54 pages • 1 hour read
Leil LowndesA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
The implications of minor errors or “bloopers” can be significant, serving as barriers to acceptance by a group. These bloopers can range from physical disabilities to perceived physical or verbal mistakes during conversation to something more serious, such as an ableist judgment of a physical disability. People often judge others based on these “bloopers,” but the most successful communicators overlook potential distractions to focus on the substance of interactions. An anecdote highlights a corporate lunch during which top executives didn’t allow a dropped tray or spilled coffee to interrupt meaningful dialogue. Successful communicators create an atmosphere where everyone can enjoy the illusion of being flawless by ignoring trivialities.
The importance of attentiveness is highlighted through rescuing interrupted stories. When a person’s story or joke is interrupted by a distraction, the speaker often feels deflated and overlooked. By encouraging the speaker to continue after the interruption, one can build subtle rapport—“Lend a Helping Tongue.” This simple act of recognition not only ingratiates one with the speaker but demonstrates one’s sensitivity to the rest of the group.
“What’s in It for Me?” (WIIFM) is a crucial question, as people are generally more motivated to engage in activities that benefit them. This question also extends to “What’s in It for You?” (WIIFY), suggesting that effective communicators make an activity’s benefits clear for all parties involved. In an anecdote, Sam, the head of a marketing association, tricks someone into a group lunch without disclosing his scouting of pro bono speakers for his organization; this lack of transparency tarnished his reputation. In another anecdote, Stefan, who is in need of a band for an event, fails to communicate how crucial the favor is, risking the loss of assistance. In both anecdotes, the lesson is to “Bare the Buried WIIFM (and WIIFY),” clarifying the gains and risks of any transaction. This honesty is respectful and allows for trusting relationships.
In an anecdote, Susan Evans, the head of a real-estate firm, agrees to do her brother-in-law Harry a favor by helping his cousin Sonny, who is interested in real estate. However, both Harry and Sonny deny Susan time to savor the joy of agreeing to the favor; Sonny calls almost immediately after Harry talks to Susan. This speed diminishes their standing in Susan’s eyes. The lesson drawn is “don’t jump immediately when someone is doing you a favor. Allow the person granting the favor time to savor the pleasure of agreeing to it, before having to pay up” (307). Timing signals how perceptive or sensitive one is to social cues.
In a professional context, timing matters when reciprocating favors. For example, if someone provides contacts for a project, it’s best not to immediately expect a favor in return. Rushing to “cash in” can tarnish relationships and make an exchange feel transactional rather than generous. Waiting lets the receiver savor a giver’s goodwill.
In a professional context, understanding “safe havens” is crucial for success. This concept is illustrated in an anecdote about Kirstin, the president of an advertising agency, and Jane, a mailroom worker, during a company Christmas party. Despite already having plans for a childcare facility—an issue brought up by Jane—Kirstin chose not to discuss the facility at the moment, as a Christmas party wasn’t the right time or place. Jane’s misstep could potentially have repercussions on her career. Thus, respecting the sanctity of “safe havens” maintains professionalism and one’s standing.
Business lunches and dinners are “sacred safe havens” where business matters are avoided. During these gatherings, conversation is kept light, focusing on “golf, the weather, and making general observations about the state of the business” or “food, the arts, current affairs, and other nonthreatening subjects” (314). This absence of business is strategic, as it allows participants to observe each other’s social skills. Only when coffee arrives does the group gently introduce business, but even then, they avoid controversies.
The “safe havens” of Chapters 83-84 extend to chance encounters outside of the office. In an anecdote, William, who’s trying to sell widgets, sees a prospective buyer—a Big Winner—in a supermarket, where business talk is discouraged. However, if William simply greets Big Winner, he will likely earn their future call. The key takeaway is that casual encounters should remain light to create a “safe haven,” which can lead to later connections and deals.
When someone has something to say, especially in emotionally charged situations, one should let them speak first. This technique applies to various contexts, from emergencies to customer service. In the emergency room, the prioritization of numerical details may make patients feel overlooked. When they are allowed to share their experience in full, they become “only too happy to give […] the information […] needed” (320). Similarly, good bosses listen to their employees’ concerns before delving into details. This method enhances communication with the power of empathy.
“Echo the Emo” emphasizes the importance of emotional resonance, particularly when facts alone won’t suffice. The strategy recommends listening to people’s emotional expressions, especially during sensitive discussions, and echoing these emotions to build rapport. The term “Emo” was coined by Helen Gurley Brown, the editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan magazine, to signify that “when the time is right, reject the rational and empathize with the emotions” (322). In an anecdote about an L.L. Bean customer service agent, she managed a complaint about faulty trousers by acknowledging the situation and sympathizing—“I’m so sorry we caused you this pain and aggravation” (323). This diffused tension and resolved the issue.
“My Goof, Your Gain” advocates for turning mistakes into opportunities. When errors occur, the key is to go beyond correcting them. In an anecdote, an author accidentally broke a client’s vase. Rather than simply apologizing and fixing the vase, the author sent a new vase of greater value along with a dozen roses. The underlying principle is: “Whenever you mess up and someone suffers because of it, make sure they come out ahead, way ahead” (325). This approach not only alleviates negativity but leaves a positive impression.
“Leave an Escape Hatch” emphasizes the importance of handling uncomfortable situations with grace. It argues that, rather than confronting a person who made a mistake (or is about to), it is often better to let them save face and simply remove them from one’s life. Confronting wrongdoers only invites animosity, while offering them an “escape hatch” preserves some semblance of dignity for both parties. This technique extends to the “mea culpa routine”—taking the blame for friends’ smaller mistakes to keep relationships intact. Phrases like “Those directions I gave you were terrible” (328) when a friend is late due to getting lost can strengthen relationships.
“Buttercups for Their Boss” is the practice of sending complimentary letters, “buttercups,” to an employee’s supervisor to acknowledge and commend exceptional service. By doing so, one accumulates “social currency” that encourages the employee to provide even better service in the future. However, caution is advised when introducing the idea of sending a letter. Instead of directly asking for the name of an employee’s supervisor, which might elicit discomfort or suspicion, one should phrase this question as a compliment. This approach can lead to advantages like expedited service and parking spots.
People who respond first to a presentation or speech often convey charisma. During the McCarthy era, government agents observed public reactions to identify influential figures, a notion that can be applied to those who initiate applause or respond to speakers. These “first responders” don’t look to others before reacting, as they are guided by their own convictions. Speakers notice these individuals and consider them to be of “leadership caliber.” Being the first to applaud or agree also gains favor with the speaker.
“The Great Scorecard in the Sky” posits that every interaction carries an invisible tally of power or status. This scorecard reflects who holds more influence in a relationship at a given moment; it’s imperative for the person with the lower “score” to show deference to the one with the higher score. Failing to recognize or honor this dynamic can have serious repercussions, leading to strained relationships. This power dynamic is fluid and can change over time, affecting both personal and professional relationships. Acknowledging the scorecard can help maintain a balanced relationship by prompting deference where it’s due, whether this means picking up a tab or showing respect for someone else’s time.
Effective communication is a complex interplay of The Effect and Ethics of Communication. This interplay is not without caveats, as again, the line between effective communication and manipulation is sometimes thin. For example, Chapters 81-82 and the questions “What’s in It for Me?” (WIIFM) and “What’s in It for You?” (WIIFY) directly address the transactional nature of favors and pitches—framing transparency as necessary for long-term relationships. In order to maintain trust in a relationship, it is often best to be up front about one’s wants. Furthermore, “Leave an Escape Hatch” (Part 9, Chapter 89) underscores the importance of allowing someone to save face in an uncomfortable situation, making it a useful tool in maintaining both parties’ dignity and reputations. It’s an adaptable approach, extending even to taking blame for smaller mistakes, thereby endearing one to others. It makes one’s choice to extend grace transparent to the wrongdoer, as both parties are the only ones who know the truth about a given incident. However, while magnanimous, the approach can perpetuate dishonesty and allow wrongdoers to escape accountability. In extreme cases, it can be interpreted or wielded as something akin to blackmail. Taking the blame for others’ mistakes may maintain relationships but creates false narratives in the process, as there’s a line between maintaining harmony and enabling potentially dangerous behavior.
Speaking of potential dangers, the book doesn’t delve into the unique risks that come with following its advice as a marginalized person (across intersections of race, gender, sexuality, class, and religion). Still, “The Great Scorecard in the Sky” (Part 9, Chapter 92) at least raises issues of Identity, Power Dynamics, and the Status Quo. Recognizing power dynamics can facilitate interactions, but there is always a possibility of risking oneself and reducing relationships to transactions, in which people strive to grab attention rather than form bonds. While it’s natural to seek personal gain, this tendency undercuts values like community and kindness for its own sake.