La Comunicazione: Emittente, Destinatario, Ricevente

La comunicazione è uno dei principali e più importanti modi con i quali si ottengono e si forniscono informazioni, dandoci così la possibilità di interagire con altre persone.

Come sappiamo non si può evitare di comunicare, anche quando si sta in silenzio e tramite la comunicazione impariamo a conoscere gli altri e tutto quello che ci circonda.

Quando parliamo e quando scriviamo c’è sempre qualcuno che dice qualcosa e qualcun altro che ascolta o legge e quello che è scritto rimane molto più impresso di quello che viene detto: verba volant, scripta manent, quindi facciamo molta attenzione a quello che scriviamo.

Infine, tra chi parla e ascolta c’è una differenza di ruolo, che cambia secondo la situazione: se sto ricevendo o sto comunicando informazioni.

Emittente, Destinatario e Ricevente

La comunicazione è la trasmissione, lo scambio d’informazione, verbale (a parole) o scritta (mail, lettere, relazioni).
Quando si parla o si scrive di comunicazione, si definisce E emittente, chi manda il messaggio, mentre si definisce come D il destinatario oppure R il ricevente, chi riceve il messaggio.

Ogni comunicazione ha uno scopo, che è il motivo per cui si avvia una comunicazione.

Da segnalare, specialmente nella nostra professione, che può accadere che tra destinatario e ricevente ci sia una differenza: il destinatario è chi dovrebbe ricevere il messaggio, per esempio il capo, mentre il ricevente è l’assistente, che in realtà lo riceve.

Ora è il momento di affrontare il tema destinatario/ricevente.

Come si può entrare in sintonia con lui e coinvolgerlo emotivamente con il nostro modo di comunicare?

Una tecnica molto utile, nella comunicazione verbale, è quella del “mirroring”, che prevede la capacità di instaurare con il nostro interlocutore un “rapporto empatico”, basato sulla fiducia e la sintonia emotiva, creando empatia.

Secondo Wikipedia, l’empatia è la capacità di un individuo di comprendere in modo immediato i pensieri e gli stati d’animo di un’altra persona.

L’empatia, prevede modalità di comunicazione per cui il ricevente, ascoltando attivamente l’altro, sospende momentaneamente il suo modo di percepire la realtà per cercare di comprendere le esperienze e sintonizzarsi sulle percezioni dell’interlocutore. È una forma molto profonda di comprensione dell’altro perché si tratta d’immedesimazione nelle emozioni degli altri.

Un sistema per creare velocemente empatia con il nostro interlocutore è proprio il “mirroring” che significa assumere la stessa postura del nostro interlocutore, ma attenzione a non esagerare, perché l’altro potrebbe non comprendere e sentirsi preso in giro!

Per esempio, se chi abbiamo di fronte ha le braccia conserte, anche noi lo faremo, se il nostro interlocutore si accarezza i capelli, possiamo imitarlo, ma senza eccedere.

Il suggerimento è di non ripetere gli stessi movimenti esattamente come lui, ma quando tocca a noi parlare. Aspettiamo che finisca di esprimere il suo pensiero o di farci delle domande e poi, quando cominciamo a parlare, mimiamo la sua postura.

In questo modo ci identificherà come persone empatiche nei suoi confronti, ci vedrà come simili a lui permettendoci d’instaurare un rapporto di fiducia: “Non so perché, ma sento di potermi fidare di te”.

 

The case of Executive Assistants by Melba Duncan (the full article)

Harvard Business Review

The Case for Executive Assistants, by Melba J. Duncan.

Among the most striking details of the corporate era depicted in the AMC series Mad Men, along with constant smoking and mid-day drinking, is the army of secretaries who populate Sterling Cooper, the 1960s ad agency featured in the show. The secretary of those days has gone the way of the carbon copy and been replaced by the executive assistant, now typically reserved for senior management. Technologies like e-mail, voice mail, mobile devices, and online calendars have allowed managers at all levels to operate with a greater degree of self-sufficiency. At the same time, companies have faced enormous pressure to cut costs, reduce head count, and flatten organizational structures. As a result, the numbers of assistants at lower corporate levels have dwindled in most corporations. That’s unfortunate, because effective assistants can make enormous contributions to productivity at all levels of the organization.

At very senior levels, the return on investment from a skilled assistant can be substantial. Consider a senior executive whose total compensation package is $1 million annually, who works with an assistant who earns $80,000. For the organization to break even, the assistant must make the executive 8% more productive than he or she would be working solo—for instance, the assistant needs to save the executive roughly five hours in a 60-hour workweek. In reality, good assistants save their bosses much more than that. They ensure that meetings begin on time with prep material delivered in advance. They optimize travel schedules and enable remote decision making, keeping projects on track. And they filter the distractions that can turn a manager into a reactive type who spends all day answering e-mail instead of a leader who proactively sets the organization’s agenda. As Robert Pozen writes in this issue: A top-notch assistant “is crucial to being productive.”

That’s true not only for top executives. In their zeal to cut administrative expenses, many companies have gone too far, leaving countless highly paid middle and upper managers to arrange their own travel, file expense reports, and schedule meetings. Some companies may be drawn to the notion of egalitarianism they believe this assistant-less structure represents—when workers see the boss loading paper into the copy machine, the theory goes, a “we’re all in this together” spirit is created. But as a management practice, the structure rarely makes economic sense. Generally speaking, work should be delegated to the lowest-cost employee who can do it well. Although companies have embraced this logic by outsourcing work to vendors or to operations abroad, back at headquarters they ignore it, forcing top talent to misuse their time. As a longtime recruiter for executive assistants, I’ve worked with many organizations suffering from the same problem: There’s too much administrative work and too few assistants to whom it can be assigned.

Granting middle managers access to an assistant—or shared resources—can give a quick boost to productivity even at lean, well-run companies. Firms should also think about the broader developmental benefits of providing assistants for up-and-coming managers. The real payoff may come when the manager arrives in a job a few levels up better prepared and habitually more productive. An experienced assistant can be particularly helpful if the manager is a new hire. The assistant becomes a crucial on-boarding resource, helping the manager read and understand the organizational culture, guiding him or her through its different (and difficult) personalities, and serving as a sounding board during the crucial acclimation. In this way, knowledgeable assistants are more than a productivity asset: They’re reverse mentors, using their experience to teach new executives how people are expected to behave at that level in the organization.

Getting the Most from Assistants

Two critical factors determine how well a manager utilizes an assistant. The first is the executive’s willingness to delegate pieces of his or her workload to the assistant. The second is the assistant’s willingness to stretch beyond his or her comfort zone to assume new responsibilities.

Delegating wisely.

The most effective executives think deeply about the pieces of their workload that can be taken on—or restructured to be partially taken on—by the assistant. Triaging and drafting replies to e-mails is a central task for virtually all assistants. Some executives have assistants listen in on phone calls in order to organize and follow up on action items. Today many assistants are taking on more-supervisory roles: They’re managing information flow, dealing with basic financial management, attending meetings, and doing more planning and organizing. Executives can help empower their assistants by making it clear to the organization that the assistant has real authority. The message the executive should convey is, “I trust this person to represent me and make decisions.”

Not every executive is well-suited for this type of delegating. Younger managers in particular have grown up with technology that encourages self-sufficiency. Some have become so accustomed to doing their own administrative tasks that they don’t communicate well with assistants. These managers should think of assistants as strategic assets and realize that part of their job is managing the relationship to get the highest possible return.

Stretching the limits.

Great assistants proactively look for ways to improve their skills. When I was the assistant to Pete Peterson, the former U.S. commerce secretary and head of Lehman Brothers, I took night classes in law, marketing, and presentations to burnish my skills. Today I see executive assistants learning new languages and technologies to improve their performance working for global corporations.

In my work, I frequently encounter world-class executive assistants. Loretta Sophocleous is the executive assistant to Roger Ferguson, the president and CEO of TIAA-CREF; her title is Director, Executive Office Operations. She manages teams. She leads meetings. Roger says that he runs many decisions past Loretta before he weighs in.

Another example is Noreen Denihan, whom I placed over 13 years ago as the executive assistant to Donald J. Gogel, the president and CEO of Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, LLC. According to Don, Noreen fills an informal leadership role, has an unparalleled ability to read complex settings, and can recognize and respond to challenging people and circumstances. “A spectacular executive assistant can defy the laws of the physical world,” Gogel says. “She [or he] can see around corners.”

Trudy Vitti is the executive assistant to Kevin Roberts, the CEO Worldwide of Saatchi & Saatchi. Often when you ask him a question, he’ll say, “Ask Trudy.” He travels for weeks at a time and says that he has utter confidence in Trudy to run the office in his absence.

Compared with managers in other countries, those in the United States do a better job of delegating important work to their assistants—and of treating them as a real part of the management team. Outside the United States, educational requirements for assistants are less intensive, salaries are lower, and the role is more typically described as personal assistant.

You can often tell a lot about an executive’s management style—and effectiveness—from the way he interacts with his assistant. Can the executive trust and delegate, or does he micromanage? Do assistants like working for her, or does she have a history of many assistants leaving quickly or being fired? Not every boss–assistant relationship is made in heaven, but an executive’s ability to manage conflicts with an assistant can be an important indicator of his overall ability to manage people.

Finding the Right Fit

Hiring the right assistant can be a challenge. In some ways, it’s trickier than filling traditional management positions, because personal chemistry and the one-on-one dynamic are so important—sometimes more so than skills or experience.

Expert assistants understand the unspoken needs and characteristics of the people with whom they work.

They have high levels of emotional intelligence:

They respond to subtle cues and react with situational appropriateness.

They pay close attention to shifts in an executive’s behavior and temperament and understand that timing and judgment are the foundation of a smooth working relationship.

A good assistant quickly learns what an executive needs, what his or her strengths and weaknesses are, what might trigger anger or stress, and how to best accommodate his or her personal style.

Good matches are hard to come by: That’s the reason so many good assistants follow an executive from job to job.

After many years of debriefing assistants who’ve been fired, I’ve identified several factors that make for bad relationships. The most common missteps an assistant makes are misreading the corporate culture, failing to build bridges with other assistants, failing to ask enough questions about tasks, agreeing to take on too much work, and speaking to external parties without authorization. Bosses usually contribute to these deteriorating relationships by not being open in their communications or not being clear about expectations.

There’s an assistant I placed recently who’s having trouble developing the right relationship with her boss. The executive called me and said, “Melba, I expected her to read through these memos and then get them out very quickly to my managers. But she left them on my desk, didn’t call me over the weekend, and didn’t send them out.” I asked the assistant about it, and she said, “He didn’t tell me it was important—I can’t read someone’s mind.” But in fact, in this job you’re supposed to be able to read minds—or, at the very least, you’re supposed to ask questions.

Simply put, the best executive assistants are indispensable. Microsoft will never develop software that can calm a hysterical sales manager, avert a crisis by redrafting a poorly worded e-mail, smooth a customer’s ruffled feathers, and solve a looming HR issue—all within a single hour, and all without interrupting the manager to whom such problems might otherwise have proven a distraction.

Executive assistants give companies and managers a human face.

They’re troubleshooters, translators, help desk attendants, diplomats, human databases, travel consultants, amateur psychologists, and ambassadors to the inside and outside world.

After years of cutting back, companies can boost productivity by arming more managers with this kind of help—and executives who are fortunate enough to have a skilled assistant can benefit by finding ways to delegate higher-level work to him or her.

Executive–assistant relationships are business partnerships: Strong ones are win-wins between smart people. In fact, they’re win-win-wins because ultimately the companies reap the benefits.

Dressing for summer in the office can be tough

Dressing for summer in the office can be tough. Ninety-degree weather and a suit jacket don’t exactly mix, but neither do guys in shorts and corporate boardrooms. Not to mention the fact that, at any given point during the summer, it’s about 40 degrees cooler in the average office building than it is outside.
But it is possible to create a summer work wardrobe that’s comfortable yet professional, and cool yet collected. Here’s how.

1. No flip flops: Ladies, this faux-pas is typically committed by you, so listen up: “Flip flops are beach wear which transpired into ‘commuter-wear’ and then slowly into office wear,” says Lizandra Vega, author of “The Image of Success: Make a Great Impression and Land the Job You Want.”
Not only do they look unprofessional, but their namesake “flip-flop” noise is an easy way to drive your co-workers nuts every time you walk by their desks, so opt for strappy sandals, espadrilles or ballet flats instead.

2. Choose light colors: “Lighter color garments help you keep cool during hot summer months,” Vega says. “Dark colors absorb heat, while light colors reflect heat.” That said; make sure the color isn’t too light. See below.

3. No peep shows: Summer clothing is often made of lightweight, lightly colored fabric. This can make for a comfortable commute, but it can also make for awkward over exposure. “Avoid apparel in fabrics that are so lightweight that they are see-through,” Vega says.

4. Wear an undershirt: It may seem counter-intuitive to add an extra layer when it’s hot out, but (men especially), if you don’t already wear an undershirt, you might want to start now. The extra layer will help absorb sweat during a mid-summer commute.
“Wearing a cotton undershirt actually helps men feel cooler as it will absorb perspiration,” Vega says. “[Plus],if a lighter fabric shirt is chosen, the undershirt will prevent it from being see-through.”

5. For women, dresses are best: Women are at a serious advantage when it comes to dressing for summer at the office for one simple reason: They can wear dresses.
“Dresses are a great option because it avoids having to wear a jacket,” Vega says. “A wrap dress, a sheath or shift dress are appropriate options.”
If you will be forgoing the jacket, look for styles with short or three-quarter length sleeves, even sleeveless if you feel comfortable. Tank-style dresses are too casual for the office without a jacket or cardigan, though.

6. Keep an extra layer at work: Women can keep a wrap or lightweight, neutral-colored cardigan in their desks in case the air conditioning is kicked into overdrive. Men can do the same with a blazer or sweater.
What is your go-to outfit for summer? What’s the biggest faux-pas for office attire? Share your opinions in the comments section, below.

Autostima, ne siamo sufficientemente provviste?

Recentemente ho parlato con alcune colleghe a proposito di comuni esperienze lavorative e abbiamo scoperto di avere un vissuto molto simile.

Abbiamo avuto infatti dei capi estremamente esigenti.

In che modo queste esigenze, quando diventano eccessive, possono essere arginate?

Io credo che molto dipenda dal nostro livello di autostima.

Citando Wikipedia:

“L'autostima è il processo soggettivo e duraturo che porta il soggetto a valutare e apprezzare se stesso tramite l'autoapprovazione del proprio valore personale fondato su autopercezioni. La parola auto-stima deriva appunto dal termine "stima", ovvero la valutazione e l'apprezzamento di se stessi e degli altri.
Il nostro senso di autostima deriva da: elementi cognitivi ovvero il bagaglio di conoscenze di una persona, la conoscenza di sé e di situazioni che vengono vissute dal soggetto; elementi affettivi che vanno ad influenzare la nostra sensibilità nel provare e ricevere sentimenti, che possono essere stabili, chiari e liberanti; elementi sociali che condizionano l'appartenenza a qualche gruppo e la possibilità di avere un'influenza sul gruppo, di ricevere approvazione o meno dai componenti di quest'ultimo.

Nei vari anni in campo psicologico sono stati portati avanti numerosi studi sull'autostima, un esempio tra questi è la ricerca di William James (1890/1983) il quale definisce l'autostima come rapporto tra sé percepito e sé ideale; il primo è la considerazione che un individuo elabora su di sé in base alle caratteristiche che dal suo punto di vista sono presenti o assenti all'interno della sua vita, il sé ideale è invece l'idea di come vorrebbe essere e del modello di vita che sta prendendo in considerazione.

Secondo lo studioso la persona percepisce bassa autostima nel momento in cui il suo sé percepito non riesce a raggiungere il livello del suo sé ideale e quanto più grande è la discrepanza tra i due, tanto più nasce in un soggetto insoddisfazione (nel caso in cui il sé percepito sia di gran lunga minore) e alto senso di potere e successo (quando il sé percepito supera di molto il sé ideale).

Si può arrivare a dire che secondo James il senso di autostima derivi dal rapporto tra successo e aspettative, infatti senza dubbio la maggior parte dei fattori che va a condizionare la creazione del personale livello di autostima discende dai risultati/esiti delle prove che siamo chiamati ad affrontare quotidianamente.”

Questo credo sia il motivo per cui non riusciamo a mettere i famosi paletti che delimitano la nostra sopravvivenza e lasciamo che un altro ci obblighi a fare cose che non vorremmo fare e che, a volte limitano anche la nostra libertà.

In pratica non sappiamo dire no agli orari prolungati all’eccesso, alle richieste di fare cose che poco hanno a che vedere con la professione della Manager Assistant, a compiti di basso profilo.

A questo punto mi pare evidente che il risultato che ne consegue è che la nostra autostima, dato che “la creazione del personale livello di autostima discende dai risultati/esiti delle prove che siamo chiamati ad affrontare quotidianamente” sparisce completamente a fronte delle mansioni assegnate.

Credo che ognuna di noi dovrebbe volersi un po’ più di bene e cominciare a dire di no.