Early one morning, with no time for a Dunkin’ Donuts run, I made the two-minute drive to the Circle K, a local convenience store, and poured myself a cup of hot coffee. All of a sudden, I felt a sizzling, burning feeling. The good news was that ”my cup runneth over.” The bad new was that it was running over with hot coffee. Yes, yours truly (a.k.a. “Mr. Klutz”) had managed to pour coffee all over his hand.

Being of the oratorical profession, I knew exactly what to say…”OUCHHHHHHHH!”

A bystander, having observed my painful ordeal, commented, “Well, at least you can sue the Circle K Corporation for millions of dollars.” I believe he was serious.

I replied (politely), “Or, I could pay more attention when I pour my coffee.”

Social commentary aside, the point is, whatever we do, we need to not only pay attention but be willing to take responsibility for and accept the consequences of our actions.

This holds particularly true in our communication with others. We can’t expect that, just because we know what we are trying to say, the other person will automatically understand it as we intend it to be understood. As I’ve previously pointed out, this often comes down to belief systems (how we see the world, and assume that other see it the same way we do) and definitions (if two people define a term differently, it becomes difficult to have a conversation based on understanding).

In Part Two, we’ll look at one example where, although I probably said exactly what I meant to say, I communicated it in such a way that – if someone really wanted to misunderstand it, they could…and they did. And I had to take responsibility and realize that I set up the misunderstanding.

In about an hour, I head for the aiport to travel to New Jersey. I have a program there on Saturday. On Friday, John David Mann and I meet at a studio in New York to record the audio version of our soon-to-be-released book, Go-Givers Sell More (Portfolio, February, 2010).

So, not sure if Part Two will be tomorrow, Saturday or next Monday. But I do “accept responsibility” for getting it done. At least, one of these days.

A reader asks, “Bob, what is the difference between one who is persistent and one who is stubborn?” 

I’d say that persistent means you keep on trying as long as you feel there is legitimately a positive result that can be obtained. 

Stubborn would mean that you keep trying even when you know there is really no legitimate chance for a positive result.

Persistence is positive and is “results-based.”

Stubborn is negative and is “ego-based.”

Of course, that’s just my opinion. What is yours?

Sure, it isn’t just what you say, but how you say it. We know that. But, could powerful, effective and persuasive communication be even more than that?

How about “when and where” you say it? We’ve all heard the expression, “now is not the time and place to discuss this.” So, the best communicators make sure that if they’re going to say something of importance, it is at the proper moment, and within a physical environment best suited to the situation.

While praising a member of your team is best done in public, if you need to rebuke that person, it’s certainly best – except for in extreme circumstances – not to do so in front of the others, but in private.

At the same time, even in private, if it’s a conversation that needs to take 15 minutes, best not to attempt it when you have an appointment just five minutes from now.

When I was growing up and we had Family Meetings to iron out a problem or situation, it was made sure before beginning that everyone had proper time to discuss what needed to be discussed. If not, the meeting was reset.

When trying to persuade someone to take your side of the issue about an important topic, is it really going to happen in just two minutes at a party when you’re surrounded by dozens of people, any of whom could join your conversation without notice? Probably not.

All this seems obvious but – as life moves fast and “things come up” – it’s easy to forget and try to “get things done when we have the chance.” This often becomes counter-productive instead of productive.

I’d love to know your thoughts and continue the discussion future articles. I believe this topic alone is key when differentiating between communication that “works” and communication that doesn’t.

In his book, The Speed of Trust, author Stephen M.R. Covey quotes Mahatma Gandhi as saying, “The moment there is suspicion about a person’s motives, everything he does becomes tainted.”

While reading that quote during a recent presentation, I thought about a person who, about a year ago, sent me an email asking if they could discuss with me a project they had in mind. Without going into detail, they explained that it could result in millions of dollars being raised for a very worthy cause. Naturally, I agreed, and invited him to call me.

When we spoke, it turned out to simply be a business venture that – if it succeeded – could result in a very lucrative return for both of us. While I’m always happy about that possibility, I asked him why he told me what he did in setting the appointment with me. He very “honestly” answered that had he told me the truth, he didn’t think I’d have agreed to speak with him.

Assuming you agree with the Gandhi quote near the top of this post – and I find that most people absolutely agree with it – do you think there is any possibility that – from that point on – every single thing he could ever say to me would not be tainted?

It’s said that trust is difficult to build and easy to destroy. Well, in my opinion, if you go about building it correctly, it need not be that difficult to build. I agree, however, that it’s easy to destroy. And, once it is destroyed, it is then very difficult to rebuild.

But, to “lead with a lie” almost guarantees one will never have the opportunity to build trust in the first place. Why, because from that point on, everything they do is…tainted.

Feel free to share with us similar experiences you’ve had from which we all can learn.

“Dan Davis…’HDH Sports!” His voice was deep and booming, and the studio microphone caused it to echo with spectacular richness.

He was the sports anchor for WHDH a.m., big-time radio in Boston in the 70’s and 80’s. And he was really good. Also, turned out to be a great guy.

While interning at WGTR a.m. (small-time radio in my hometown of Natick, Massachusetts) as a 21 year-old wannabe sportscaster, I met Dan when we both covered the annual U.S. Pro Tennis Championship at Longwood in Brookline. I asked if I could visit him at the station some day and watch him work. He kindly agreed.

While there, he did some great teaching and provided me with many of the inside aspects of broadcasting.

But, what impressed me more than anything was the following exchange:

At one point, he told me that when conducting an interview for a story in which only one answer would be aired, to – rather than asking a bunch of questions and sorting through all the answers later  in order to find the best one – simply ask one question; the one I would eventually use.

“Ahh, of course, Mr. Davis” I agreed. “I’ve been doing it all wrong. I’ve been asking a lot of questions because I haven’t had the confidence to know which one I’m definitely going to use. I’ll do it your way from now on. Thanks!”

He then paused, thought about it and said, “Actually, Bob, I was wrong. Eventually, after you’re experienced enough, you should do what I said and ask just one question. For now though, until you have the confidence you need, keep doing what you’re doing. Ask as many questions as necessary in order to get the right one.”

Notice his first five words: “Actually, Bob, I was wrong.”

Sure, I learned a “good” lesson in terms of asking questions.

I learned a “better” lesson in seeing a pro – a true pro and a confident and humble man – who could admit to his young “protégé” that he was wrong.

Over the next 30 years, I’ve continued to notice; great leaders, great people, the truly confident, the real winners, not only know they make mistakes, but admit to those mistakes, as well.

What a winner. “Dan Davis…’HDH Sports!”