at Lam Research Corporation as Division Controller, I often assisted the Marketing group in evaluating the profitability of contracts. In one particular instance, I along with the Marketing Director, held a conference call with the Sales Director for Taiwan. As often would happen, the Sales Director requested to sell a system at a very low margin, with lots of giveaways. The division asked the Sales Director to improve the margin, by raising the price and limiting the giveaways; after much discussion, we came to a verbal agreement. The Marketing Director followed up with an e-mail detailing the agreement. The next day, the Taiwan Sales Director responded to the e-mail disagreeing with some of the detail in the agreement. The Sales Director also stated that he had already presented the contract to the customer, based on his version of the verbal agreement. After many e-mails and several conference calls, we were able to close on a contract that was acceptable to everyone involved. As I later learned, when communicating with people outside of North America, especially Asia, it is critical to understand their culture. Often Asian people will respond to a request by saying yes (this is considered polite), even though they may not completely understand the request.

• During my last job as a sales engineer, I had to make an unscheduled sales presentation near Raleigh, NC, the following morning. The challenge was that I was in Tampa, FL, at the time on another sales call. I had to use all my resources (i.e., cell phone, PC, customer knowledge) to make this happen. First, I had to politely cancel my sales calls for the remainder of my trip in Florida. Then, I hopped on the next flight from Tampa to Raleigh. I created the sales presentation with my PC on the plane ride. As a traveling salesman, I learned quickly that a lot of Kinko's Copier stores are located near colleges. After I arrived in Raleigh, I printed out my presentation at Kinko's near NC State University. After a couple of hours of sleep, I made my presentation to the customer. The adrenaline got me through the follow-up questions.

• My greatest workplace communication challenge occurs when I have to hold customers to oral agreements we have agreed to in a meeting. I always recap key points and agreed to decisions in a formal, written document. However, there is almost always a change in the percetion of the agreement in the time between the meeting and the actual implementation or action derived from the agreement. Some of this is due to the elapsed time, and some of it is due to one or both sides changing their position. Instances where this occurs are the greatest communication challenges I face at work.

• My line of work is very fast paced and time sensitive. Our clients always come first and we have to treat them with respect and cater to their needs. I once had a client disagree with a stock trade I did on their behalf, basically they thought they told me a certain price to sell it at which I did not do. Client got irrate at first and said all sorts of things at they should not have said. I almost lost my composure but actually stayed pretty level headed since I remembered the conversation earlier with them specifically. I went over basically word for word what we spoke about when he gave me the order. At first he was still upset and finally hung up on me. The next day he called in to appologize for his behavior. He said he was not thinking clearly, his wife just filed for divorce that morning and that I was right.

• During a discussion with a subordinate regarding area's of opportunity, I felt we had come to an agreement on specific activities that would help this person improve their skills and thus allow them to advance to greater responsibility. I heard after our discussion from her immediate supervisor a recap of their conversation which feedback to me a completely different message than I had delivered. The individual had taken our discussion not at all as it had been intended.

• I recently experienced great difficulty with the CEO of the last company I was with prior to working at Del Monte. I had a direct reporting relationship with him as the Vice President of Sales and he had prefaced the job as a strategic position in which I needed to develop the future mission and vision for the sales force. In order to accomplish the task, I needed to conduct quite a bit of research on the company past and present. I needed to talk to key people within the organization and more importantly, actually listen to what they had to say. Lastly, I was hoping to spend a lot of time initially with the CEO to get his thoughts on what his company was all about and where he thought the future lay. Unfortunately, in talking to people and doing research, I found that the CEO was extremely detached from his people. He did not share thoughts with them, nor did he listen to them much when they had something to say. He felt that his position was purely dictatorial and that leadership was about telling people what to do. He had expected me to come up with several possibilities and he would simply choose from among them. I did develop a mission and vision based on everything I heard and learned from research and personnel. In that vein, words were less important than the concept and spirit we were trying to evoke. We needed to give people a beacon they could look to so that they could realize ownership and gain focus. The CEO felt that words were important for impression and significance. I agreed in part with him and I stated that we could make any change he wanted, but, that it was important to maintain concept and spirit. He did not listen. I know that he did not hear me because he did not explore my thoughts with questions. He did not attempt any any further dialogue to try to understand thoughts other than his own. In the end, the mission and vision statement were both generic and had no feel for originality or identity. I ended up positioning the mission and vision, trying to mold them verbally in the spirit that so many had expressed. I went on hoping that people felt that I had listened to them and that had I understood what their needs were.

• Challenging Communication Experience I recently had to counsel an employee on her performance since she was not meeting her deliverables to the Maserati NPI Team. This was challenging because I wanted to be sensitive since she is a new mother and has had difficulty managing her ""work/life balance"". During our 1:1 meeting, I mentioned that I noticed she had been struggling to keep up with the workload and asked if she needed assistance. She acknowledged my observation and began to cry. I suggested that she could be reassigned to a sustaining product where the workload was less dynamic and would allow her to manage her time more effectively. I stated that I wanted her to be successful at work and home. She offered several other suggestions and requested to remain on the NPI project provided she met her deliverables. Given that she had recognized the problem and wanted to be part of the solution, we agreed that she would remain on the project and I would review her performance weekly.

• Throughout the course of 2002 I have managed the technical side of a systems development effort for a high return, high impact software project. On many occasions a certain project team member has conducted herself in a manner that is not conducive to a positive and effective work environment. For the purpose of this discussion we will call this team member Suzan. Two internal systems are used by a group of approximately 200 users, half of them use the old system (OLD) and half use the new system (NEW). The users on OLD were to be migrated to NEW once the project was successfully completed. The new system needed to handle additional responsibility currently available on the old system but not yet built into NEW. Though the old system has the required functionality it has always been considered clunky, not user friendly, a training challenge and lent itself to a high rate of user-introduced errors. Early in the project, Suzan, the lead business analyst for OLD was tasked with providing components for a detailed analysis of what functionality NEW needed. On multiple occasions throughout the project it became evident that Suzan was either unfamiliar with the systems development process or much too busy with other work to fully engage in the work on NEW. Given Suzan is a long time veteran of systems development the latter is more likely unless other unidentified issue exist. Team working was not aided by virtue of the entire project being managed remotely with no two-team members in the same building let alone the same state. During the first phase of implementation and migration to NEW, the work that was needed from Suzan had not occurred. This gave the proponents of NEW the challenge of implementation without having the critical expert information from Suzan. Needless to say Suzan appeared to be vary satisfied with the shortcomings of NEW leaving only one viable option for the project team; migrate 80% of the users while leaving 20% of the users to use the original system. Had early teaming occurred, the critical information that Suzan had could have been shared allowing the system migration to have completed as scheduled.

• One experience that seems to take place monthly is the ability to develop a persuasive presentation to win a new business assignment from a potential client. Sometimes, it's the presentation that matters most - team chemistry, clarity, enthusiasm, etc. Other times, it is the actual document that wins the game. That is why we place so much time and emphasis on the document because one never knows who will read it. It will be a reflection of the team's committment and enthusiasm for the business.

• My current position with the Pepsi Bottling Group often requires me to interact with customers of varying backgrounds and abilities to speak English. One situation comes into mind where a customer and I had a difficult time discussing his current pricing architecture. The customer owes a small warehouse where he distributes sodas and other beverages to small mobile catering carts. The customer was concerned that he was able to purchase Pepsi products at Costco for less than he could purchase the same products direct from Pepsi. My response to his concerns where grounded on economies of scale, Costco is able to purchase Pepsi for a more aggressive price given their volume, and thus is able to pass those savings on to their members, and that Costco and other Club stores often take a loss on soda in order to drive traffic. My customer’s view point was based on the idea that larger corporations are given special treatment resulting in more aggressive pricing and that large corporations such as Pepsi should take into consideration that smaller business often have higher costs and should receive a brake by being able to purchase products at the same price as similar business larger in size. Attempting to explain these two concepts given a language barrier and a difference in overall business experience made this conversation very difficult for both parties. After a lengthy discussion and the use of very basic vocabulary and theory, both of us were able to express our points of view. I still am not 100% confident that this particular customer and I came to any firm understanding or agreement, but I do know that he did appreciate the time that we shared explaining our varying stances. After all is said and done, I feel that I do understand my customer better now that I have a more firm understanding of how he views his business and what he feels fuels his success as a small distributor. Also, I feel confident that this customer knows that even though his business is on the smaller end of the scale that I appreciate his business enough to sit down and listen to his ideas and concerns and respond with professionalism, courtesy, and salesmanship.

• While working as the controller of my previous employer, our CFO sent both the Director of IT and me to our subsidiary’s offices in Louisville, Kentucky with two purposes: to determine if their internally developed accounting software could be implemented company-wide, and to assess the abilities of their accounting department in respect to handling all accounting transactions. During our visit, I concluded that the software could and should be implemented, and that the finance staff had an excellent knowledge base regarding the software. Upon returning to San Francisco, the CFO asked my opinion. Little did I know that my CFO had already made his decision to lay-off the entire Louisville department and centralize all accounting in San Francisco. He sent me expecting that I would draw the same conclusion and sent the Director of IT to gather additional support for his conclusion. The CFO himself had never even been to our subsidiary’s office, nor had actually met anyone working there. So, while I tried to convey my opinion, each and every one of my reasons for retaining the Louisville staff was methodically shot down by the CFO. I felt as though I was tricked. The challenging aspect of the discussion was being able to continue supporting my opinion, even though I had realized my opinion was worthless and wouldn’t be recognized.

• I have had many situations where indidviduals have become irate and loss control of their emotion. I am a Branch Manager for a reputable Satffing Agency and we have many different individuals coming from various backgrounds registering for empolyment. In hard economic times like we are experiencing in the Bay Area often emotions can run high. One specific incident that remains with me is when an individual came stomping in to the office screaming obscenties about why a position that had applied was filled without him being properly notified. At the time there were at least 6-7 people registering in the lobby and I had to everything possible to defuse the situation and get the individual in to a private room where he could air out his greiviences. I spoke with him about his frustration and he stated he tested positive for drug use and he was told that is why he was disqualified, I tried to explain to him that the test was mandatory and that there was nothing I could to help him, he became very upset and started screaming at me and he said, ""Just because I had a job didn't mean I was better then him. I gave him a number to our HR department and let him make the phone call in a private room. A few minutes later he left and the situation was over.

• I have an employee working for me that was in her current position when I was hired. She had no formal training in the position and had been working in another department for a short time before being moved to my group. English is not her 1st language and her comprehension/writing skills are limited. She was trained on the basics of production planning (her position) and turned loose. Upon my arrival, I realized her limited skill set and arranged for her to take a planning class as well as an English class. She knows the basics now (I think) but her ability to communicate information and comprehend instructions is still a key issue. Recently she made several errors when she misunderstood my directions in a meeting with the whole group. I briefly discussed the issues with her and followed up with an email to her reviewing the points I had made. I always feel it necessary, particularly when I don't have confidence that she understands what I am telling her. I copied my boss and the Human Resources Director. The HR Director is very protective of my employee (she placed her in this position) and I wanted to make sure she understood what was happening. My employee responded back to all copied in the email with a list of reasons why she made the decisions she did. She also stated that I had given her direction to do so. I was dumbfounded. I responded back to her with the list of events as I perceived them to have happened and summarized how we were going to prevent the situation from occurring again.

• It was very difficult initially to manage people who were your peers after being promoted ahead of them. What made it so difficult was the fact that they had seniority and were with the company a lot longer than I was. Not to mention, they all had aspirations to manage that location. In addition, I was coming over from another office into their branch to manage them. So, they didn’t know me too well. They knew of me, but we had never worked in the same office. Thus, not only was I promoted ahead of them, but I was also considered an outsider.

• I joined a 10 year old start-up company as the first Director of Engineering. R&D/product development had been entirely run by chemists and other scientists/managers, yet a major portion of the product under development was a mechanical device, the design of which was being done by a consultant. My communication challenge was to convince them that the new engineers that I would be hiring would have something significant to contribute to their efforts, and that the engineers would have needs that were not presently provided in the company (e.g. CAD systems, procedures, etc.). The culture was not receptive to change. It took about three months of group meetings, one-on-one meetings, presentations, test result presentations, etc. before there was a noticeable, positive change.

• Debating a fact: During our executive committee meetings, I would always make sure to present an executive summary of our sales and marketing activities for the past month. During one of one the presentations, I was attacked by a colleague (who was having a bad day) on details for which I had no information readily available to defend myself...Without thinking, I began defending my position. I was coming from a position of weakness instead of regrouping and thinking through the allegations he had just made. Had I regrouped and taken a few seconds to think, I would have been able to show the other executives present, that what he was saying was very flawed and unfounded at best. This clarity came to me soon after the meeting started and I have made sure to always take my time and breath before responding to attacks and not fly off the handle...it has paid dividends.

• A situation arised when I was a new sales representative starting out with my current company. After being in the field for 6 months, I was to ride with my Regional Sales Manager as part of my development. Because I was so nervous, I had difficulties throughout the day speaking with my customers (physicians) on the basics of my product. I would stutter and could not remember what to say.

• I will describe my latest experience in participating in a project committee to centralize and standardize operational functions in Mountain View, CA. The P90 project commenced in May 2003 with a go live phase effective July 2003. Objectives: Integrate an earlier software version to the current version, migrate accounting, purchasing, service, cost, and other departments to MV. P90 company-wide cross-functional team comprised of more than 40 members located in Washington, California, and Germany. Challenges include but were not limited to: Migration of Purchasing PO system, general ledger accounts and cost centers, A/P processes, inventory, foreign countries processes, but most of all employee morale. Scope: A flowchart was prepared listing multiple business owners from each functional area with a timeline for each phase. Each department had tasks with a completion date to be met. It was quite a complex, highly intense project due to multiple departmental goals affecting two distinct individual stand-alone divisions in addition to our daily duties and year-end. Weekly meetings occurred within finance team, purchasing team, and the leadership circle. There were instances wherein there were multiple meetings within a day either in a smaller or larger scale. We focused highly on the software’s integration of each department. During the testing phase, we tackled multiple dependencies and needed to provide creative solutions within a short period of time. After the go-live phase, we shifted to post-implementation business process issues that are still being addressed as of today. The most challenging part of my job was to communicate with highly sensitive individuals who were losing their jobs because of the integration. Politics was prevalent from top to bottom and I needed to apply my managerial and technical knowledge with utmost diplomacy. Ultimately, by staying focused with an objective mind and a positive attitude, I am able to accomplish my goals with success. Case in point: Other cross functional managers had acknowledged with rewards and recognition my efforts in insuring that my team’s contributions were above and beyond the normal course of duty.

• The experience I would like to describe is a formal presentation to senior management in a quarterly review of our division's operations. The primary challenge to my mind, was navigating the space between what we need to tell senior management and what they want to hear. More specifically, I struggled with the challenge of reconciling the desire to impress upon senior management the realities of the ""front lines"" with senior management's tendency to punish the messenger when the message conflicts with what they want to hear. Put another way, I suspect there's an art to positioning messages to senior management in such a way that maximizes their receptivity without compromising the message or one's credibility as a dependable, can-do subordinate. I guess you could put this under the header of ""speaking truth to power"" or ""How to tell the emporer that he has no clothes."". I've often joked that business schools should teach a course in ""Penetrating Senior Management Self Delusion Without Limiting Your Career.""

• I was leading a meeting with clients and had a specific goal to accomplish. I am familiar with all of the participants and they are all in varying roles and responsibilities. There were a couple of higher level managers in the meeting and both knew what goal I was working towards. The goal was set by their VP and the person who pays for me to lead these meetings and get the job done. The meeting was moving along effectively and then one of the managers starts to ask questions and I could tell he was not on board with the VP's goals. He made continuous attempts to stop and or hinder the progress we were making in the meeting. I decided to create a ""parking lot"" and note any of the issues or questions he was bringing up and made sure he and everyone else could see the ""parking lot"". It gave me the ability to make a note of his issues, not have to spend a lot of time discussing and move on to accomplish the goal.

• As part of a reduction in force in a biotech start-up, 100 people (approx. 60%) were laid off, including myself, and I had to communicate the decision, consequences and procedures to all employees, two days after September 11, 2001. This was particularly challenging in the aftermath of September 11 and due to the fact that the ""remaining staff"" should have been retained. The people who were retained showed great solidarity with the highly talented people who were let go, and morale and productivity were badly hurt. Some of the people who were laid off, including myself, were kept on for up to 8 weeks after the announcement. There were no significant severance packages.

• My issue was correctly identifying a managers tone and intent during several meeting. The tone came across hostile and challenging, not at all professional. My manager was demeaning and upset about a seriers of events that they did not clearly understand. Once we reached conclusion on our conversation, I was able to reflect on their style and prepare follow up to explain the actions needed in a calm and rational manner.

• My company introduced a new product earlier this year with the objective of penetrating the wireless handheld space. The product had been delayed for a number of reasons, most of which were related to carrier requirements that the device be ""certified"" on their voice and data network. Once launched, a few critical parts of the program had not been thought through, limiting the total potential functionality of the product. As sales fell below initial expectations I put together a position paper for action the company to take that I believed would stimulate the sales and adoption rate of the product. The written plan was roughly 4 pages in length so I felt best to present it live to the Sr. VP of the department. He was open and agreeable to my thoughts and opinions on what was ""missing"". He appeared less committed on how the organization might consider to attack the problem. None the less, there was no significant action taken nor was I asked for any additional input to the problem. Since I still feel that my assessment of the problem and potential solutions are valid, I am convinced that I could have been much more persuasive in writing and presenting the problem.

• My work in a scientific project environment means that I am often communicating with very gifted and learned individuals. My communication challenge is one of negotiating interfaces between organizational agencies. While leaders of separate organizations are accustomed to relating, teaching and guiding, they do not readily acknowledge that communication is being received, or is indeed successful in changing a previously held understanding or opinion. Communication with these leaders, therefore, must be concise, meaningful and persuasive. My challenge is to bring project goals to their attention and relate progress that will require action. For example, if equipment is needed for an experiment in August, and installation will take 3 months, the design support needed to procure and fabricate the equipment may be needed a year in advance. If the design team is progressing in a way that indicates they will not be done until December, this news is needed by both the design project leaders and the experimental leaders so that they can plan to compensate accordingly. Presenting this news is my challenge. Often it is dismissed as being inaccurate, or archaic. (rejection) Sometimes, it is refuted as being inaccurate (denial). Occasionally, the information is used as a bargaining chip for additional resources or time allotment. This is more authentic use of my communication, but ideally, the information is used to assess trends and expectations of the goals, in order to take appropriate actions.

• body

• test again

• In my profession, I seem to always have a hard time getting my point across to my at one time or another. Maybe its the age difference or generation gap but I just don't feel I get the respect I deserve from my boss. One occurence comes to mind when I was designing the website for our company. Many ideas were flowing and I guess I got to far ahead of myself or excited, but my boss began to become upset with the way I was doing things, which in turn developed into a miscommunication of ideas. I wasn't conveying my ideas clearly enough I guess, and she seemed to become frustrated with my ideas. It made me upeset because I was trying very hard on this project and without me, there would have been no website at all. Eventually things were worked out and the website is now up and functioning perfectly.

• Recently I decided to talk to my line manager regarding some concerns I had regarding the project that I was working on. The concerns were regarding certain approaches taken by the project manager that I thought were less than most efficient. I had discussed the concerns with the project manager directly earlier but thought it was necessary to communicate with my line manager about my positions on the issues as well. I was concerned about the potential impacts on the project team that might be caused by these approaches. This particular incident challenged my ability to communicate effectively because while I am confident that my understandings of the issues were correct, I was not sure whether my line manager will agree with me. At the same time I was worried about the potential misunderstandings and conflicts that might arise from the conversation. I found myself had to try very hard to articulate my position clearly in such a delicate situation while trying to remain emotionally detached. In the end, my line manager agreed with me completely and indicated his approval for my action of speaking up. However, I do hope I could have handled this more confidently with less stress. ****************** The is the pre-course assignment by Prof. Rebecca Carroll

• I am trying to persuade a sales manager to void two invoices for $602.00 for disputed services. I hired freightquote.com (FQ) to ship a pallet of my manufactured goods (bottled beer) from Oakland to Chicago for a customer's tradeshow. I contend that FQ failed to execute their services as contracted, and the goods did not arrive in time for the trade show. I refunded my angry customer their money. FQ insists on being paid for the shipment to Chicago, and the unnecessary return of the goods to Oakland. FQ claims they do not guarantee on-time delivery since they are not a shipper; FQ is only a logistics company. I argue that their employee's negligence caused the late delivery and they did not provide any logistics services of value. The shipment was ready for pickup three weeks prior to the tradeshow and the quoted shipping time was 7 to 10 business days. My warehouse informed me twelve days after the designated pick-up that the load was still in Oakland. I called to find out what happened; the FQ sales representative forgot to complete our order, but assured me there was still time to complete the transaction. The sales representative deleted the original bill of lading and issued a new one without the “RUSH” designation I requested. The load got there two days after the trade show and was refused by the hotel so the load was sent back to Oakland. To make restitution, the FQ representative proposed in writing to give me credits on future orders which would more than cover the costs of the shipping charges to Chicago and back. He planned to use a discretionary customer discount of $50 per order that I placed. The representative was fired several days later by FQ, but FQ will not honor his proposal. I am now trying to communicate and persuade managers that were not involved with the original transaction that occurred last July.

• Creating and Presenting a Financial Workshop I manage veterinary hospitals for a living. Each hospital has a management team responsible for all aspects of operations, as well as the financial health of the hospital. I decided to conduct a financial workshop for a group of hospitals that had just been added to my region. I immediately encountered challenges in laying out a framework that would flow and be easily understood by a diverse audience. I was presenting a variety of financial reports that are interwoven and require different types of analysis. These reports are generated by our corporate office. My first challenge was to create a common language, and define the different elements of the reports so that they could move easily through them. This was difficult because the reports are poorly formatted and not user friendly. The different reports relate to one another and I needed to find a way to communicate how to read each one, and how they connect with each other, without the presentation appearing disjointed. I finally decided to break them down into different components, label each one, and give an overview of those components with a PowerPoint presentation. When I actually presented the workshop I was further challenged by the differing skill levels of the managers. I needed to speak at a remedial level, yet still maintain interest for the more knowledgeable managers. I accomplished this by presenting questions that were challenging enough to engage all participants but not too difficult for those who were new to many of these concepts. The presentation had several different elements included to keep it interesting. I began with a brief quiz to test their knowledge, although I did not have them turn it in. Then I moved to the short PowerPoint presentation, which was followed by having them physically lay out the reports in a logical manner. I then explained the purpose of each report, and taught them how to analyze them. Once that was completed, I had them break into groups and gave each group a set of exercises to complete using reports from their own hospitals. Not only was it difficult to format this workshop in a manner that was logical, but it was also important and challenging to find a way to make it interesting to a group of people that were not particularly interested in the subject matter. Inserting humor periodically was helpful.

• I was in a situation that required me to solicit help from another department. Their cooperation was required in order to test new online advertising functionality being proposed by my team. There is no effective way to test this particular type of feature other than to have one of the "channels" such as News, Sports etc. present the new feature to a random sample of users. Since my team was trying to prove a concept it was crucial to get this cooperation, however since there is no immediate payoff for the channel they don't necessarily view this as a priority for their group. The particular feature that I needed help with is part of a product suite that includes multiple features, some of which are not relevant to the channel in question. The mistake that I made was to launch into a lengthy description of all of the product features rather than to focus on the particular feature that is relevant to the channel and the one that we wanted to test. The result was that we got bogged down in a lot of unnecessary detail and the other group was left wondering what exactly I wanted from them. I missed an opportunity to "close the deal" quickly and effectively and it subsequently took more meetings and explanations to gain their cooperation.

• A recurring situation that tests my communication skills is relaying business requirements from the business operation department to the technical team. The technical team will create computer functions based upon their understanding of the business requirements. Therefore, it is crucial to accurately communicate the business requirement to the technical team as well as to thoroughly examine the technical team's computer function design to ensure the computer functions as expected by the business operators. If the cross-translation is sloppy, the computer function does not follow the expected business operation, which can cause the business lost time and revenues. Most recently, our team realize a gap between the business operation expectation and the technical design during the testing phase of the computer function. To remedy situation, we had to regroup the business teams and the technical teams to restate the expected business operation and its technical solutions. This caused a delay in implementing the computer function.

• Shortly after joining a company as a technical project manager, the development manager informs me that he holds absolute power on the project I am managing. This confuses me as the organizational chart shows that we are peers, and my manager indicated that I would be managing the project - not the development manager. Additionally, the development manager states that he sees no value in the position I hold as a project manager and cannot imagine what value I bring to the project team. In fact, he is discussing a revision of my responsibilities with his manager… he’ll let me know the details once they figure it out. I replied that I was not aware of his position of absolute power, and asked how this power was bestowed on him. He produces a document from his manager alluding to his absolute responsibility to ensure the e-commerce software application involved in the project was not adversely affected. His interpretation of this document is that his responsibility gives him commensurate authority. I can think of nothing more to say about the document and the development manager’s absolute authority. I was not forewarned of this documented or the politics surrounding its issuance. To the contrary, I was lead to believe that I would be the decision-maker on this project. I say as much and commit to follow up with my manager to better understand my position in the project given this new information. I then ask about the development manager’s experience working with project managers, hoping to better understand why he believes the position to be worthless. He remains intentionally vague and dismissive in his arguments, yet challenges the value of any specific skill set or contribution I mention. I do not feel the development manager understands my arguments, and I’m not sure why we aren’t communicating clearly. I start to feel trapped and at a loss for words, partially due to the seemingly absurd positions the development manager is taking, and partially because of his condemning style of communication However, without understanding his bias, the true intent of the authorizing document, and the politics involved, I do not feel that I can affect his perceptions of project managers. I break off the discussion by once again stating my confusion and committing to follow-up with my manager on the situation he has presented. It occurs to me later in the day that his paradigm is limited to writing software and he may not understand the greater business needs that project managers satisfy. Although my arguments are valid, he does not recognize the underlying business needs that allow project managers to add value to an organization.

• Management Communications 502 Professor Barry Eckhouse By: Joe Barco Sims Metal January 10, 2005 The situation I will describe is a recent report I submitted to my managers and TXI-Chaparral management. The report describes our current status in the start up of a mega shredder at TXI-Chaparral’s steel facility located in Petersburg, Virginia. The project involves upgrades to an existing TXI-Chaparral facility, which we have agreed to operate. It involves shredding scrap material that will be used in the steel processing at their facility. The dilemma is how to report the status for a project that is currently three months behind schedule. The reason for the delays has been the weather. My main thought was to be as accurate as possible and to inform the management staff of when we expect to be completed. Originally the plant management staff at Petersburg did not want Sims Metal at their facility. Their upper management from Dallas, Texas made the agreement with Sims to operate the shredder. Thus lots of personalities involved and reasons for people to say, “I told you so”. As it turned out, the management staff at the Petersburg facility has been impressed with our progress to date. With my report in hand, they made a personal tour of the facility the first week of January. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attached Report: The following is a status report for the project. As you will note below, we plan on a trial run of approximately 200 tons the latter part of the week of January 3rd. Our biggest hurtle now is the weather. PROJECT STATUS Civil Improvements items: Concrete pads: We have completed all the proposed concrete paving adjacent the shredder including the in-feed lay down pad, the radial stacker stockpile area, and the maintenance wash down pad. The remaining concrete work includes: 1) ASR foundations and walls - contractor is currently working on these items; one of the two walls has been completed the week of Dec 27th. 2) Maintenance building foundations and floor 3) Truck scale & office foundations - will commence early January Site grading: The roadway undercutting and stabilization has been completed. The shredder site stabilization has been started with approximately 25% completed. The remaining site grading and stabilization items include: 1) Installation of road base material - 2,550 lf 2) Installation of asphalt & concrete paving for the roadway 3) Completion of the remainder of the undercutting & stabilization of shredder site area Building construction: The following items remain: 1) ASR building has been delivered; it will take two to three weeks to install once the wall foundations have been completed. 2) Maintenance building has been delivered, needs to install (will be the last item completed) 3) Truck scale and building: contractor has installed the 32 steel piles, construction of the foundations and construction of the truck scale building will commence the beginning of January. The trucks scales have been ordered and are ready to ship when needed. Mobile equipment; All proposed equipment has been received at the site with the latest delivery the second rubber-tired loader, forks, and bucket. Shredder commissioning components: All major components required to begin operations are at the site. There are several spare parts that we are still awaiting delivery on. Final installation of the multilin will be completed the week of January 3rd. The drum magnets arrived and were installed the week of December 27th. PROJECT SCHEDULE Stabilization of the shredder site, completion of the ASR building, and commissioning of the shredder will occur during the month of January. A trail run is scheduled for the first week of January (Friday, January 7th). Construction of trucks scale foundations, and office foundations by the end of January. Depending on the weather placement of roadway sub-base will be started during the month of January. Completion of the scale building and installation of the truck scales will likely be sometime February. Completion of the remaining items including the maintenance building and roadway paving are expected by the end of March. MISCELLANEOUS ACTION ITEMS: 1) finalization for the electrical usage charge 2) procurement and installation of a belt scale If there are any questions, comments, or concerns, let me know. Regards & happy new year!! Joe ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• My experience stems from a language barrier and compounded by time zones. I was dealing with a German supplier were the main mode of communication was via e-mail. This was due to time zones and the fact that I do not speak German. It would take several days for them to respond to my e-mails, delaying the project to a point that we decided to retrofit the equipment. This was a more expensive alternative but we could not afford to lose anymore time on this project. Not sure what I could have done to avoid this situation. I tried to come in and phone them directly when they were open, but that proved just as difficult.

• After two years of retail experience with my company, I was promoted to a managerial position within another retail division. I was totally green to this division -- I had experience with our product, but not in this environment or structure. I was promoted because of my successes in my previous division, my desire to enter management, and my ability to work well with people. One of the two representatives that I ended up managing also had applied for my position and assumed it was hers. She had been in her position for five years and was ready for a move. She was quite disappointed to have me step in, and I felt extremely uncomfortable knowing this. However, after managing her for a couple months, I understood why she didn't get the position. She ended up quitting on me in month 4 after we (myself and upper management) took disciplinary action against her. Management had been trying to get rid of her for a while now, and I was the one who had the pleasure of taking care of it. Having her work for me was an experience that challenged my ability to communicate.

• Situation: I was asked to present what my manager described as “the next step in package inserts” to an audience of about 120 people, consisting of scientists, engineers, marketing managers, manufacturing managers and senior management. In the medical diagnostic industry, a package insert refers to “instructions for use” for a product. My explicit instructions were to discuss what made our package insert better than our competitors, present it in PowerPoint and do it in 15 minutes. I was 1 of 10 speakers scheduled in the middle of the morning meeting session (department project status update). The challenge was to meet the expectations of the higher ranking individual responsible for the overall project. No additional guidance was given. Approach: Reviewing package inserts is generally perceived as an undesirable activity, regardless of audience. I needed to discuss the “high points” of the package insert, without losing my audience. To grab the audience’s attention, I decided to use quotes from well known scientists, physicists, etc. I entitled my presentation “The Evolution of IFU’s”, knowing I would finish by using a Darwinian quote. I did not explain what the acronym “IFU” meant until after I had used my first quote, thinking curiosity would also hold the audiences attention. In addition, before concluding with the Darwinian quote, I used another quote, that spoke directly to the scientists and engineers, but had no relevance to my topic. I use it and humorously admitted it had no relevance to the topic, but felt I should share it as a lead in to the “real” final quote. I was careful not to be overly comical due to the brevity and diversity of the audience. I practiced my presentation to “fine tune” the delivery and made certain I knew my material. Result: I believe I successfully grabbed the attention of my audience. I maintained it, even through the “dry” phase, by referring back to the quotes in the beginning of the presentation. I also alluded to a final tie-in quote coming after the “dry” material. Afterward, I had several managers walk up to me and express that they were impressed I could deliver such material and keep their attention. I got a “thumbs up” from one of the senior managers. One individual even expressed that the IFU acronym had grabbed their attention and prompted them to listen for the answer. There was even a follow up presenter who referred to one of my quotes impromptu in his presentation. Quotes Used: Alexander Graham Bell - Inventor “The most successful men in the end are those whose success is the result of steady accretion.” Thomas Alva Edison - Inventor “Hell, there are no rules here – we're trying to accomplish something.” Albert Einstein - Physicist “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” Enrico Fermi – Physicist (positioned as final quote) “There are two possible outcomes: If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery.” Charles Darwin – Naturalist (positioned as “real” final quote) “I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection.”

• I was asked to fill in as acting for an SVP role for an interim period. This role also required acting as a liaison between corporate and the Business Unit President/Business Unit senior leadership team. Unfortunately, my authority during this interim assignment was left undefined which created some ambiguity at various levels. A dispute arose between corporate and the Business Unit (BU) regarding a senior leadership forum. I did not agree with the corporate EVP's recommendation. I first gained support from the Business Unit President and then tried to persuade the EVP. Unfortunately, I was unable to obtain the EVP's agreement. This created an issue given the BU President was in agreement. Ultimately, I prevailed after numerous conversations with the EVP and supporting comments from the Business Unit President. Along the way, there were some very uncomfortable conversations with the EVP before final resolution.

• In the college textbook industry it is standard to solicit reviews of manuscripts from college professors. My job is to solicit the reviews and then to synthesize the reviews into a letter to the authors. In my letter, I provide suggestions for improvement and I guide the authors through the development of their text. Recently, reviews were returned to me, and the comments were not positive at all. I read through the manuscript and was not impressed with the author's work. My challenge was to write a letter that clearly pointed out the faults with the manuscript while providing sound suggestions for improvement. I was also trying to lessen the blow. But because I was so appalled with the work, I had trouble picking out those issues that were most important. My final letter was over five pages long. It was not necessary for me to write as much as I did, nor was the tone of the letter entirely appropriate.

• A long standing customer of mine hired someone to manage our vendor relationship. In my introductory meeting with this person, he requested that I visit their office 2-3 times per week and bring bagels and donuts. He said he had a vendor do this at a previous company and that it worked well because the vendor was always showing his face. I looked at him in amazement, but quickly realized he was serious. I replied that it sounded like an interesting idea and that I would like an opportunity for us to get to know each other better. In my previous two years of working with this client, they had never requested donut delivery, and I knew they preferred, as did I, to keep our client visits brief and to stick to business matters. Sitting their listening to him go on about the virtues of personal visits with donuts, I knew he was taking advantage of the client/vendor relationship by asking for me to do things that were not part of our contract or even business model. When the time came for me to leave, I did not commit to bringing him anything and politely left their offices. A week went by and this client began demanding services that were beyond our contract. The contract was large and the client was too important, so I allowed us to develop and implement his requests. However he began sending us irate emails about how poorly our service was and that our deliverables were wrong and that he was going to complain to his boss. When we had calls to review his concerns, he would admit that he actually hadn’t reviewed anything and that possibly all was okay. I asked him to only reply with comments after he had reviewed everything because we were spending too much time on non-existent issues. About a week later, my client services person came into my office in tears saying she felt abused and tormented by this person, and I knew it was time to end this nonsense. We again reviewed all of his requests and our deliverables, and we had done everything to his requests. I then scheduled a meeting with just his boss. She came over and I explained to her that we weren’t trying to cause problems, but that her employee was being abusive to us. I reviewed the deliverables and communications we had with him, and she was shocked. I told her the bagels and donuts story, and she went pale with embarrassment. He had not shown her any of our work and was angered that he had been putting the blame on us for not delivering. In fact much of the work he had requested was without her approval or even knowledge. We all mutually agreed that this was totally unacceptable behavior from his part and that she would talk to him. The matter was resolved and his behavior dramatically changed for the better. Two months later he no longer worked for our client.

• My manager had a situation where she had three different financial systems all giving her different results. She expected that the results would be the same in all three systems. She came to me and asked me to identify the differences and explain them to her and other members of the management team in a formal presentation. After some time I identified the differences, which were very technical. My obstacle was how do I present very technical information to a group of people who may not understand the technical aspects of financial systems. I decided my presentation would be very slow, and include many visual aids. This way I would "teach" them about the financial systems while getting my point across. The feeback I received from my presentation was outstanding and I have used this technique in other situations where the content has been technical.

• I work in the Treasury department so I interact frequently with many differnt banks, investments firms as well as co-employees around the world. Many times the same questions and concerns are voiced by folks around the world, and my team members answer them. I decided to produce a visio flow diagram along with a power point presentation and send it out to many of the business units from whom we receive these same questions. I have also presented these processes to one group that is local. Although we still receive the same questions at times, it has definitley become less frequent.

• One of the requirements of my job is to ensure that the area for which I am responsible is in compliance with various environmental regulations. If I determine that a piece of equipment is or may be out of compliance, I have to report the incident to my company's Environmental Services department so they can determine whether the specific occurrence is an issue and report any non-compliance to affected regulatory agencies. One of the Environmental Engineers is very unfamiliar with the equipment for which I am responsible and I often have to give detailed explanations of the equipment, the problem, and then explain to him which section of the specific regulation I think has been violated. Since environmental compliance is this gentleman's specialty, I get extremely frustrated when I have to do what I believe is his job and I often get short with him and I tend to get pushed to a point where I am almost completely unwilling to help.

• test again

• barry test throw out

Sample Answering: 201 responses

Question MonthsPassed

Percent

0 to 6 months

7 to 12 months

13 to 18 months

19 to 24 months

25 to 30 months

31 to 36 months

more than 36 months

MonthsPassed - Question MonthsPassed

Choice Count Percentage of Sample Answering Percentage of Sample Asked Percentage of Total Sample

0 to 6 months 129 65.2% 64.2% 63.5%

7 to 12 months 30 15.2% 14.9% 14.8%

13 to 18 months 7 3.5% 3.5% 3.4%

19 to 24 months 9 4.5% 4.5% 4.4%

25 to 30 months 13 6.6% 6.5% 6.4%

31 to 36 months 1 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

more than 36 months 9 4.5% 4.5% 4.4%

MonthsPassed - Question MonthsPassed

Choice	Count	Percentage of Sample Answering	Percentage of Sample Asked	Percentage of Total Sample
0 to 6 months	129	65.2%	64.2%	63.5%
7 to 12 months	30	15.2%	14.9%	14.8%
13 to 18 months	7	3.5%	3.5%	3.4%
19 to 24 months	9	4.5%	4.5%	4.4%
25 to 30 months	13	6.6%	6.5%	6.4%
31 to 36 months	1	0.5%	0.5%	0.5%
more than 36 months	9	4.5%	4.5%	4.4%

Question InWhatContext

Percent

A meeting with one other person.

A meeting with two or more people.

An informal working group (but not a ...

A formal oral presentation where you ...

A written transaction in which you we...

A social interaction or event (meal, ...

A telephone conversation with one person

A telephone conference call

Other. Please describe below.

InWhatContext - Question InWhatContext

Choice Count Percentage of Sample Answering Percentage of Sample Asked Percentage of Total Sample

A meeting with one other person. 42 22.1% 21.8% 20.7%

A meeting with two or more people. 45 23.7% 23.3% 22.2%

An informal working group (but not a committee or team meeting). 11 5.8% 5.7% 5.4%

A formal oral presentation where you were speaker (a briefing or speech). 43 22.6% 22.3% 21.2%

A formal oral presentation where you were in the audience. 1 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

A written transaction in which you were the author (a memo, report, or e-mail). 15 7.9% 7.8% 7.4%

A written transaction in which you were the reader. 1 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

A social interaction or event (meal, party, travel). 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

A telephone conversation with one person 13 6.8% 6.7% 6.4%

A telephone conference call 6 3.2% 3.1% 3.0%

Other. Please describe below. 13 6.8% 6.7% 6.4%

InWhatContext - Question InWhatContext

Choice	Count	Percentage of Sample Answering	Percentage of Sample Asked	Percentage of Total Sample
A meeting with one other person.	42	22.1%	21.8%	20.7%
A meeting with two or more people.	45	23.7%	23.3%	22.2%
An informal working group (but not a committee or team meeting).	11	5.8%	5.7%	5.4%
A formal oral presentation where you were speaker (a briefing or speech).	43	22.6%	22.3%	21.2%
A formal oral presentation where you were in the audience.	1	0.5%	0.5%	0.5%
A written transaction in which you were the author (a memo, report, or e-mail).	15	7.9%	7.8%	7.4%
A written transaction in which you were the reader.	1	0.5%	0.5%	0.5%
A social interaction or event (meal, party, travel).	0	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
A telephone conversation with one person	13	6.8%	6.7%	6.4%
A telephone conference call	6	3.2%	3.1%	3.0%
Other. Please describe below.	13	6.8%	6.7%	6.4%

Q.Other1 Other

Item	Frequency	Percent
(Not Answered)	176	86.7%
A media interview with several reporters	2	1.0%
spaininpain@aol.com To: spaininpain@aol.com From: spaininpain@aol.com Subject: yKMCi8Pdm(F5581D9D,Other1-1)FnCMUJeqf qnTRfEPfqKcb2HF BH .	3	1.5%
spaininpain@aol.com To: spaininpain@aol.com From: spaininpain@aol.com Subject: bM(F5581D9D,Other1-1)TG35hKMw 8 .	3	1.5%
spaininpain@aol.com To: spaininpain@aol.com From: spaininpain@aol.com Subject: Twvv1(F5581D9D,Other1-1)2 N .	2	1.0%
Webforms, e-mail, and phone calls	2	1.0%
(Unique responses)	15	7.4%
(Total)	203	100.0%

Sample Answering: 27 responses

Q.Other1 Other

• in the context of a medical unit within a hospital

• was supposed to be a team, even though we didn't know how to participate in teams yet

• several project meetings

• Staff meetings, general meetings, etc.

• employment-employee relationship

• A media interview with several reporters

• Anytime

• telephone conversations with many people.

• e-mails

• Telephone and e-mail communication with an informal working group (customer, wholesaler & internal)

• A series of informal talks with my manager. Occasionally a senior software engineer would join in the discussion.

• A defined team that resulted in seperate meetings with two people.

• one on one with other manager

• A project given to me by my boss.

• Almost all of the above

• The experience I describe occurs in most of the contexts described above.

• spaininpain@aol.com To: spaininpain@aol.com From: spaininpain@aol.com Subject: yKMCi8Pdm(F5581D9D,Other1-1)FnCMUJeqf qnTRfEPfqKcb2HF BH .

• spaininpain@aol.com To: spaininpain@aol.com From: spaininpain@aol.com Subject: bM(F5581D9D,Other1-1)TG35hKMw 8 .

• spaininpain@aol.com To: spaininpain@aol.com From: spaininpain@aol.com Subject: yKMCi8Pdm(F5581D9D,Other1-1)FnCMUJeqf qnTRfEPfqKcb2HF BH .

• spaininpain@aol.com To: spaininpain@aol.com From: spaininpain@aol.com Subject: Twvv1(F5581D9D,Other1-1)2 N .

• Webforms, e-mail, and phone calls

Sample Answering: 27 responses

Question HowMany

Percent

3 to 5

6 to 8

9 to 50

More than 50

HowMany - Question HowMany

Choice Count Percentage of Sample Answering Percentage of Sample Asked Percentage of Total Sample

2 47 24.0% 23.6% 23.2%

3 to 5 66 33.7% 33.2% 32.5%

6 to 8 39 19.9% 19.6% 19.2%

9 to 50 33 16.8% 16.6% 16.3%

More than 50 11 5.6% 5.5% 5.4%

HowMany - Question HowMany

Choice	Count	Percentage of Sample Answering	Percentage of Sample Asked	Percentage of Total Sample
2	47	24.0%	23.6%	23.2%
3 to 5	66	33.7%	33.2%	32.5%
6 to 8	39	19.9%	19.6%	19.2%
9 to 50	33	16.8%	16.6%	16.3%
More than 50	11	5.6%	5.5%	5.4%

Question OtherPerson

Percent

Someone who ranked higher than I rank...

Someone who had the same rank that I ...

Someone who ranked lower than I ranke...

An individual customer or potential c...

A representative or a member of anoth...

Other. Please explain below.

OtherPerson - Question OtherPerson

Choice Count Percentage of Sample Answering Percentage of Sample Asked Percentage of Total Sample

Someone who ranked higher than I ranked in my organization. 75 38.3% 37.7% 36.9%

Someone who had the same rank that I had in my organization. 28 14.3% 14.1% 13.8%

Someone who ranked lower than I ranked in my organization. 24 12.2% 12.1% 11.8%

An individual customer or potential customer of my organization. 24 12.2% 12.1% 11.8%

A representative or a member of another organization 31 15.8% 15.6% 15.3%

Other. Please explain below. 14 7.1% 7.0% 6.9%

OtherPerson - Question OtherPerson

Choice	Count	Percentage of Sample Answering	Percentage of Sample Asked	Percentage of Total Sample
Someone who ranked higher than I ranked in my organization.	75	38.3%	37.7%	36.9%
Someone who had the same rank that I had in my organization.	28	14.3%	14.1%	13.8%
Someone who ranked lower than I ranked in my organization.	24	12.2%	12.1%	11.8%
An individual customer or potential customer of my organization.	24	12.2%	12.1%	11.8%
A representative or a member of another organization	31	15.8%	15.6%	15.3%
Other. Please explain below.	14	7.1%	7.0%	6.9%

Q.Other2 Other

Item	Frequency	Percent
(Not Answered)	179	88.2%
Patient's daughter	3	1.5%
spaininpain@aol.com To: spaininpain@aol.com From: spaininpain@aol.com Subject: SrAqtI9M(F5581D9D,Other2-1)MeIdyCv SnRzMq .	3	1.5%
spaininpain@aol.com To: spaininpain@aol.com From: spaininpain@aol.com Subject: MzluCX(F5581D9D,Other2-1)snTO rYFU7W916r8X43X0tcvLBdvkkU7jRwWSmKrOfV1 .	3	1.5%
spaininpain@aol.com To: spaininpain@aol.com From: spaininpain@aol.com Subject: K4(F5581D9D,Other2-1) 5N ADKXuFQ9qQH4IJ1YICPnpADWRL7 .	2	1.0%
A peer level manager with a higher authority level	2	1.0%
The authors of the manuscript that I was reviewing.	2	1.0%
various co-employees	2	1.0%
(Unique responses)	7	3.4%
(Total)	203	100.0%

Sample Answering: 24 responses

Q.Other2 Other

• We were all responsible.

• A representative or a member of another internal group

• Patient's daughter

• anybody

• Not applicable it was not just one person

• same rank, different division

• I am responsible for the episode

• Multiple ranks were involved.

• spaininpain@aol.com To: spaininpain@aol.com From: spaininpain@aol.com Subject: SrAqtI9M(F5581D9D,Other2-1)MeIdyCv SnRzMq .

• spaininpain@aol.com To: spaininpain@aol.com From: spaininpain@aol.com Subject: MzluCX(F5581D9D,Other2-1)snTO rYFU7W916r8X43X0tcvLBdvkkU7jRwWSmKrOfV1 .

• spaininpain@aol.com To: spaininpain@aol.com From: spaininpain@aol.com Subject: SrAqtI9M(F5581D9D,Other2-1)MeIdyCv SnRzMq .

• spaininpain@aol.com To: spaininpain@aol.com From: spaininpain@aol.com Subject: K4(F5581D9D,Other2-1) 5N ADKXuFQ9qQH4IJ1YICPnpADWRL7 .

• A peer level manager with a higher authority level

• The authors of the manuscript that I was reviewing.

• various co-employees

• A peer level manager with a higher authority level

• The authors of the manuscript that I was reviewing.

• various co-employees

Sample Answering: 24 responses

Question RankingAbility - A

1 2 3 4 5

Analyzing audience 13.00 13.00 46.00 70.00 47.00

Being persuasive 8.00 18.00 42.00 80.00 40.00

Explaining clearly 1.00 3.00 10.00 82.00 87.00

Writing well 51.00 29.00 41.00 47.00 19.00

Controlling nervousness 37.00 32.00 56.00 45.00 17.00

Presenting effectively 9.00 5.00 23.00 92.00 58.00

Giving good reasons 3.00 6.00 26.00 111.00 41.00

Reading well 68.00 35.00 45.00 36.00 4.00

Listening carefully 8.00 10.00 34.00 72.00 64.00

Facilitating effectively 22.00 25.00 56.00 62.00 23.00

Responding to emotions 19.00 37.00 49.00 53.00 30.00

Analyzing a situation 7.00 7.00 36.00 106.00 31.00

Asking good questions 16.00 15.00 45.00 71.00 41.00

Fielding questions well 9.00 10.00 45.00 96.00 27.00

Organizing information 3.00 17.00 48.00 87.00 31.00

Debating effectively 32.00 32.00 38.00 56.00 27.00

Participating effectively 16.00 16.00 60.00 83.00 10.00

Making a good argument 17.00 13.00 59.00 75.00 23.00

	1	2	3	4	5
Analyzing audience	13.00	13.00	46.00	70.00	47.00
Being persuasive	8.00	18.00	42.00	80.00	40.00
Explaining clearly	1.00	3.00	10.00	82.00	87.00
Writing well	51.00	29.00	41.00	47.00	19.00
Controlling nervousness	37.00	32.00	56.00	45.00	17.00
Presenting effectively	9.00	5.00	23.00	92.00	58.00
Giving good reasons	3.00	6.00	26.00	111.00	41.00
Reading well	68.00	35.00	45.00	36.00	4.00
Listening carefully	8.00	10.00	34.00	72.00	64.00
Facilitating effectively	22.00	25.00	56.00	62.00	23.00
Responding to emotions	19.00	37.00	49.00	53.00	30.00
Analyzing a situation	7.00	7.00	36.00	106.00	31.00
Asking good questions	16.00	15.00	45.00	71.00	41.00
Fielding questions well	9.00	10.00	45.00	96.00	27.00
Organizing information	3.00	17.00	48.00	87.00	31.00
Debating effectively	32.00	32.00	38.00	56.00	27.00
Participating effectively	16.00	16.00	60.00	83.00	10.00
Making a good argument	17.00	13.00	59.00	75.00	23.00

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

Analyzing audience

1 13

2 13

3 46

4 70

5 47

Being persuasive

1 8

2 18

3 42

4 80

5 40

Explaining clearly

1 1

2 3

3 10

4 82

5 87

Writing well

1 51

2 29

3 41

4 47

5 19

Controlling nervousness

1 37

2 32

3 56

4 45

5 17

Presenting effectively

1 9

2 5

3 23

4 92

5 58

Giving good reasons

1 3

2 6

3 26

4 111

5 41

Reading well

1 68

2 35

3 45

4 36

5 4

Listening carefully

1 8

2 10

3 34

4 72

5 64

Facilitating effectively

1 22

2 25

3 56

4 62

5 23

Responding to emotions

1 19

2 37

3 49

4 53

5 30

Analyzing a situation

1 7

2 7

3 36

4 106

5 31

Asking good questions

1 16

2 15

3 45

4 71

5 41

Fielding questions well

1 9

2 10

3 45

4 96

5 27

Organizing information

1 3

2 17

3 48

4 87

5 31

Debating effectively

1 32

2 32

3 38

4 56

5 27

Participating effectively

1 16

2 16

3 60

4 83

5 10

Making a good argument

1 17

2 13

3 59

4 75

5 23

QRankingAbility - Question RankingAbility - A

Topic 1 2 3 4 5 Not Answered Not Asked

Analyzing audience 13 13 46 70 47 3 11

Being persuasive 8 18 42 80 40 3 12

Explaining clearly 1 3 10 82 87 5 15

Writing well 51 29 41 47 19 3 13

Controlling nervousness 37 32 56 45 17 3 13

Presenting effectively 9 5 23 92 58 3 13

Giving good reasons 3 6 26 111 41 3 13

Reading well 68 35 45 36 4 3 12

Listening carefully 8 10 34 72 64 3 12

Facilitating effectively 22 25 56 62 23 3 12

Responding to emotions 19 37 49 53 30 3 12

Analyzing a situation 7 7 36 106 31 3 13

Asking good questions 16 15 45 71 41 3 12

Fielding questions well 9 10 45 96 27 3 13

Organizing information 3 17 48 87 31 3 14

Debating effectively 32 32 38 56 27 3 15

Participating effectively 16 16 60 83 10 5 13

Making a good argument 17 13 59 75 23 3 13

Q.OtherAbility Other Ability

Item	Frequency	Percent
(Not Answered)	142	70.0%
acknowledging the emotional needs of the family.	3	1.5%
The ability to think quickly on my feet	2	1.0%
Controlling own emotions	2	1.0%
Ability to deliver apology skillfully	2	1.0%
Understanding human nature	2	1.0%
Timely resolution of the dispute.	2	1.0%
attention to informing all parties invoilved both within our organization as well as our client's organization	2	1.0%
Visual aid preparation	2	1.0%
speaking confidently	2	1.0%
(Unique responses)	42	20.7%
(Total)	203	100.0%

Sample Answering: 61 responses

Q.OtherAbility Other Ability

• Patience

• Negotiation Skills

• Muliti-lingual

• Letting the audience's emotions blow down before engaging in conflict

• Try to understand from their perspective

• getting my team mates to not interrupt me while I am presenting

• Knowing when and how to initiate Communications

• acknowledging the emotional needs of the family.

• being non partisan

• constructing effective slides

• Remaining steadfast and consistent

• Body Language

• Staying within legal limits

• Using statisitacl data to reinforce change

• Confidence

• Knowledge of Information

• The ability to think quickly on my feet

• Reviewing key points

• Controlling Emotions

• Controlling own emotions

• Know their agenda

• Communicating openly/candidly

• remaining calm

• Keeping records

• Documenting previous discussions

• patience

• ethical behavior

• Ability to deliver apology skillfully

• remaining patient

• technical ingenuity/ graphics

• Having the employees feel valued

• Promoting open dialogue

• Empathy

• interpersonal

• trying to be fair

• Understanding cultural differences

• Reading between the lines.

• Observing Sensitivity

• Advanced preparation

• Industry background/ understanding

• Tolerance and Patience

• Understanding human nature

• take a breath before responding

• Diplomacy

• informing honestly and immediately

• Choosing the best time to present

• diplomacy

• Timely resolution of the dispute.

• attention to informing all parties invoilved both within our organization as well as our client's organization

• Visual aid preparation

• speaking confidently

• Timely resolution of the dispute.

• attention to informing all parties invoilved both within our organization as well as our client's organization

• Visual aid preparation

• speaking confidently

Sample Answering: 61 responses

Q.Retrospect In retrospect, what might you have done (but did not do at the time) to meet the challenge you described above?

• Rephrasing principally! Making sure that we ""can"" perform a function when we receive your specs. As opposed to "" we can't because we haven't received your specs...""

• I would have done a bit more research on exactly how much business the client lost through my companie's decision to cancel our purchasing contract with them. I would have also presented a proposal to my employer's decision makers to ask if we could renew at least a portion of this business in order to maintain a good client relationship with my account. I am new to this account but if I had an opportunity, I would have liked to get to know the decision makers on more of a personal basis.

• have set up another meeting with her and my boss to clarify our roles prior to beginning her training, waited a few weeks to begin training so that she could deal with her mother's death

• I would have done a better job briefing my immediate supervision prior to meeting with senior management in an effort to distribute questioning during the talk.

• I should have accepted the loss and went about my business until the end of the day at which time I could have argued my point more effectively.

• Further anticipated the bias of the decision maker based upon presentations from adversaries and strategized on ways to counter the objections without making the decision maker appear to be foolish or wrong. Finding ways to have ""win/win"" sitiuations in communications, where both parties can come to the same conclusion, without having to overtly give up long-held positions is challenging.

• I thought about bringing the child into my office during camp to talk to him, and find out where he actually came up with some of these stories. In my experiences working with children over the past 13 years, I have found that a fact to a child can come from anyone, anytime, anywhere. What I mean, is that this particular camper may have over heard a conversation from other campers, who may have been older or more experienced, and they may have been talking about someone that they know who had visited various web sites. Or for that matter there could be a dozen different explanations. I also thought about bringing in the child, the parent, and perhaps the coaches, and/or counselors involved in these accusations. But, I didn't think that the things she was initially calling about warrented such a response. If I had known about the web site thing prior to the letter, I would have brought her in for sure.

• Nothing.

• I believe that a written agenda would have made the experience less frustrating and more productive. Better preparation on my part, including a list of the information I specifically wanted, would have enabled me to keep the flow of the meeting going. A full fledged staring session after his first pause might have kept his pauses to a minimum and helped me feel more at ease.

• I might have had my written proposal prepared in advance so that the committee member could critique it after our conversation.

• We now use video tapes and custom slides to present the information in a pictorial format. In this way, at least the subject of the discussion is immediately clear to the audience.

• Instead of calling, meet the superintendent in person.

• I might have spent more time up front in developing the overall picture, or underlying form, of the design problem before proceeding to a discussion of some of the details. Or, alternatively, I could have asked them to restate what I had told them in order to assess their degree of assimilation of the concepts that I had presented.

• Openly discussed, in a very careful fashion, the staff's (and mine as well) concerns with the new physician's medical management style. She was one person, our nursery staff was 50 people. Her individual style forced all others to change their style. The staff felt (I included) that she needed to accomodate our system more than she had the ability to do at that point in time. I should have talked to her openly about this during the week she was primarily in the unit with me as back-up

• I could explain to my colleague, as situations arise, what his participation could mean to the project and how he makes me feel.

• I would have discussed with the exploration team and operations geology the proposed logging program explaining all the details for choosing one tool compared to the other before having the conference call to China. Actually this is the normal practice, but this time the exploration team did not make up their minds on time which well to drill next. There was confusion.

• I could have called the hotel to ensure requirements met expectations.

• Perhaps I could have introduced a written proof source to validate my assertion.

• I would not approach the situation so harshly. I would listen a bit more and allow the employee to comment a lot sooner during the conversation. By making the interaction more of a conversation rather than a monologue would have benefited both of us.

• Possibly be slightly more concise in presenting the material. The session was about 30 minutes too long.

• In the beginning, the real meaning of the project needed clearer assessment by all involved.

• I should have been able to forsee some of the problems which occured, and therefore been more proactive with my communication. Also I would have liked to be clearer with the critical points and reasons as well as consequences.

• Set a standard where everyone identifies themselves before speaking or when consensus is required, have a roll call for the group so only one person is speaking at once.

• I should have Understood the audience much better to make sure I ""scratched"" the right itch. I missed the mark. Not that I believe you have to scratch every itch, but there are key people you must address their concerns.

• The next time I will keep my compsure and not let the heat of the moment take control of my emotions. Even though I am 10 years younger, I need to be the mature one in that instance.

• Not sure. I went to her personally to address the situation, and I am not sure there is another way to resolve it. I think it takes time to overcome.

• Interact with the audience more during the presentation

• I might have had the overheads better organized, but the more free form approach worked quite well, and came across very natural anyway.

• I would have figured out what to do sooner than 3 months into the job! But it was a valuable lesson that has served me well since then.

• Discuss their emotional needs and expections at greater length.

• I should have gone over my supervisors head and had the indvidual fired. I would have come across as a stronger leader, and I would have done the right thing for the company. In the meeting itself, I sometimes think I was too consiliatory to the poorer performer. When I think of what the better performer went through, I fear he lost confidence in me and and the company to ""do the right thing"" and consider his views. The better performer almost quit shortley after this. I talked him out of it and he is doing very well for himself. If this were just a matter of two big egos, and two strong performers I would not have changed my approach, I beleive it would have been successful.

• Ask questions to understand ""why"" there was objections to this request.

• Study the company cuture and invite a specific audience. Mention about the importance of the process for their success.

• I should have examined the underlying reasons for the line supervisor's difficult behavior, rather than dealing mainly with the symptoms.

• I believe I could have recognized his aggressive negotiating style sooner in the process. I would not have become as irritated with him (on a personal level).

• I would have done more work in analyzing the audience and given more thought to ""what does the business plan mean to managers"". I would have constructed more main messages that gave managers reasons for subscribing to the Business Plan process and how the tool could make them more effective managers.

• The information presentented, and information discussed was reviewed more than once during the meeting therefore there was really nothing missed during review of the actual meeting.

• Build agreement with one or more key team members prior to the meeting to help ""carry"" the idea. However, since there was such a high level of agreement on the concept as presented earlier, I never thought it was necessary.

• I might have organized my thoughts and concerns more clearly as to why we needed clear accountability, and anticipated other issues and problems that needed to be addressed (ones that I needed to address, and those that were of concern to the three others at the meeting). Finally, we could have outlined these concerns at the outset of the meeting.

• Talk with the Laboratory Manager directly with the Review Team present.

• I should not have let the question asked affect my emotions.

• This is still an open issues that will become clear in 1999.

• Be more specific about the reason for the change in sales strategy.

• Used an overhead projector for presenting the satistical information. I also could have been more concise.

• I could have learned from the individual's supervisor about the employee's communicated intentions and understanding of the operational/financial issues.

• I could have decided earlier that because of the inconsistent message was being communicated, it was worth the resources to develop additional materials for training that didn't already exist.

• In retrospect, I realize that I picked this argument in the language I used out of spite for this person who was always picking fights with employees anyway, without knowing this was what he was doing. It was toward the end of my ability to work with this person anymore and I no longer cared to make the impression that I was willing to try or to please him. This is why he was so angry, that the fear factor was not effective with me anymore, and it became one of our worst encounters.

• To reduce the amount of time that it took to achieve agreement, I might have tried breaking the group into smaller sub-teams to work on specific parts of the strategy development process.

• I would have told the supervisor what I felt and probably quit a lot earlier than I did.

• Be well prepared for any question and spend the time beforehand anticipating every likely question and having a prepared response.

• I would have liked to have had more time to develop 2 or 3 more options for potential layouts.

• Explained that I was a foreign and asked them whether they had any problem with that.

• Prepared and organized my thoughts so that I would have had intelligent responses to their questions. I could have asked a co-worker to ask me questions so I could practice thinking on my feet. Lastly, asked the interviewer to ask me the questions first and then tape the interview.

• My company should have reviewed our proposal with one person from the customers side before meeting with the decision makers.

• I would have tried to understand the situation better prior to starting. I then could have delivered my reasoning in a more effective manner.

• I would not have been upfront with him. The only way to avoid the initial meeting would have been to leave the company without trying to remedy the situation. Once it became apparent he was not willing to adjust, but simply make my life miserable, I should have left quietly. Instead, I informed him I was leaving so he would have additional time to replace me. He did not use this time to search for a replacement. He used the time to be vindictive. I learned not to be open and honest in these situations.

• I have no idea.

• Think of as many as possible questions and explore reply options/select the best possible answer before the meeting

• I don't know what I could have done. I am not sure if the situation would exist had not this person put themself above others

• Although I have never attempted it, I could try to have a discussion with John in which I put forth my minimal requirements for a civil conversation, sort of a ""meta-conversation."" This would either facilitate communication between us, or at least make it explicitly clear why I am not willing to have certain conversations with him.

• I would have recognized that the person I was working with was new to the situation and I should not have assumed that the terms I was using ment the same things to her as they did to me.

• I would have used clear and explanatory visual aids so that the participants would not have been dependant on my verbal explanations of the company provided material.

• I think in retrospect I would have been more vocal about my concerns and experiences to management. I was able to collect feedback from other newly hired professionals and was able to come to the conclusion that the negative work environment was a general feeling experienced by all. I do think that possibly communicating these feelings and experiences to management in a more direct way would have been helpful.

• Fly around and meet the people in person. Putting more pressure on our Channels' person. Getting the attention of their Channel's person sooner.

• Since I had encountered this insured prior to this event, I knew him to be difficult and rather uncooperative. In retrospect, I might not have been so surprised that he refused the interview and would have had my arguments of persuasion at the ready. As it was, I was initially taken aback by his refusal and my attempts to convince him otherwise were perhaps not as concise and well thought-out as I would have liked. Other than that, there wasn't much else I could do, save for resorting to scare tactics by exaggerating the consequences of his failure to cooperate, but I'm not inclined to do that. I might also have tried adopting a more conciliatory tone, as I did at the time of the personal interview. However, I'm not sure that would have made a difference at the time.

• Proof read my message and running a spell checker.

• I could have prepared an outline to better organize my thoughts.

• I would have had an open and constructive conversation with the Managing Director first in order to understand the circumstances.

• test - delete later

• I might have tried to anticpate what type of questions a group of manager's would ask if they have NEVER seen financial reports for a company they worked at for four years. I should have realized that questions such as ""what is contribution margin"" would come up in the meeting and had a very simple response. I could have highlighted the areas that they have control of spending.

• I would have has a private meeting to first he Jerry out and to explain my take on the situation.

• In retrospect I might have begun with a simple answer to the question and clarified implications secondarily.

• I should have over-emphasized the unexpected risks. I should have ""pre-sold"" her on the downside risks more effectively so any short-term losses would be more tolerable.

• In hindsight, I feel that I handled it perfectly. I kept the conversation constructive and professional and we parted the meeting still be friends.

• This was not an agenda item for the meeting. Unfortunately I was not prepared to present an argument. Being able to present well I tackled the challenge. In hind site I may have tried to delay the discussion in a follow up meeting.

• I mentioned the situation to my boss to ask for advice on handling the situation. He was very helpful, but I'm sure I would have figured it out on my own. His advice was not different than how I was planned to respond.

• I would not change my approach to the same situation.

• Conduct a meeting to go over the issues vs e-mail.

• I should have spent more time up front discussing evaluations with staff. Our conversations should have been documented and I should have developed a plan for progress, which included additional training. When analyzing productivity trends, I need to use a larger sample.

• Follow-up more intensily with more members of the corporate management team to gather further support (including 2 board members)

• In retrospect, I should have documented my thoughts on paper and referred to them periodically throughout the conversation. I wanted to make the discussion very informal, yet professional so I did not approach the conversation with discussion notes.

• I just stood up for what I believed and never gave it up. I had been just patient.

• Spent more time understanding the schedule of the support staff and taken one more pass through the document to make sure it was ready to go.

• I would not allow the target information to distract me from presenting our products.

• Proactively establish a communication process around critical issues which impact the customer.

• More thorougly anticipate the ""hidden"" political agendas.

• I could have made a formal presentation instead of relying on my 'informal persuaviseness'. This might have been more effective. Generally, I am not a suspicious person, but it is also possible that my manager had a hidden agenda in wanting the project built and that my objections were not seriously considered. He may have wanted to grow his organization and saw the development of this product as the only immediate means of doing so.

• Ask the vendor to keep my number and to call before it became a crisis situation where they were refusing to admit members so that I could act proactively to resolve a smaller issue.

• I could have escalated the issue higher.

• I believe that teams are always helpful in assessing needs of multiple groups of people--widening perspective. If there was time, a small implementation team (comprised of key users) to manage the communication of the new processes would have been effective.

• Asked for an outline of the ""master plan"" sooner

• Possibly had reviews more often than annually

• Take a class in public speaking

• Let me preface with by saying I was tring to play middle ground by keeping both parties happy, senior management and my staff, but in the end, it became evident that I could not keep senior management out of the conversations with this employee because they were aware and wanted it to be known. I didn't want to scare her and tell her that others had noticed things as well. I should have kept some distance between myself and those I supervised. A more formal first meeting with the employee may have worked better, but I might have scared her and that was not my goal, or perhaps it should have been? Stating the facts of the situation may have worked better, instead of filling the conversations with ""fluff"" about how we enjoyed her in this fashion or another. It is often a fine line between being truthful and not coming across as cold hearted.

• My solution was to communicate through voice mail or E-Mail and then following up with a phone call. I am still struggling with how to communicate in the meeting and one on one settings.

• Getting buy-in from the company employees prior to making the decision / announcement about the decision I made.

• Meet with each manager individually, in a more informal setting and solicit thoughts and ideas they would implement to manage the situation.

• Gather additional information as to what amount of sales has been lost due to this lack of support. Possibly go above my manager in the organizational structure to get help.

• I should have predicted the emotional intensity and conflict that would arise. I also should have included an HR representative to act as a facilitator and to remove the one-on-one structure of the meeting. Most importantly, I should have stopped the meeting as soon as it took on an emotional tone.

• Anticipate questions. Look for trends that can be interpreted incorrectly Do not present data that is not analyized prior to the meeting

• ya ya ya

• Not gotten so irritated and taken it personally.

• Somehow find a way to control the anxiety, to deliver more concise presentations - learn how to ""get to the point.""

• To fully understand company policy and procedures on issuing a verbal warning and to clearly explain to the employee what it means to be on corrective action. I might have reminded the employee in Week 2 that if the performance had not quickly improved that I would consider corrective action.

• I believe that I handled the challenge satisfactorily.

• Made sure that the Taiwan Sales Director truly understood the agreement before closing the conference call. Also, requesting that the verbal agreement must be written and reviewed before contacting the customer.

• Gained more background information on the customer.

• Highlight main points at the time of the meeting and put them in a written format that can be signed by both parties.

• Read back the order before I did the trade, that way we had more clarity.

• Requested their verbal perspective on the outcome of the meeting. Gotten immediate feedback on their view prior to them having a discussion with their direct supervisor.

• I might have bounced the situation off of my peers for feedback on how to handle the communication style of my boss.

• I should have changed the meeting time to allow more time for the discussion. (My employee was under a time constraint to pick up the baby.) I also should have brought Kleenex.

• Engage in early teaming with Suzan to gain commitment at the beginning of the project

• Start the project earlier to have the ability to have several rehearsals and make necessary changes

• At the time, I did not mention the most fundamental reason for the difference in pricing between the Pepsi Bottling Group and Costco. Purchasing Pepsi products direct from Pepsi provides the benefits of direct delivery, account management, and a varied product portfolio where Costco is only able to a low price on a select offering of products.

• In retrospect, I would have asked for the CFO’s expectation of the outcome of the trip prior to leaving. I would have then identified key areas of concern the CFO based his expectation, and specifically address those areas. With this knowledge, I think I would have been better able to expand on my conclusions to include both the affirmative and the negative aspects of the overall decision.

• I might have tried to council the individual in private a little earlier rather then have his initial explosion in the presenece of everyone in the office.

• I would have had her repeat back to me what decisions we had made in our meeting. I find that if I don't do that, I may not get the results I am looking for.

• Discuss and tackle their concerns sooner.

• 1. Ask for more compensation. 2. Had more frequent one-on-one meetings with department managers that at first did not seem to play relevant roles in the matter at hand. In handsight, it would have been helpful to have their support in addition to those more intimately effected.

• Do not react, take a breath, think and respond.

• Practiced, practiced, practiced. Now being in her shoes, I look back at the situation and how this happens to all new reps, not just me. Its a natural occurrence and understanding this prior to our day together would have made me relax more.

• None.

• Prepared better by asking others, before the meeting, what approaches work best with that particular audience.

• I would have spoken to both of the managers prior to the meeting to gauge their level of committment and depending on the results, may have worked with the VP to assign another manager to the meeting.

• Given the budget constraints, I wouldn't have done anything different. If there would have been some budget available, I would have offered professional outsourcing help for the laid off people as well as severance packages.

• Deflected the intensity of the conversation and harnessed the energy in a positive manner.

• First find out how important the issue was to my audience, both short term and long term then put my position paper together.

• I would like to say that my communication is receiving greater acceptance, but I think it will be necessary to: 1. be completely confident in the validity of my information, and research it in depth 2. socialize my findings and “test drive the data” with related individuals to preview what the response of a greater audience might be 3. be willing to re-evaluate my own assumptions

• I probably could have listened better and communicated my ideas in a clearer manner.

• I hope that I could control my emotion better and listen more effectively.

• Follow up verbal and e-mail communications with a formal letter.

• Allotted more time for the workshop. I underestimated the amount of time it would take to move through and explain each report.

• I would have been more careful to think about what problems we might be solving for them or revenue opportunities that we would be creating. In short, I would have thought about the situation from their point of view and organized the information in a way that would demonstrate how we could be helping them.

• Reconcile the business operation and with the technical design with both groups so everyone is aware of how the solution will be implmented. This will also air any implicit assumptions made by some group members, which may significantly impact the process and final solution.

• Make a formal presentation at the steel mill facility rather than send an e-mail reort.

• Try and find someone who spoke German.

• I should not have acknowledged the fact that she wanted my job. I should have approached the situation as if I was hired from the outside and didn't know her past history with the company. However, I do feel that I used that information to my advantage. It also helped me understand where she was coming from, and helped me to predict her future moves. I also should have set my expectations with her from Day One, and be firm about them. Out of respect for her knowledge and longevity in the position, I let her have too much flexibility.

• Try to get more guidance on what the senior manager had in mind for this presentation beyond what was given. I took a risk in giving this type presentation.

• Better understand the thinking of the EVP regarding the forum. Should have built that into my rationale/argument.

• In retrospect, I probably should have stepped away from writing the letter for day or so. Coming at it from a fresh perspective, I might have been able to write a shorter letter that conveyed the issues in a more succint manner. I did allow my emotions to get in the way of writing, and I needed to take the time to realize that the manuscript could only be improved. There was no need to be angry or to spew my frustrations with the manuscript in the letter that I wrote.

• I should have met with Vendor manager sooner and discussed why he was being so abusive without having first reviewed our material.

• Nothing

• I should have scheduled tele conferences with the co-employees as well as their supervisors around the world with whom I couldn't meet face to face. This would have ensured a clearer understanding of the process by these folks than just a written presentation. I have found that although some folks did receive the presentation, they still ask the same questions. This is a work in progress, as I am planning on scheduling this training for my counter parts around the world.

• I probably could have listened better and communicated my ideas in a clearer manner.

• I hope that I could control my emotion better and listen more effectively.

• Follow up verbal and e-mail communications with a formal letter.

• Allotted more time for the workshop. I underestimated the amount of time it would take to move through and explain each report.

• Make a formal presentation at the steel mill facility rather than send an e-mail reort.

• Try and find someone who spoke German.

• Try to get more guidance on what the senior manager had in mind for this presentation beyond what was given. I took a risk in giving this type presentation.

• Better understand the thinking of the EVP regarding the forum. Should have built that into my rationale/argument.

• I should have met with Vendor manager sooner and discussed why he was being so abusive without having first reviewed our material.

• Nothing

Sample Answering: 178 responses

Question HowOld

Percent

20 to 25

26 to 30

31 to 35

36 to 40

41 to 45

46 to 50

51 to 55

56 plus

HowOld - Question HowOld

Choice Count Percentage of Sample Answering Percentage of Sample Asked Percentage of Total Sample

20 to 25 9 4.8% 4.7% 4.4%

26 to 30 34 18.1% 17.8% 16.7%

31 to 35 56 29.8% 29.3% 27.6%

36 to 40 34 18.1% 17.8% 16.7%

41 to 45 27 14.4% 14.1% 13.3%

46 to 50 24 12.8% 12.6% 11.8%

51 to 55 2 1.1% 1.0% 1.0%

56 plus 2 1.1% 1.0% 1.0%

Question Gender?

Percent

Female

Male

Gender? - Question Gender?

Choice Count Percentage of Sample Answering Percentage of Sample Asked Percentage of Total Sample

Female 46 29.9% 29.9% 22.7%

Male 108 70.1% 70.1% 53.2%

Question YearsBusiness

Percent

Fewer than 5

6 to 10

11 to 15

16 to 20

21 to 25

26 plus

YearsBusiness - Question YearsBusiness

Choice Count Percentage of Sample Answering Percentage of Sample Asked Percentage of Total Sample

Fewer than 5 29 15.4% 15.2% 14.3%

6 to 10 45 23.9% 23.6% 22.2%

11 to 15 53 28.2% 27.7% 26.1%

16 to 20 32 17.0% 16.8% 15.8%

21 to 25 23 12.2% 12.0% 11.3%

26 plus 6 3.2% 3.1% 3.0%

Question FunctionalArea

Percent

Engineering

Marketing

Finance

Accounting

Human Resources

Training

Education

Consulting

Product/Program Development

Communications

Stategy

Operations

Sales - Products or Services

Research & Development

Other. Please state below.

FunctionalArea - Question FunctionalArea

Choice Count Percentage of Sample Answering Percentage of Sample Asked Percentage of Total Sample

Engineering 18 9.8% 9.5% 8.9%

Marketing 26 14.1% 13.8% 12.8%

Finance 20 10.9% 10.6% 9.9%

Accounting 4 2.2% 2.1% 2.0%

Human Resources 3 1.6% 1.6% 1.5%

Training 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Education 2 1.1% 1.1% 1.0%

Consulting 10 5.4% 5.3% 4.9%

Product/Program Development 11 6.0% 5.8% 5.4%

Communications 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Stategy 2 1.1% 1.1% 1.0%

Operations 23 12.5% 12.2% 11.3%

Sales - Products or Services 31 16.8% 16.4% 15.3%

Research & Development 5 2.7% 2.6% 2.5%

Other. Please state below. 29 15.8% 15.3% 14.3%

Q.Other3 Other

Item	Frequency	Percent
(Not Answered)	150	73.9%
Emergency Room Physician	3	1.5%
Regulatory Affairs	2	1.0%
Contracting	2	1.0%
Public Relations	12	5.9%
Web design	2	1.0%
Technical Project Management	2	1.0%
Purchasing	2	1.0%
CA	2	1.0%
(Unique responses)	26	12.8%
(Total)	203	100.0%

Sample Answering: 53 responses

Q.Other3 Other

• resource allocation

• Public Policy

• Athletic Business: Marketing, Budgeting, Finance, Game Operations, Team Travel, etc.

• Market Research

• Customer Policies

• Business Systems

• Business Operations

• key accounts

• Emergency Room Physician

• Pastor - preaching, teaching, visitation, administration.

• Information Management

• Information technology

• Sales Management

• Internet

• Student

• Regulatory Affairs

• Buying

• SW Manufacturing

• Manufacturing

• Chief Financial Officer

• management

• business development

• Engineering as well as product management

• Government

• Contracting

• Project Development

• Technical Sales

• appraisal

• Public Relations

• Project Management

• Web design

• Technical Project Management

• Purchasing

• CA

• Web design

• Technical Project Management

• Purchasing

• CA

Sample Answering: 53 responses

Question Industry

Percent

Telecommunications

Computer

Banking

Education

Consulting

Agriculture

Government

Health/Medical

Transportation

Entertainment

Manufacturing

Construction

Energy

Other. Please state below.

Industry - Question Industry

Choice Count Percentage of Sample Answering Percentage of Sample Asked Percentage of Total Sample

Telecommunications 12 7.4% 6.9% 5.9%

Computer 14 8.6% 8.0% 6.9%

Banking 12 7.4% 6.9% 5.9%

Education 5 3.1% 2.9% 2.5%

Consulting 21 12.9% 12.1% 10.3%

Agriculture 1 0.6% 0.6% 0.5%

Government 2 1.2% 1.1% 1.0%

Health/Medical 34 20.9% 19.5% 16.7%

Transportation 3 1.8% 1.7% 1.5%

Entertainment 3 1.8% 1.7% 1.5%

Manufacturing 14 8.6% 8.0% 6.9%

Construction 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Energy 14 8.6% 8.0% 6.9%

Other. Please state below. 28 17.2% 16.1% 13.8%

Q.Other4 Other

Item	Frequency	Percent
(Not Answered)	142	70.0%
semiconductor	3	1.5%
Insurance	3	1.5%
security systems provider	2	1.0%
Consumer Packaged Goods	2	1.0%
Telecommunications and utility	2	1.0%
Online media	2	1.0%
recycling	2	1.0%
steel processing	2	1.0%
CA	2	1.0%
Financial Software Technology and Market Data	2	1.0%
(Unique responses)	39	19.2%
(Total)	203	100.0%

Sample Answering: 61 responses

Q.Other4 Other

• household products / packaged goods

• capital markets

• Biotech

• real estate investment

• Retail

• Non Profit Organization for Health Education and Research

• Aerospace & Defense

• semiconductor

• optics for multiple industries

• Real Estate Investments

• Church Ministry

• Insurance

• security systems provider

• Wine Label Printing

• Real Estate

• Consumer Packaged Goods

• Defense

• Student

• petroleum

• insurance

• Pharmacuetical

• Consumer products wholesaler

• IT infrastructure

• Publishing

• Media

• software

• Consumer Products

• E-Commerce

• Semiconductor

• distribution

• I produce online employment law training for fortune 500 companies

• semiconductor

• Chemicals

• real estate appraisal

• biotech/scientific instrumentation

• Consumer Product Development

• Finace

• Beverage

• Biotechnology

• Staffing Industry

• Medical Device Products

• Risk mgmt software

• Medical Research

• Biotech/Pharmaceutical

• Telecommunications and utility

• Online media

• Insurance

• recycling

• steel processing

• CA

• Financial Software Technology and Market Data

• Telecommunications and utility

• Online media

• Insurance

• recycling

• steel processing

• CA

• Financial Software Technology and Market Data

Sample Answering: 61 responses

Question Ugmajor

Percent

Business Administration

Science/Mathematics

Engineering

Social Science

Humanities/Liberal Arts

Other. Please state below.

Ugmajor - Question Ugmajor

Choice Count Percentage of Sample Answering Percentage of Sample Asked Percentage of Total Sample

Business Administration 56 31.1% 30.6% 27.6%

Science/Mathematics 22 12.2% 12.0% 10.8%

Engineering 32 17.8% 17.5% 15.8%

Social Science 12 6.7% 6.6% 5.9%

Humanities/Liberal Arts 38 21.1% 20.8% 18.7%

Other. Please state below. 20 11.1% 10.9% 9.9%

Q.Other5 Other

Item	Frequency	Percent
(Not Answered)	156	76.8%
economics	3	1.5%
Economics	3	1.5%
Communications	2	1.0%
Pharmacist	2	1.0%
Journalism/Politics	12	5.9%
CA	2	1.0%
(Unique responses)	23	11.3%
(Total)	203	100.0%

Sample Answering: 47 responses

Q.Other5 Other

• health services administrationnistration

• economics

• Political Science

• Finance

• Marine Transportation

• Architecture

• Economics

• Spanish double major

• Business Management

• Marketing BA

• BS Education

• Health Care Management

• Printing Management, BA

• Communications

• Pharmacist

• Economics/Business

• Economics

• Graphic Design/adv

• Government

• Political Economy of

• Political Economy of Industrial Societies

• Human Biodynamics

• Planning

• Kinisiology/phys ed

• Industrial Technology

• Journalism/Politics

• Black Studies

• Communications

• Accounting

• Management

• Economics

• CA

• economics

• CA

• economics

Sample Answering: 47 responses

Question Yourprof

Percent

Mary Alice McNeil

Barry Eckhouse

Arturo Perez-Reyes

Michele Zak

I'm not sure.

I'm a beta tester.

Yourprof - Question Yourprof

Choice Count Percentage of Sample Answering Percentage of Sample Asked Percentage of Total Sample

Mary Alice McNeil 10 5.8% 5.6% 4.9%

Barry Eckhouse 87 50.9% 48.9% 42.9%

Arturo Perez-Reyes 23 13.5% 12.9% 11.3%

Michele Zak 9 5.3% 5.1% 4.4%

I'm not sure. 30 17.5% 16.9% 14.8%

I'm a beta tester. 12 7.0% 6.7% 5.9%

Question YourCourse

Percent

Management Communication 202 Executiv...

Management Communication 306 Regular MBA

Advanced Communication 220 Executive MBA

YourCourse - Question YourCourse

Choice Count Percentage of Sample Answering Percentage of Sample Asked Percentage of Total Sample

Management Communication 202 Executive MBA 117 68.8% 66.9% 57.6%

Management Communication 306 Regular MBA 38 22.4% 21.7% 18.7%

Advanced Communication 220 Executive MBA 15 8.8% 8.6% 7.4%

Q.ContactInformation Full Name

Item	Frequency	Percent
(Not Answered)	28	13.8%
Judson Lively	2	1.0%
Kai-Man Lee	3	1.5%
Patrick M. Artiaga	2	1.0%
Randy Perkins	2	1.0%
Julie E. Rosenthal	2	1.0%
Raf Lambrecht	2	1.0%
Song Woo	2	1.0%
Kevin C Nesse	2	1.0%
Yuan Shen	2	1.0%
Daniel Del Grande	2	1.0%
Caroline Everett	2	1.0%
Mike Clothier	2	1.0%
Susun Su	2	1.0%
Dan Linder	2	1.0%
Joseph B. Barco	2	1.0%
Adam Work Krey	2	1.0%
Denise Ebright	2	1.0%
Alfredo Villarreal	2	1.0%
Priscilla Stewart-Jones	2	1.0%
Allyndreth Cassidy	2	1.0%
Emmet	2	1.0%
Matthew Anderson	2	1.0%
Kathy Makosa	2	1.0%
Erin Murphy	2	1.0%
(Unique responses)	126	62.1%
(Total)	203	100.0%

Sample Answering: 175 responses

Q.ContactInformation Full Name

• Salvador A. Palma Jr.

• Bob Tranchida

• Lois Moskowitz

• Erik Hofstede

• Tom Stephenson

• Jerry M. Abercrombie

• Christopher Roke

• Cynthia Leigh Ali

• Brian W. Powell

• Erik Svensson

• Judson Lively

• David A. Cole

• William I. Russell

• Lawrence Myers

• Philip A. Riedel

• Hope Attenhofer

• Adedapo Adeyemo

• Kip Machuca

• John Nardi

• Barbara Haedtke

• Larry J. Oliver

• Ellen W. Chavez

• Jon D. Olafsson

• Elizabeth Bostian

• Leonard M. Hicks

• Greg Tsukimura

• Rick Martig

• Stan Sankaran

• Matthew Robert Mazzuchi

• Karen K. Willett

• Kai-Man Lee

• Daniel A MacLean

• Patrick M. Artiaga

• Ceyhun(Jay) Tugcu

• Phillip W. Porter

• Clint Chase

• Rachel Beth Buckley

• Christine Scheer

• Gary P. Dorighi

• John Robert Ridenour

• Mary Ann Morales

• Norberto Ruiz

• Randall J mellin

• Mark Anthony Ramirez

• Randy Perkins

• Richard Hall

• Constance Kuranko

• Leah Jones

• Scott Yerigan

• Lisa Cummins

• Derek Helgeson

• Nathan A. Ko

• Alfonso Casanova

• Julie E. Rosenthal

• Bridget Shingler

• Bill Edwards

• Karen Abbruscato

• John Scola

• Raf Lambrecht

• Kevin Ahern

• Derek Lloyd Watry

• Karen Lynette Jeffries

• Amanda Reynolds

• Kristin Kleinhofer

• Christine Carbone

• Karen Frisella-Cichurski

• Denise Seymour

• Alan Goyke

• Joseph M. Cancilla

• Gina Saucedo

• Michael Muegge

• Joel A. Criste

• Ryan Thompson

• Marvin Press

• Robert Kaleta

• Tiffin Whitfield

• Theodore Alan Earle

• Francine K. Boards

• Viktoria Lewis

• Constance Revore

• David Janse

• Janell Bautista

• Mikito Sugino

• Scott Taylor

• Anne Hassett

• Rahul Khona

• Joel Janulewicz

• David L. Mendez

• Patrick Cheney

• David D. Cates

• Raymond A. Berzins

• Corine Muegge

• Servando De La Torre

• Ken Haynes

• Karen J. Jackson

• Paul Bachtold

• John E. Larsen

• Christie Walker

• Marta Self

• Kristin Allin

• Daniel W Brown

• Kenneth Miu

• jeff pi

• Rick Steeb

• Frank Civitano

• Helene ""Bo "" Morse

• Vera Chrebtow

• Roger Lee DeLeon

• Larry D. Johnson

• Jeffrey Paul Sensiba

• Robert Kurek

• Michael Cory

• John M. Binney

• Diane Giansante

• Joseph C. Buenavista

• Julie M. Johnson

• Robert Medearis

• Marianne Hoonakker

• Timothy Gaddis

• Nirav Vinu Shah

• M. Elizabeth Richardson

• Song Woo

• Peter Johansson

• Laurent Birade

• Wendy Tooey Lai Fong

• LOURDES DOMECILLO

• Daniel Wade Shows

• Anne Walker

• Britt Huber

• Robert C. Madsen

• James Bertram

• Diane L. Hardy

• Kevin C Nesse

• Yuan Shen

• Daniel Del Grande

• Caroline Everett

• Mike Clothier

• Susun Su

• Dan Linder

• Joseph B. Barco

• Adam Work Krey

• Denise Ebright

• Alfredo Villarreal

• Priscilla Stewart-Jones

• Allyndreth Cassidy

• Emmet

• Matthew Anderson

• Kathy Makosa

• Erin Murphy

• Kevin C Nesse

• Yuan Shen

• Daniel Del Grande

• Caroline Everett

• Mike Clothier

• Susun Su

• Dan Linder

• Joseph B. Barco

• Adam Work Krey

• Denise Ebright

• Alfredo Villarreal

• Priscilla Stewart-Jones

• Allyndreth Cassidy

• Emmet

• Matthew Anderson

• Kathy Makosa

• Erin Murphy

• Barry TEST TOSS

Sample Answering: 175 responses

Q.ContactInformation E-Mail Address

Item	Frequency	Percent
(Not Answered)	33	16.3%
statlive@aol.com	2	1.0%
kaimanl@earthlink.net	3	1.5%
pma@dolby.com	2	1.0%
wrp@inreach.com	2	1.0%
rosenthalj@nabisco.com	2	1.0%
raflambrecht@netscape.net	2	1.0%
songwoo@costcsi.com	2	1.0%
knesse@hotmail.com	2	1.0%
dshendmyn@gmail.com	2	1.0%
delgrande@bisonbrew.com	2	1.0%
c1everett@yahool.com	2	1.0%
mclothier@yahoo-inc.com	2	1.0%
susun_su@yahoo.com	2	1.0%
dan@madfrog.net	2	1.0%
jbarco@us.sims-group.com	2	1.0%
akrey@ussposco.com	2	1.0%
Denise.Ebright@cingular.com	2	1.0%
alfredo_villa@hotmail.com	2	1.0%
Priscilla.Stewart-Jones@mckesson.com	2	1.0%
allyndreth@earthlink.net	2	1.0%
ehollins@money.net	2	1.0%
MattAnderson@ChevronTexaco.com	2	1.0%
katherinemakosa@yahoo.com	2	1.0%
enmurphy@netzero.com	2	1.0%
(Unique responses)	121	59.6%
(Total)	203	100.0%

Sample Answering: 170 responses

Q.ContactInformation E-Mail Address

• sapalma@earthlink.net

• Bob.Tranchida@KP.Org

• lmoskowi@stmarys-ca.edu

• erik.hofstede@clorox.com

• jerry.abercrombie@pactel.com

• croke@stmarys-ca.edu

• cindy_ali@bio-rad.com

• powellfamily@earthlink.net

• Esvensso@RREEF.com

• statlive@aol.com

• Daciquis@AOL.com

• captern@aol.com or ern@foss.com

• lmyers@meg1.com

• priedel@prodigy.net

• aadeyemo@home.com or aded@chevron.com

• KMachuc@levi.com

• jnardi@triad.com

• bhaedtke@msn.com

• ljol@chevron.com and ljol@aol.com

• echavez@glaucoma.org

• jon@documentum.com

• eabosti@earthlink.net

• leonard.hicks@lmco.com

• gktsuki@pacbell.com

• rmartig@xilinx.com

• sankaran@etec.com

• Mazzuchi@pacbell.net

• karen_willett@mail.sel.sony.com

• kaimanl@earthlink.net

• mdmaclean@earthlink.net

• pma@dolby.com

• tugcu@us.ibm.com

• philfwm@pacbell.net

• clinton.chase@prudential.com

• rbbuckl@pacbell.com

• Chrysti@adessomed.com

• gdorighi@home.com

• ridenour@unidial.com

• lencie_87@yahoo.com

• nruiz7@yahoo.com

• mellins@ix.netcom.com

• wrp@inreach.com

• rhall@ihs-inc.com

• connie.kuranko@airtouch.com

• napacollo@sprynet.com

• scye@chevron.com

• lisa_cummins@ccgate.apl.com

• dhelgeso@sf.SSRRealty.com

• nko@stmarys-ca.edu

• alrapina@yahoo.com

• rosenthalj@nabisco.com

• bill.edwards@Apropos.com

• karena@dsp.com

• JPSCOLA@aol.com

• raflambrecht@netscape.net

• Ahernfamily@aol.com

• dwatry@wiai.com

• karenjef@pacbell.net

• reynolda@wellsfargo.com

• mkle@chevron.com

• carbone@aol.com

• kfrisella@norcalmutual.com

• denise@whitelight.com

• agoyke@home.net

• jmcancilla@aol.com

• ginasauce@aol.com

• michael.muegge.b@bayer.com

• Jcriste@marinipa.com

• ryant23@hotmail.com

• mpress6@home.com

• back2ca@earthlink.net

• tifwhit@icnt.net

• taearle@yahoo.com

• francine.boards@civicbank.com

• vlewis@techcu.com

• csrevore@home.com

• david.janse@redherring.com

• JBautista@commonwealthccu.org

• sugino@docomo-usa.com

• SMTAYLOR999@CETRUS.COM

• ahassett@nytimes.com

• rkhona@yahoo.com

• joel.janulewicz@guinnessudv.com

• DaveM925@aol.com

• pcheney@home.com

• david.cates@phs.com

• Ray-NicBerzins@worldnet.att.net

• corine.muegge.b@bayer.com

• servando@us.ibm.com

• kenneth_haynes@ryder.com

• karen.jackson@agouron.com

• paulbachtold@wellsfargo.com

• larsen911@home.com

• cwalker@elt-inc.com

• martaself@hotmail.com

• KristinWAllin@eaton.com

• lafayettedan@yahoo.com

• kmiu@yahoo.com

• jeffpi@hotmail.com

• rick_steeb@amat.com

• frank.civitano@xilinx.com

• bomorse@sbcglobal.net

• chrebtow@yahoo.com

• rogerd520@sbcglobal.net

• LDJOHN55@AOL.COM

• jeffsensib@attbi.com

• rkurek@sbcglobal.net

• mcory@inobys.com

• john.binney@morganstanley.com

• Giansante@aol.com

• joe.buenavista@dlmfoods.com

• julie_marie_johnson@yahoo.com

• robert.medearis@bankofamerica.com

• marianne.hoonakker@pepsi.com

• tgaddis@mendelbio.com

• nshah@manpowersj.com

• vjl13lr@comcast.net

• songwoo@costcsi.com

• peter@adlengineering.net

• lbirade@comcast.net

• Wendy.Fong@abbott.com

• LSDOMECILLO@AOL.COM

• kwshows@msn.com

• anne@cco.com

• britt_huber@hotmail.com

• bobmdsen@ix.netcom.com

• jmbruin56@yahoo.com

• Hardy9@llnl.gov

• knesse@hotmail.com

• dshendmyn@gmail.com

• delgrande@bisonbrew.com

• c1everett@yahool.com

• mclothier@yahoo-inc.com

• susun_su@yahoo.com

• dan@madfrog.net

• jbarco@us.sims-group.com

• akrey@ussposco.com

• Denise.Ebright@cingular.com

• alfredo_villa@hotmail.com

• Priscilla.Stewart-Jones@mckesson.com

• allyndreth@earthlink.net

• ehollins@money.net

• MattAnderson@ChevronTexaco.com

• katherinemakosa@yahoo.com

• enmurphy@netzero.com

• knesse@hotmail.com

• dshendmyn@gmail.com

• delgrande@bisonbrew.com

• c1everett@yahool.com

• mclothier@yahoo-inc.com

• susun_su@yahoo.com

• dan@madfrog.net

• jbarco@us.sims-group.com

• akrey@ussposco.com

• Denise.Ebright@cingular.com

• alfredo_villa@hotmail.com

• Priscilla.Stewart-Jones@mckesson.com

• allyndreth@earthlink.net

• ehollins@money.net

• MattAnderson@ChevronTexaco.com

• katherinemakosa@yahoo.com

• enmurphy@netzero.com

Sample Answering: 170 responses

Q.ContactInformation Work Phone

Item	Frequency	Percent
(Not Answered)	31	15.3%
925-372-1353	2	1.0%
510-763-6900	3	1.5%
415.558.0102	2	1.0%
925 369-3804	2	1.0%
925-460-9591	2	1.0%
(510)-705-5538	2	1.0%
408-501-0703	2	1.0%
925.681.0378	2	1.0%
510-624-2454	2	1.0%
510-812-5996	2	1.0%
510-865-9851	2	1.0%
408 349-3758	2	1.0%
(415)720-0088	2	1.0%
925-787-2363	2	1.0%
510-412-5390	2	1.0%
925-439-6853	2	1.0%
925-487-5230 mobile	2	1.0%
510-741-4316	2	1.0%
415-983-9717	2	1.0%
510 5957000 x250	2	1.0%
510-444-3985	2	1.0%
(925)842-1518	2	1.0%
925-842-2515	2	1.0%
510.245.4567	2	1.0%
(Unique responses)	123	60.6%
(Total)	203	100.0%

Sample Answering: 172 responses

Q.ContactInformation Work Phone

• (925) 675-4973

• 510-271-5606

• 9256314174

• 925.847.6733

• 415-398-2860

• 415 542-1306

• (925)631-4386

• 510-741-6893

• (707)447-7915

• (415) 781-3300

• 925-372-1353

• (510) 494-5231

• 510-242-1839

• 707-568-1199

• 707-568-7547

• 925.988.2493

• 925-8425736

• 415/501-6145

• 925.449.0606

• 415-427-2084

• 925-842-1450

• 415 986 3162 x 225

• 737-6529

• (925) 824-6239

• (408)742-6446

• 925-867-6144

• (408)879-4728

• 510-780-2237

• 707-525-7775

• 408-955-5036

• 510-763-6900

• 925 842 1507

• 415.558.0102

• 925 277 5932

• (925) 313-0801

• 209.437.3244

• 925-824-5498

• 408-271-5727

• (925) 866-5351

• (415) 897-2123

• 510-637-1893

• (510) 786-6853

• 650-858-6526

• 408-846-0800

• 925 369-3804

• (707) 258-5538

• 925-988-4581

• (707) 953-7658

• 925-944-6298

• 510-272-7610

• (415) 678-2109

• 510-747-1042

• na

• 925-460-9591

• 510-783-2111

• 925/820-9044

• 925-484-4192

• (510)-705-5538

• 510 351 8230

• (510) 658-6719

• (925)485-9688

• 925.692.4927

• 925-827-7185

• 925.867.3300 X272

• 415-835-0899 X2885

• 650 843-3038

• 510-705-7602

• (925)823-4100

• (510) 687-2875

• 510 705-4562

• 415-884-1818

• 800-755-1579

• 925-258-3555

• 408.828.5309

• (925) 284-5990 x129

• 408/276-9728

• (925)677-4201

• 4084414748

• 925-362-6239

• 415-486-2884

• 408-451-9010 ext. 166

• 408-392-3485

• 707-332-6733

• 415-438-6555

• 408 963 2437

• 415.835.7389

• (925) 646-5727

• (925) 520-4403

• 925.336.9436

• 408-563-8597

• 510-705-4855

• 925 327-2489

• 408.324.5408

• 925-551-5333

• 4153965753

• 925-479-6600

• 415-288-6671

• 925 988 9188

• 925-299-3744

• 925.287.0100

• 408-879-6994

• 800-648-4827 xt. 711

• 4085632231

• 408-879-6901

• 925.683.1539

• 925 942 4709

• 510-354-4303

• 650 852-4198

• 650-225-5167

• 510 287 3954

• (415)576-2113

• 925-242-4507

• 925-242-4502

• (510) 936-2486

• 925-675-2359

• (707) 747-4241

• (510) 264-0280 x 6119

• 408-749-1800

• 408-543-8853

• 408-501-0703

• 408 859 4665

• 925-864-7261

• 916-797-9793

• 650 694-5827

• (925) 246-7516

• 5104445700

• 408-542-5622

• 650-866-6688

• 408-503-1603

• 925-424-3154

• 925.681.0378

• 510-624-2454

• 510-812-5996

• 510-865-9851

• 408 349-3758

• (415)720-0088

• 925-787-2363

• 510-412-5390

• 925-439-6853

• 925-487-5230 mobile

• 510-741-4316

• 415-983-9717

• 510 5957000 x250

• 510-444-3985

• (925)842-1518

• 925-842-2515

• 510.245.4567

• 925.681.0378

• 510-624-2454

• 510-812-5996

• 510-865-9851

• 408 349-3758

• (415)720-0088

• 925-787-2363

• 510-412-5390

• 925-439-6853

• 925-487-5230 mobile

• 510-741-4316

• 415-983-9717

• 510 5957000 x250

• 510-444-3985

• (925)842-1518

• 925-842-2515

• 510.245.4567

Sample Answering: 172 responses

Q.ContactInformation Home Phone

Item	Frequency	Percent
(Not Answered)	35	17.2%
925-458-2665	2	1.0%
510-763-6900	3	1.5%
925.376.5178	2	1.0%
925 743-1876	2	1.0%
925-426-9249	2	1.0%
(925)-631-9157	2	1.0%
408-219-1744	2	1.0%
510.652.7802	2	1.0%
925-551-7908	2	1.0%
510-832-2316	2	1.0%
510-865-9525	2	1.0%
415 699-2709	2	1.0%
(925) 631-0780	2	1.0%
925-691-9898	2	1.0%
925-736-8254	2	1.0%
925-487-5230 mobile	2	1.0%
707-864-9941	2	1.0%
925-833-8676	2	1.0%
510 4797086	2	1.0%
510-653-8374	2	1.0%
(925)216-7877	2	1.0%
925.473.1783	2	1.0%
(Unique responses)	123	60.6%
(Total)	203	100.0%

Sample Answering: 168 responses

Q.ContactInformation Home Phone

• (707) 751-0339

• 925-253-7929

• 4153800638

• 925.484.3424

• 925-937-3496

• 925 820-0146

• (925)937-2747

• 925-335-0682

• (707)448-1161

• (925) 299-0343

• 925-458-2665

• (925) 829-6070

• 925-938-8988

• 707-527-9412

• 707-568-7547

• 209.835.1445

• 9254850301

• 510/430-2445

• 925.228.1394

• 415-252-7383

• 925-736-8438

• 415 929 9383

• 371-6540

• (925) 277-1545

• (925)426-7302

• 925-837-0275

• (408)354-9459

• 209-477-8036

• 707-224-9302

• 925-830-1220

• 510-763-6900

• 925 855 0173

• 925.376.5178

• 925 685 6139

• (925) 672-6781

• 510.526.9195

• 925-938-6291

• 925-803-8303

• (510) 657-7543

• (415) 892-3528

• 707-649-9460

• (510) 728-2076

• 925-376-7904

• 408-846-9934

• 925 743-1876

• (707) 258-5537

• 925-939-5809

• (707) 259-1670

• 925-376-1148

• 925-837-7909

• (925) 933-8174

• 510-527-1298

• 510-549-1573

• 925-426-9249

• 925-454-8612

• 925/820-2272

• 925-484-3553

• 510-222-4684

• (925)-631-9157

• 925 838 0412

• (510) 601-1864

• (925)846-5108

• 925.935.0111

• 925-687-6630

• 925.867.3400

• 925-672-8028

• 510 538-8566

• 925-371-6457

• (925)736-3695

• (510) 790-4740

• 510 985-0416

• 707-224-3049

• 925-947-1345

• 925-258-0866

• 925.833.1725

• (925) 313-0150

• 408/266-7125

• (707)864-3447

• 925-875-9096

• 510-654-1472

• 408-292-4552

• 408-873-8308

• 707-332-6733

• 510-339-3673

• 409 972 8504

• 415.776.0397

• Unlisted

• (925) 484-4756

• 510.336.9436

• 408-847-7060

• 510-9850416

• 925 736-6145

• 408.324.5409

• 4153591266

• 925-828-1117

• 510-523-1312

• 925 376 2348

• 510-601-8873

• 925.932.7707

• 510-668-1711

• 510-324-1897

• 9257351324

• 408-629-4831

• 925.736.3763

• 925 228 3463

• 925-735-3974

• 925 866-8801

• (925) 484-4416

• 925-952-9724

• 925 676 2196

• (510)530-6995

• 925-208-1290

• 209-833-7772

• (925) 551-5366

• 925-831-9945

• (925) 945-7596

• (925) 280-6716

• 408-245-7183

• 408-934-1247

• 408-219-1744

• 925 299 0078

• 925-658-1425

• 916-797-9464

• 510 794-6084

• (925) 937-3817

• 5106582366

• 650-861-8661

• 408-241-4794

• 650-591-5447

• 925-560-9657

• 510.652.7802

• 925-551-7908

• 510-832-2316

• 510-865-9525

• 415 699-2709

• (925) 631-0780

• 925-691-9898

• 925-736-8254

• 925-487-5230 mobile

• 707-864-9941

• 925-833-8676

• 510 4797086

• 510-653-8374

• (925)216-7877

• 925.473.1783

• 510.652.7802

• 925-551-7908

• 510-832-2316

• 510-865-9525

• 415 699-2709

• (925) 631-0780

• 925-691-9898

• 925-736-8254

• 925-487-5230 mobile

• 707-864-9941

• 925-833-8676

• 510 4797086

• 510-653-8374

• (925)216-7877

• 925.473.1783

Sample Answering: 168 responses

Question Permission

Percent

Yes

Call me, and we can talk about it.

HowMany - Question HowMany

Choice Count Percentage of Sample Answering Percentage of Sample Asked Percentage of Total Sample

2 47 24.0% 23.6% 23.2%

3 to 5 66 33.7% 33.2% 32.5%

6 to 8 39 19.9% 19.6% 19.2%

9 to 50 33 16.8% 16.6% 16.3%

More than 50 11 5.6% 5.5% 5.4%

QRankingAbility - Question RankingAbility - A

Topic	1	2	3	4	5	Not Answered	Not Asked
Analyzing audience	13	13	46	70	47	3	11
Being persuasive	8	18	42	80	40	3	12
Explaining clearly	1	3	10	82	87	5	15
Writing well	51	29	41	47	19	3	13
Controlling nervousness	37	32	56	45	17	3	13
Presenting effectively	9	5	23	92	58	3	13
Giving good reasons	3	6	26	111	41	3	13
Reading well	68	35	45	36	4	3	12
Listening carefully	8	10	34	72	64	3	12
Facilitating effectively	22	25	56	62	23	3	12
Responding to emotions	19	37	49	53	30	3	12
Analyzing a situation	7	7	36	106	31	3	13
Asking good questions	16	15	45	71	41	3	12
Fielding questions well	9	10	45	96	27	3	13
Organizing information	3	17	48	87	31	3	14
Debating effectively	32	32	38	56	27	3	15
Participating effectively	16	16	60	83	10	5	13
Making a good argument	17	13	59	75	23	3	13