The accents on how you speak not how you look

Recent research reveals that your accent reveals more about you as a person, than what you wear. An article on the research is below.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/218604/The-accent-s-on-how-you-speak-not-how-you-look

We are all aware that the way we speak on the telephone has an impact on the success of our conversations on the phone; the other person can't see us so we have to project our personality in other ways. However, this research is a revelation, since the voice: the way we sound and our accents, has a greater influence on how we project our personality than has been revealed before. Whilst experts have always identified the way we speak within a first encounter as being one characteristic people notice, experts (and in particular image consultants) have always focused on personal appearance being the most important characteristic to concentrate on when wishing to make a good impression.

I was always taught to maintain eye contact; shake hands and say "How do you do." From the research it seems that this is good advice, because you are immediately engaging with the other person. Focusing entirely on appearance is not a two way exchange. It is certainly something to bear in mind.

Our Training CD course 'Make an Impact with your voice' is available from our online shop.

Squeaky voices: do they influence and impress?

One of the key vocal characteristics we mention to clients is that of a high pitched, squeaky voice. When we are tense, the pitch in our voices goes higher. Women in particular find that when they raise their voices, the pitch increases, making it more difficult to be heard.

George Osborne has a great tendency to have a high pitched voice when put under pressure: George if you want to work on this, do give me a call. Also, on occasions, David Cameron's voice becomes high pitched and whiny when under stress. The following article is rather interesting.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/216598/Don-t-judge-politicians-by-their-squeakiness

Unfortunately we do judge people on their voices; the impact is even more profound when we're on the telephone, so here are my tips for maintaining a less squeaky, high pitched voice

• When you project your voice or shout, consciously think of pitching the sound 'low'
• When you begin to feel tense, check your posture and how you sit to relax
• If you are in a stressful situation; take a deep breath and speak more slowly
• If you are put on the spot with a difficult question, repeat the question to give yourself time to relax and respond.

For more information on our services to go Http://www.executivevoice.co.uk

What to say and when

Like many well brought up people, I was told topics to avoid discussing with people, including money, politics and personal habits. "Stick to the weather and which books you like reading", was my elders' advice.

However, I've just read an amusing article about what we should avoid speaking about on the BBC website.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11845363

Clearly times have changed; it isn't funny to mention 'bomb' in an airport and it is wise to take care when emailing, writing on facebook and tweeting.

You have been warned!

Business Networking Sites

Today in the Telegraph, there was an interesting article about business networking sites: like Linkedin and Ecademy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/7482116/Have-business-networking-sites-finally-come-of-age.html

I use linkedin, and I have to say that for an initial connection with people it is invaluable. It has also been useful for establishing myself as an 'expert' and to promote events my businesses are involved in. You are able to join sector related groups and contribute to discussions. I have discovered information that is informative and invaluable. I have also been able to connect with old colleagues, and through my existing contacts, connect with useful people for my business.

However, I don't just rely on Social Networks for establishing business; human interaction is an invaluable and might I say, the most effective business tool. I have heard from clients time and again that picking up the phone or even arranging a meeting resulted in our business being taken seriously - and leading to us winning contracts. Of course, it is great to connect via a social network, but realise that it gets very 'noisy' in there. You can be set apart by picking up the phone for follow ups, or even arranging a meeting.

Two examples that have worked for me recently are: we had bid for work with a large, multi-national company. I had spoken on the phone and also emailed the client. I offered to go into the office to introduce myself and discuss the contract, which she accepted. When the meeting ended, she said that it made such a difference that I was 'bothered' to come into the office, and this resulted in the business, and we have repeat business from them now.

We had a targeted marketing campaign; instead of just sending information via email or post, one of my assistants contacted everyone on the list to introduce our company. All agreed to receive the information; and immediately we received requests for meetings, specific jobs and to be kept in touch with any developments. The 'human' interaction had made a huge difference to our campaign, and resulted in more work.

Small businesses in particular have limited resources and time available. Social media sites are a cost effective business tool, but don't forget the power of human interaction; either by telephone or face to face.

Below is an interesting article by Cloud Net about the effectiveness of using the telephone (i.e. the human voice) for sales.

http://www.cloudnetuk.com/news/bid/36931/Cloud-Net-Survey-SMEs-still-use-websites-and-telephones-over-social-media-to-make-sales

For more information about Executive Voice go to our website or call us on 0844 576 3015

Background noise hinders communication development

I came across this very interesting article about very young children's abilities to learn, being affected by background noises - for this we should read the TV being on constantly.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20101114/tuk-toddlers-learning-hit-by-noise-6323e80.html

I have mentioned before my concerns of very noisy classrooms and learning environments. Some classrooms are badly designed so that acoustically they are either difficult for pupils to hear the teacher, or for the teacher to project his/her voice; everything echoes in the classroom as the materials do not absorb sound, or even that the walls between classrooms are so thin, that noise from other classrooms travels, disturbing pupils and making the work environment noisy.

In our lives we are so used to having noise around us: whether it is traffic, the TV or listening to an ipod. Yet the TV and ipods are very passive; we do not involve ourselves or engage. My concerns are that children do not learn to listen; to engage someone else in a conversation; to question; to ask or even maintain a two way conversation, because there are things that distract them.

I read (but can't find the article - sorry) that research showed that students studying for exams, that played with Facebook; their mobiles etc whilst revising scored an average of 20% less in their exams. The sample and control were large enough numbers that this was significant research.

Given that this research could imply that distractions could cause 20% less learning and work outcomes, we do need to consider work environments - whether they are in schools or in business.

The occupational hazard of teaching

today I read an interesting article about a teacher that has received compensation for damaging her voice. Here is the article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328093/Teacher-lost-voice-trying-make-heard-wins-150k-payout.html

I am very aware of the challenges teachers have using their voices, since one of the areas of training I offer is for teachers. I focus on vocal health; non-verbal communication and ensuring teachers use their voices in the correct way to prevent vocal damage.

Teachers receive, on average, a 1 hour workshop on using their voices, when they are training. This could be with 200 other students. When singers and actors learn to use their voices; to project and learn to pace themselves when using their voices, they spend hours on training, and often it is one to one tuition. Yet teachers have to speak every day for 40 weeks a day; they can't whisper but must project their voices.

Unfortunately many schools being built now are acoustically unsuitable for teaching; a well trained singer or actor would find it challenging to project their voice in some of the rooms being built. Add to that the challenge that many rooms are not sound proofed: noise in adjacent rooms carries, which disturbs classes and makes it more difficult for teachers to project their voices.

Another challenge is that many children don't know HOW to listen and concentrate. They are so used to passive entertainment from the television, computer or ipod and don't understand how to engage. More children have little concept of being quiet when someone is speaking, or they will be distracted by a text message on their mobile.

I am aware that some schools are buying microphones for their teachers and in fact one microphone manufacturer claimed that results improved when teachers used microphones. I would like to see the research first but suspect that the 'magic of statistics' was able to create this result... I have a number of concerns for using microphones in a classroom environment:

• Teachers still need to know how to use their voices healthily and effectively. If they are using their voices for 5 hours a day, poor vocal technique will still lead to vocal damage, whether they are using a microphone or not.
• Unless you are properly trained to set the sound levels for using microphones in the environment where they are being used, the sound levels not be set to appropriate levels. Given the acoustic of many classrooms, the sound will still be too loud in certain areas and too soft in others. Wraparound sound is not provided with these systems.
• The sound of the teacher's voice is likely to disturb classrooms adjacent to the class. If all the classrooms have sound enhancement, the work environment is going to become very, very noisy.
• When a voice or sound is loud, pupils will speak louder to be heard when having a conversation. Surely a classroom environment should not be about shouting at each other.
• Pupils are so used to loud background noises; why should an amplified teacher be any different.
• Pupils have to learn the skill of listening and concentrating.

The problem is that teachers are not taught how to use their voices. Teachers voices and body language are their principle communication tools. Teachers need to be given training - and more than an hour at college. They also need support to develop these skills; be self aware and be able to recognise when they are having problems with their voices.

Executive Voice offer one to one and group training for teachers. We focus on good vocal usage; vocal health; prevention of damage and non-verbal communication. Call 0844 576 3015 for more information.

We also have an excellent CD 'Make an impact with your voice for teachers and trainers'. Buy here.

Tips for making an impact on the telephone.

Here is my latest podcast for making an impact on the telephone:
http://audioboo.fm/boos/205404-making-an-impact-on-the-telephone


The Audio Training CD 'Make an Impact on the Telephone' is available from the Executive Voice Website

Preparation and World Cup excuses

In the midst of the post match despair last night, I heard arguments about Capello's decision to inform his squad who was in the team, only two hours before the kick off. Within a context of business; the performing arts and the emergency services, there are situations where important decisions or actions are taken at less than 2 hours notice. A crisis might occur where a snap decision is needed; a tragic accident where firemen and hospitals have to implement life threatening actions and treatment; someone might be sick and an understudy given 10 minutes warning to perform in front of 2,000 people.

In all cases, the people involved are highly skillful; highly trained and very well prepared. In certain cases, they have mentally prepared themselves for such a crisis for years and the knowledge they have acquired during their career enables them to step in. They will also have prepared strategies for delivering emergency care or crisis management within their team.

The England Football squad are highly trained, skillful players and within their preparation, they will have had sufficient support to develop their mental preparation; including strategies for 'getting into the zone' within two hours of a match. To use this as an excuse is, possibly, a red herring.

We all know that the success of our performance - and of course I focus on communication skills - is dependent upon the quality of our preparation.

More information from http://www.executivevoice.co.uk

World Cup Footballer Communication Watch: Our leader SG is speaking slightly clearer, although I don't know whether I have just managed to tune in to his thick dialect. He has clearly had some media skills, although more work is still required.
WR used his media skills work well yesterday, when he ranted after the game. Although the BBC wisely used subtitles, he spoke slowly and used a small phrase.
Capello is now asking for a translator: possibly wise given the anger of the media.

What we can learn from the vuvuzela!

What a commotion - or noise - that is being caused by the 'Vuvuzela' debate. Poor European football fans can't hear the expert commentary from the BBC or ITV; fans in the stadiums can't be heard chanting and, well, the English Team have an excuse other than the shape of the official tournament football for under performing.

The challenge is, of course, that the pitch and tone of the vuvuzela is in the most powerful part of the human hearing frequency. However, I have, against my better judgement, attended arena concerts where the volume has been equally loud and where quite frankly, it was impossible to hear the music as it was TOO loud.

The argument about the commentary being inaudible is an interesting one. There are situations where the pitch of our speech can make us inaudible, or more difficult for the listener to hear you. One example is teachers. For female teachers in particular, there is a tendency to raise the pitch of their voices when they raise the volume of their voices. Their voices become less audible as they are highly undistinguished from the children's voices. I work with teachers to keep the tone and pitch of their voices low, so they are more audible. Maggie Thatcher and Betty Boothroyd both adopted this technique in the Commons.

Also, actors wishing to be audible within a noisy scene, or comedians keep their voices low pitched to cut through the noise of audiences laughing. An acquaintance of mine: a very gifted amateur stand up comedian, had feedback that most of his jokes were being lost. Watching a video of his, I realised that his voice went higher and higher, as he was coming closer to the 'punchline'. He was laughing along with his audience - and they couldn't hear him!

So getting back to the vuvuzela; what relevance is this to football. Well, commentators need to be aware of their pitch; sound engineers that are mixing the sound in UK will be able to utilise these lower harmonics and frequencies, to make it easier for viewers to hear. Instead of becoming high pitched and squeaky whenever there is something exciting, they need to keep their voices low and modulated. Of course, there is something else BBC and ITV could do; provide subtitles, then we could enjoy the sound and atmosphere created by the vuvuzela!

Lost in Translation: we need subtitles please!

I am a great fan of regional accents and always champion this rather than getting clients to adopt a "RP" accent. However, I also promote good, clear diction and where necessary, slowing down when you speak. However, several situations last week made me laugh - and prompt me to write this short newsletter.

At the weekend Prince William struggled to have a two way conversation via satellite with the latest England Football captain. The Prince looked bewildered whilst the footballer waffled on in a very thick dialect, at record speed. The Prince looked rather like a French Exchange student on the first day with his family; confused and unable to understand anything; he eventually started nodding and saying "Good luck".

Obviously it was very funny, but this is a figurehead for England Football; if an English person couldn't understand the captain, who could the foreign media? It does no favours for this country or for English Football.

In fairness, I heard a brief interview yesterday, and clearly the captain had had some media training: he had slowed down his speech, and his responses to questions were very short. Whilst his diction was still very sloppy, I could vaguely understand what he was saying...

When we speak to people, we want to make it as easy as possible for them to listen; by making them work hard to understand you, there is every possibility that they will switch off and not pay attention. So my message to you is, when you speak to people - particularly on the phone, take your time and pronounce words clearly!

Always check your message has been received.

Last week I was involved in a rather tricky situation, where a group of children were delayed returning home from a late night performance. There were 2 messages that were not received and this resulted in the coach the children were on being delayed; the children being very tired and distressed and worried parents waiting for the coach to return.

One of these messages involved an individual 'TEXTING' a message to the person in charge. The other involved an individual leaving a 'Voice Mail' to say she was travelling independently. In both cases, these individuals believed their responsibilities had stopped once they had left these messages. However, the person's phone that they'd left the messages on wasn't working. These were important enough messages, which affected a number of adults and children, yet they didn't check whether or not they had been received. They also did not tell the person in charge in person, but relied on impersonal messages.

Before we had mobiles (and I don't mean the 1980s bricks), we ensured messages were passed on; we confirmed they had been received. Now, it appears, for some people, that leaving a message or texting is 'good enough' without them checking a message has been received.

The message today is: check the right person has received your message; if necessary asking them to phone/text to confirm, or - even more impressively, tell the person face to face.

Executive Voice is running a half day Masterclass Speak, Connect, Engage on 7th July in Central London.

Shh: walls have ears Triesman

What struck me with the whole Triesman scandal at the weekend was not that Britain's attempts at hosting the World Cup in 2018 have been scuppered, or even that a man in a position of authority was trying to impress a woman young enough to be his granddaughter. It was that in a position of responsibility and as a figure head of an organisation, he made unguarded comments to someone he didn't know well. He presented himself as untrustworthy; unprofessional and not suitable for the role he was paid to do.

Recently I have had unconnected conversations with two successful female entrepreneurs. One said she is very careful where she has work related conversations, as she never knows how might overhear a comment about one of the multi-national companies she works with. She respects the confidentiality of the work she does, and wishes to avoid competitors hearing about projects she is working on. She even avoids mentioning company names now, unless she is in her office with trusted people. It possibly sounds far fetched but this businesswoman is aware that her reputation is that of being utterly professional and trustworthy.

The other entrepreneur supports business people to fulfil particular projects. Even for an initial meeting, she is aware of her clients being candid about themselves. Unless she picks a suitable location where others can't eavesdrop, she is conscious of a private conversation, not being private! Again, this lady wishes to be utterly professional; respectful of the client's confidentiality and to find somewhere where her clients feel comfortable.

My message today is that the term "Walls have ears", is a warning to all professionals and entrepreneurs. Be careful who you share information with, and where you share it!

Executive Voice are delivering a 1/2 day masterclass "Speak, Connect, Engage" on 7th July in Central London. More Details.

Working together: the challenge of your role within a partnership

This is an interesting one: the image on the left, by Andrew Parsons, shows the recent press conference hosted by David Cameron and Nick Clegg following their collaboration and coalition.

A lot has been written about their relationship; analysis of the body language and behaviour; analogies with arranged marriages and what they said and how. Some commentators have considered how long the relationship will last, others are scathing.

I am not interested in that; I don't have a crystal ball, so am not able to predict the future. What I am interested in, is how individuals are able to present themselves as an individual and within a team. How they are able to work together to create a 'united front' on the world stage.

Cameron and Clegg were political rivals until very, very recently. Through circumstances they are now having to lead the country through a very challenging time. Whilst I don't know either man personally, my understanding is that they are both very intelligent, ambitious individuals, who are"Alpha Males". To form a partnership of this kind, there have to be adjustments, and they have to learn where the boundaries are within that relationship.

The behaviour of the two during the press conference was awkward and almost flirtatious. There were times when neither was totally clear about how to behave; who should speak first; who should take over. Of course this was an enormous challenge since a week earlier they were political rivals, and in fairness, there was little time to adopt a 'Role' for the performance. Also, although Nick Clegg's party was the 'junior' party in the alliance, the Lib Dems gave the opportunity for the Conservatives to take power. So NC being subordinate might not be appropriate.

So learning from this scenario, this is what I believe would assist individuals and companies in this position;

• Designate the 'roles' of everyone involved in a press conference.
• Decide who is going to say what.
• One person should lead the press conference; it doesn't need to be the person in charge.
• The 'lead' person in the conference should be the first going on, off and taking questions.
• In the case of NC and DC, if there is an issue over roles for NC, he should call a press conference when DC is on paternity leave; he'll get his chance then.

For more information on how to make an impact attend our half day masterclass Speak, Connect, Engage on 7th July

TV appearances don't necessarily translate well on the radio

I have focused on the vocal and performance side of the TV debates in my last blogs and emails. It was interesting to watch this short video following the final debate on Thursday night. Some undecided voters watched the debate on TV; seven others listened on the radio. The sample then voted on who had 'won' the debate. It was an interesting result: on the radio Gordon Brown made more of an impact; on the TV Clegg did.

Here is the video

Whilst the sample of 7 is very small, it was interesting to note that the vocal performance of GB was significantly more engaging on the radio where the more media savvy DC and NC made more of an impact visually on the TV. I have mentioned in previous blogs that impact is not JUST the visual appearance, but the vocal one too. In a different age, when TV was not such a powerful and immediate communication stream, the result of the election might be very different.

So we come to our three leaders. How did they perform on Thursday from a vocal point of view. As a performance, we had two leaders who were performing both faces of Janus: one leader looking backwards and reflecting on his experience and what an advantage this would be for the company, the other looking forward; encouraging voters not to dwell on the past but to have a change to move the country out of the recession.

David Cameron: This chap has worked hard. Following his first appearance, he has really upped his game; taking a number of tips from his rival NC. He looked much more comfortable; he engaged with the live audience as well as looking into the camera at times for the TV audience. His speech was measured, with him consciously speaking slowly and clearly. The impact of speaking slowly and clearly: particularly if you have a resonant voice, gives the impression of confidence and authority. This was something DC projected well. His deliveries were confident, and the voice was lower pitched, unlike the first week; he didn't appear frightened but gave the impression he could lead the country and deliver some alternatives to the present economic plans.

Nick Clegg: Ah, Nick Clegg, the media savvy politician. Everyone has learnt from NC's media performance: look in the camera; flicker your eye lashes; mention the questioner's name etc. However, NC looked uneasy and vocally, his throat was closed causing the voice to be weaker. It gave the impression of someone that was out of his depth, lacking confidence and uncomfortable. In addition to this, his posture was less confident than before. His shoulders were slightly up and forward leading to tension in his upper chest/neck and shoulders area: hence the unclear voice. Given the dynamics of GB and DC trying to out punch each other, NC had become the uncomfortable spectator and occasionally chipped in with appropriate hand swinging. He was still engaging when he had his space to speak, but it is interesting to note that he didn't score very well with the sample LISTENING to him on the radio. He adopted the tactic of repeated 3 or 4 key messages: again and again... If you were to close your eyes when he speaks, you would receive a number of different messages about him, what he has to say and what he thinks about himself. He is a very good visual actor.

Gordon Brown; Ah, poor Gordon. Suffering from 'mic-gaff' the day before did not put him in the most positive frame of mind. Physically and visually, GB looked like a broken man; much older than the other two leaders; posture was defeated and he looked tired and pale. He was still aggressive towards the other two leaders, although Dimbleby managed the situation well: preventing GB talking over the other two, too much. He was leaning in - weight on the balls of his feet. However, there was a tone in the voice which suggested a level of desperation.
Interestingly, his performance came across far more positively on the radio, with the sample voting 6:1 in his favour. He has the advantage of a lower pitched voice, which gives the impression of experience, power and authority. He was also clear and direct in his message that he had experience of dealing with the 'World Stage'. Visually, his body language prevented him conveying this, but on the radio, the voice was able to show this 'role'.

In the end, it will be fascinating to see how the election pans out on Thursday. The three leaders have all developed their skills throughout the three TV debates. In order to impact further, I would like to see NC and DC focus on their voices - DC to find a way of dropping the tone of his voice to add gravitas to his performance; NC to relax his jaw, neck, shoulders and upper chest area. This will lead to his voice becoming more resonant. For GB: he needs to think about raising the voice production into his resonating chambers in the face. This will lead to the voice being far more focused. Also, he needs to lift up his ribcage so that he can take deeper, more relaxed breaths. This posture would assist in him conveying a more confident, less broken persona...

More details of our course Speak, Connect Engage

You're never alone with a microphone

We've all had microphone gaffs in the performing world. I remember forgetting to switch off my radio mic during a show, and after my scene nipping down to order a drink in the bar.... which the audience all heard. Mercifully this didn't lose me an election, although I had a serious note from the director! I have never made that mistake again.

What surprises me about Gordon Brown's mic-gaff is that he is highly trained to use microphones; deal with the public and well, be a politician complete with two faces. GB does find it challenging to meet 'real people' and in the case of Mrs Duffy, she was an articulate, passionate lady who had supported the Labour Party for many years. She had also participated in a number of Party campaigns. She was controlled and had a right to voice her opinion and concerns. By all accounts, the discussion was conducted well and GB didn't leave it with his image dented.

However, leaving your mic on when you get in a car to be incredibly rude about a member of the general public: someone who could vote for you is unacceptable. The fact he'd slimed up to her - even discussing the colour of her blouse, then be personal is dreadful. Yes; when you are in the privacy of your home or car, you do let off steam. But this wasn't a challenging 'confrontation'. GB was also looking for someone to blame in his team. By leaving his mic on GB revealed more about himself; how he viewed his team AND the general public than any staged debate or Number 10 leaks.

GB is an experienced media animal. He has aides and 'experts' to advise him on every facet of his media image. He will certainly have had media training - which includes using a microphone. One of the rules is, never say anything until the mic is switched off. In fact another rule is: don't say anything of a private nature until you are in the privacy of your home, when you KNOW there are no mics around. Duh!

For expert training and a masterclass in connecting with clients, customers and colleagues "Speak, Connect, Engage" is on 7th July Click here for more details I recommend GB attends.

Election TV Debate: they all learnt from Nick's performance

After the first TV debate last week, there was increased hype as to how the main protagonists were going to fare under the spotlight. Despite walking the talk, David Cameron had been poorly advised by his team and underperformed in the first debate; Gordon Brown had adopted the 'Father of the Nation' role: to limited success. So it was left to Nick Clegg to schmooze, flirt, engage viewers and win the pollsters vote - for now...

Well: both GB and DC adopted NC's style of looking into the camera and addressing the audience. I still can't understand why they didn't do this last time, but they had to listen to their advisors.... Everyone was on the attack and this led to a more animated debate with some interesting discussions. We all like a good verbal scrap. I should mention that Adam Boulton was an effective chairman, who managed GB better and let the other two leaders have their say more easily.

I am focusing on the verbal impact and the performance side of the debate; how the three men came across; how they engaged and some possible changes that need to be made for the last debate.

Nick Clegg: The golden boy of the first debate was still basking on the success of his first performance. The knives were out for him; he'd had a smear campaign in the press and his policies had been questioned. He was attacked by both DC and GB, but maintained a relaxed composure, with the Mr Sad face not making too many appearances. However, I was concerned about the quality of his voice. The impact he made would have been significantly less on the radio. From the start he had a 'tight' throat, resulting in a less than resonant voice. His nerves showed in his voice and it lacked authority, confidence and trustworthiness. Given that his physical appearance was still good; he engaged well on the TV screen and with the audience (although he wasn't calling people by name) and his posture was good, this impacted less on the screen than on the radio, where listeners couldn't read his body language. I have mentioned the vocal relaxation exercises on the website, but do give me a call Nick if you want some specific one's for your problem. This needs to be addressed by next week.

David Cameron: I had been very disappointed for DC last week as he under performed. This week he was so much better, and presumably his original advisors are now having a prolonged stay in Siberia. DC looked into the TV camera; his posture was much better: I even saw him putting weight on the front foot (yeah!); he looked confident, commanding and no longer intimidated and annoyed by GB. Vocally, his voice was far stronger and he was able to maintain a lower pitch: thus avoiding the slight 'whining' voice that was apparent last week. Instead of his nerves and frustrations showing in his voice, he was able to maintain a calm albeit confident vocal presence. For next week, DC's homework is to practice placing his voice at a lower pitch when GB talks over him. Remain focused when you are interrupted; drop the voice and you will still be audible. Also, when this happens, raise the volume of your voice, but watch that your voice doesn't RAISE in pitch, so consciously think of speaking LOWER! Good luck!

Gordon Brown: GB did everything to excuse the fact he isn't Media friendly by his first address; substance over PR spin, which is ironic given that New Labour have been masters of spin in the last 15 years. A good try GB, but these are words of a desperate man. GB adopted the role of 'Elder Statesman' again; referring to the 'World Stage' and crises he has been involved in, he used the 'experience' card. Physically, he looked into the camera to engage viewers, but more work needs to be done, to be more effective. His posture was authoritative; confident and 'powerful' with him on the front foot and very much in attack mode. GB has a vocal advantage over his rivals since his voice is significantly deeper; this gives the impression of gravitas and authority and he is more audible when two people are speaking. He could have used this to even more advantage by slowing down his speech and adopting dramatic pauses, but no: he went on the attack and tried to steamroller the other speakers into submission. He gave no impression that he listened to other's views, instead adopting a sneer. Is this the behaviour of a leader? Finally, he attempted humour; his swipe at the other leaders appearing to argue like his sons in the bath was cheap; not funny and lost him some credibility. Humour is very powerful, but subject matter and timing are crucial. What does GB need to work on for next week: he has every advantage, experience, confidence, a powerful presence and vocal quality, yet at the moment he is wasting these. He needs to calm down; stop attacking others and focus on what he is saying. Putting more weight onto his heels, he would be able to balance himself better. He needs to listen to what others are say and internalise his personal thoughts on the others, to avoid him looking cheap.

Executive Voice are co-hosting a masterclass in engaging clients, colleagues and audiences on 7th July in Central London Click here for more details

Tonight's Debate: what the party leaders' need from their Fairy Godmother

If I was the party leaders' Fairy Godmother, what would I provide, in order they had their wish fulfilled. I am assuming their wishes will to perform well; to engage with the electorate, and to improve their popularity.

Gordon Brown: Gordon didn't have a particularly good performance last week. Many people noticed that he interrupted the other candidates (particularly David Cameron); he was aggressive and talked over other people speaking. He didn't listen either. As an effective leader, people are looking for someone who listens to other ideas, rather than shouting them down. Gordon would be advised to take a step back; count three before he jumps in when someone else is speaking and to engage with the audience - one by using their names and by looking into the TV camera. I am sure he will be on the attack to Nick Clegg and given the smearing today, there will be ammunition available for him to use.

Nick Clegg: Nick had a fantastic response to his performance last week. Not only did he flirt with the studio audience and TV audience; he looked straight into the camera, engaging viewers. He also used questioners' names and made friends with them. He played 'hard to get' with Gordon Brown who was schmoozing up to him. However, I have no recollection of what he said. His performance was very effective and made an impact, but viewers will be expecting to find out more about his policies and whether or not he can walk the talk. The other leaders will be on the attack, so he needs to watch his back and have some convincing responses to their queries over his effectiveness. Also he will have to fight off the repercussions of the smear campaign. This evening will either make or break him.

David Cameron: David was a real disappointment on Thursday. A good guy who has excellent ideas and speaks well was over shadowed by the other leaders. He also looked uncomfortable; his body language was ineffective and vocally his voice became strained. He was, however, the only leader that said something I still remember..... David needs to relax; move his weight onto the balls of his feet. He also needs to look at the camera, do the name game; keep speaking LOUDER when GB tries to interrupt him and keep going. He also needs to start questioning GB's comments rather than shaking his head. My last advice would be to look GB in the eye and keep the eye stare. It would be interesting to see how GB reacts to that on Live TV.......

Good luck boys!

Executive Voice are running a course on using the voice to Engage clients and colleagues. Called "Speak, Connect, Engage" on 7th July in Central London Information on the course. Many of the issues I discuss in this blog are covered in the masterclass.

How was the vocal performance of the leaders in the TV Debate?

Many apologies for the tardiness of this email report. Vertigo; writing at the computer and using your brain don't go hand in hand!

I don't know about you, but I really enjoyed the first 30 minutes of the debate; I then got bored. There have been plenty of comments on the performance of the three leaders. From a body language perspective, none are better than the excellent Peter Collett who appeared on Sky News. The impact of the debate has affected the polls, with the Lib Dems doing remarkably well at the moment BUT polls are one thing; it is what happens in the voting booths that matter.....

As Peter Collett mentioned, two's company, three's a crowd and this was perfectly illustrated by this debate and the dynamics between the three. Nick Clegg was the one they wanted to be friends with; GB clearly was smoozing with him, whilst deliberately leaving out DC. NC was playing hard to get. DC was the 'piggy in the middle'; left out with 'no mates'. Avoid Threes where possible!

There is no doubt that Nick Clegg had a fantastic result from his performance. THere were notable skills he used:

• Looking straight at the camera to engage viewers.
• Using first names for people who had asked questions.
• Bending the rules when talking to people in the audience.
• Open, confident, professional body language. For readers who have attended Executive Voice's workshops and one to one coaching sessions, he had a classic 'Divo' posture, which was non-threatening, professional, open and enabled his voice to be engaging, clear and interesting to listen to.
• HOWEVER - under stress, he makes his mouth into a 'Mr Sad' :( If you do this now, you will feel that tension develops in the jaw area; throat and back of the tongue. This impacts on his voice by creating a 'strangulated' sound. He needs to relax this area For jaw relaxation exercises go to the Executive Voice website
• He came across as trustworthy, in touch with the public and willing to 'work things out'.
  
• It was a very good performance - although I have little recollection of what he said.

Next David Cameron who, in my opinion, underperformed. I noticed

• He was physically on the back foot.
  
• His weight was actually on his back foot and this impacted on his performance by giving the impression he didn't want to be there.
  
• His energy was being used to prevent him falling over backwards.
  
• It prevented him from projecting his voice and personality.
• He didn't engage with the audience - both in the studio or the TV audience.
• He looked awkward, frightened and weak (in my opinion.)
• His voice was high pitched and strangulated. He was in a lot of discomfort - possibly from being so close physically to Gordon Brown.
• Looking broodily into the distance works for Clint Eastwood in a Spaghetti Opera, but not for a political debate. He looked silly and didn't engage.
• One positive; his stories and examples were very powerful and I do remember some key messages he said.
• For people that have worked with me, he showed classic examples of 'The Mouse' in his posture; no energy or engagement was coming from him, and he didn't invite engagement from his audience.

Finally Gordon Brown. In fairness I was spending a lot of time shouting at the TV saying "But you've had 13 years to sort this out!" Etc... However, here are my comments: I have tried not to be biased.

• Gordon Brown adopted the 'Elder Statesman' persona in the group, with confidence, solid body language.
• Gordon's low pitched voice added gravitas and experience to what he said.
• HOWEVER, because he has a tendency to drop his jaw, the actual voice drops from some of his resonating chambers resulting in a less focused voice which lacks clarity. It becomes more difficult to hear what he's saying.
• He spoke slowly and concisely to create the 'Elder Stateman' persona.
• He was aggressive, physically (he leaned on his lectern a lot) and 'Gave the eye' to David Cameron. I believe he intimidated DC.
• Vocally he was aggressive in a quiet, demanding way.
  
• He didn't play fair - he was for ever talking over DC and butting in, preventing DC from completing sentences and being heard.
• He jumped down from the stage to shake hands with the audience, leaving the other two leaders looking like school boys.
• There was no two way engagement with the audience; it was one way - listen to me, but no eye contact with the camera. He wasn't warm.

I will be very interested to see what happens this Thursday. Adam Boulton has his work cut out managing the debate. I am sure every second has been analysed by the researchers and advisors for each of the leaders and that NC will be the main target of attack this time!

For more information about Executive Voice go to http://www.executivevoice.co.uk

How the politicians say it NOT what they say will win the debate

Tonight we have the historic TV debate between the political leaders in the UK. Until this morning, when volcanic ash became the leader story, there was blanket coverage of the debate. Experts were wheeled into TV studios to discuss the appearance of the politicians and to analyse their body language. In all cases, experts said that it was how the men appeared on the TV rather than what they would say, that would affect the outcome of the debate.

One area that hasn't been mentioned is the tone of the voice; I find this surprising, since most of the experts are excellent. It is clear that all three men have worked on the quality of their voices: if you listen to early Gordon Brown broadcasts, you will hear that his voice has more energy and animation. I would, however, be advising and coaching David Cameron to become aware of his voice rising in pitch when he's stressed or pressured.

Since this is a TV broadcast the experts have focused on the visual impact of the men, yet there are many people that have strong auditory reactions - and the broadcast will be broadcast on radio. Whilst all the men have clear voices, Gordon's has a tendency to lack variety of tone and Nick Clegg's sometimes lacks charisma.

I have no doubt - or at least hope - that they have all had vocal coaching before this debate. Tomorrow, if I remain awake during the debate, I will let you know how well they did! But my message is: don't forget the impact your voice has on any appearance.

There is an interesting video on the Sky News website where the excellent Peter Collett analyses the 3 party leaders' body language and the messages they are sending.

For more information on Executive Voice go to http://www.executivevoice.co.uk

Learn to speak 'The Queen's English' on your iphone

I read an intriguing article today about an iphone app that can train you to speak the 'Queen's English' - allegedly...

Apparently, the app will train you to speak a certain number of vowels and consonants that are part of the RP style of speaking. What a great resource! I am very much in favour of people speaking clearly although speakers of regional accents can also speak very clearly. Ironically, some people that believe they speak 'Queen's English' don't enunciate clearly and they are difficult to comprehend.

This is a great resource for individuals to improve the quality of their voices; making it clearer for others to understand them. In a world where we speak to people that don't speak English as a first language, we need to work especially hard to be understood. Gone are the days when we thought speaking louder whilst gesticulating: like Basil Faulty, was acceptable. Come to think of it, was it ever acceptable??

It is also useful for people who use the phone a lot; there is nothing like a clear voice for making it easier for the listener to LISTEN EASILY.

Of course Executive Voice also offer these services: either one to one, face to face and on the telephone, and audio CDs. Go to our website for information.

Here is the article:

Listen to your customers!

How to lie without showing it in your body language

My family used to have 'animated' debates with my grandmother over "white lies" - fibs that might prevent someone being offended, and telling the truth. Being a die hard Lancastrian, she believed that telling the truth - or what Southerners would say "being blunt", was more honest. The fact that we had to tell a white lie over her cooking "Oh this is delicious", so as not to offend her, didn't cross her mind!

People DO lie: stinking porkies, white lies or fibs. In business it is very useful to learn how to detect a lie, and also be aware of what you do when you're fibbing. I came across the following article, which could be of use when meeting clients! It gives some self awareness of the types of signals we give to other people when we're fibbing. Of course, when you KNOW what you do, it is easier to disguise this.
Here's the article. Good luck!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/relationships/7324032/How-to-lie-and-not-look-as-though-you-are-lying.html

More information from http://www.executivevoice.co.uk

Complaining online only devalues yourself

In the last couple of days I have come across a number of situations where individuals have tried to undermine a competitor or individual online. Instead of it being a private 'spat' or discussion, this has been played out in the public domain.

1. At a conference I was attending, a potential delegate wasn't happy about one aspect of the arrangements and set up an 'anti conference' twitter account, rather than discuss it with the organiser. Like other people I looked up this individual's tweets, and let's say that I'm surprised she's invited to any network groups, since she has negative tweets on all of them.

2. An exhibition I attended had a derogatory blog written about it. Everything from the timings, to the quality of the exhibitors was mentioned in scathing tones: although the writer had problems writing grammatically correctly. Her expectation was that she would be wined and dined, but she engaged with no one; choosing to sit in a corner tweeting from her blackberry.

3. At a dinner party last week, a friend described how she had discovered an ex colleague had written a song: freely available on the Internet, which destroys her character. Although she is not named, things she said and did are freely quoted in the song. She feels victimised and powerless to stop the song being played.

4. On a wedding website, a supplier was "named and shamed" for "ruining" a bride's wedding. Instead of discussing the alleged mistake directly with the supplier, the bride went straight to the website, complaining without there being an opportunity for the supplier to give his side of the situation. Other brides chipped in, condemning the supplier without knowing the full facts. Eventually the shaken supplier: a small business; came online, giving a completely different view on the situation. It was clear the bride had an unrealistic expectation of what was agreed. However, the suppliers' reputation was affected.

In all cases, damage was caused due to someone going online and 'naming and shaming'. Despite there being one side to the argument, they were making 'noise' online and potentially damaging the reputation of a business or individual. Of course, we all have rivals and competitors, and yes, there are times when we wish to have more of the market ! but believe me, it results in more damage to your own reputation if you make a habit of bad mouthing competitors.

As Julie Meyer said at the BIG Event last week; you never know when you are going to be under. We all know what it is like to be struggling; don't laugh at others for their current situation.

Whenever I see derogatory comments about a business; individual or organisation, I always ask the question: who is this person and why are they doing it. Most of the time it is evident they are envious; struggling or bitter. As professionals we don't want to give that impression - so don't complain on line!!

More information from http://www.executivevoice.co.uk

How do you present yourself as a company?

Yesterday I attended a large Exhibition in London. I was struck by how different organisations presented themselves within this busy, competitive market. For me, it wasn't the stands that were the largest, or that had cost the most, that drew me in. On occasions, it was the tiniest stands that didn't have all the gimmicks, that enticed me to ask questions and engage with the company.

In the end, it was down to the people manning the stands; how they presented themselves; their body language, manner and attitude that attracted my attention: and I have to say, that of others. When they appeared friendly and inviting, people responded. No matter how many chocolates and biscuits were available, it was the people themselves that made all the difference. No prize draw made up for unfriendly people!

So what can we learn from this?? As a company, you are only as good as your staff; even if you have the best products around, if you do not have staff that engage potential and existing clients, your business is going to suffer.

We support businesses of all sizes to present themselves, via their staff, to clients and potential customers. For more details go to http://www.executivevoice.co.uk

Executive Voice at the Big Event

Executive Voice are delighted to be one of the Sponsors and workshop leaders for this exciting event, which takes place on 4th March at the Fielder Centre, Hatfield Business Park.

Executive Voice will be leading two showcase workshops, where we will discover how small adjustments to posture make a huge difference to the impact you make with clients and customers.

If you would like to attend go to http://www.the-bigevent.com What's even better, is that I have a 25% discount code for my readers. To receive this, contact me. with your email address and I will send it to you.

I will also be offering a one to one Vocal and Communications session (worth £100 if you come to my studio). Let me give you invaluable advice on how to make a positive impact with your clients.

More information from http://www.executivevoice.co.uk

Violence in schools - what should teachers do?

Nearly half of new teachers do not feel properly equipped to deal with violence in the classroom, a survey suggests. The association of teachers, lecturers surveyed 1,001 NQTs with 49% respondents believing they had not had enough training to deal with challenging behaviour, and nearly 55% who were still training who felt they were not getting enough guidance.

One of the most challenging aspects of violence within schools is how guidelines of restraining pupils are interpreted. There have been cases of pupils complaining that undue force has been used by teachers, to stop a fight: and the complaints have had an impact on a teacher’s career. Instead of respecting that a teacher has taken reasonable measures to stop a fight, they have to justify their decisions, which make them feel vulnerable to malicious complaints by students.

During teacher training courses, it appears that this is still a skill that is not taught to students. If student teachers do ask advice, they are referred to the ‘School’s policy and guidelines’, which they do not find helpful.

Guidance by the Department for Children, Schools and Families lists the types of force teachers can use on children. This can include passive physical contact such as blocking a pupil's path and active contact such as leading a pupil by the hand or arm. In more extreme circumstances, "appropriate restrictive holds, which may require specific expertise or training", may be used, it says. However, these guidelines can be misinterpreted, and as mentioned before, still require the teacher to prove they had assessed the situation quickly and acted accordingly. Given that a lot of violent situations arise suddenly, there isn’t time to make a full risk assessment before acting.

I believe the physical aspect of intervention needs to be discussed within schools to make school policies very clear to all staff members. However, there are also other actions that staff can do in addition to physical intervention, to diffuse a violent situation. These are not covered by the CSF’s guidelines but are invaluable skills to acquire.

· Eye Contact. When communicating with the students, create eye contact with them, to engage their attention where possible. Look directly into the eyes of the student in a neutral way – not aggressive.

· Body language – ensure this is open, professional and not aggressive or threatening.

· Non-mirroring of the students’ body language – you are trying to diffuse the violence, not fuel it. Your neutral body language will influence the outcome.

· Voice – make sure you maintain a low pitch in your voice; when one is stressed it has a tendency to become high and shrill (particularly in ladies). Keep the voice clear, calm, audible and speak slowly.

· Language – use assertive language; repeating what you want as the outcome. Use non-judgemental and non-emotive language.

· Mentoring. It is essential for all teachers, that they have an opportunity to discuss challenges and ideas with a trusted confidant; preferably a more experienced teacher. Also, watching more experienced teachers dealing with challenging situations is an invaluable learning opportunity for Nqts and training teachers.

Executive Voice have produced an audio training CD “Making an Impact with your Vocal and Physical Presence” for teachers – available from Amazon.

Executive Voice also deliver INSET and after school training for groups of teachers.

http://www.executivevoice.co.uk

Giving Feedback - how to maintain your positive image and integrity.

Having worked in the creative industry, I have witnessed many 'feedback' sessions, where the feedback is more about the giver's ego, than the recipient's needs. This style of feedback is tolerated only because the giver often has a lot of power in casting artistes...

Of course, in the business world there are also massive egos and people that are unable to give constructive criticism since their status 'gets in the way'. Yet ineffective criticism actually devalues the "giver" if delivered in the wrong way. Here are some examples:

"Where do I start?" - Brace yourself; you're getting feedback from an expert here.

"Why did you decide to do that?" - That's a brilliant idea but I'm loathed to give you credit for it.

"I'm surprised you did that given your experience" - Let's have a dig about your 'experience' - I'm the star here.

"And when you do this next time you will need to" - Let's make sure I put my stamp on this, so that I can take credit for it.

I am sure you have many more examples of poor feedback styles you have received. The latter is particularly interesting since it has nothing to do with the task that is being criticised but about them. In all of the cases above, the comments are about the giver; establishing themselves as "the expert" and the other person as a grateful listener. Some of these comments are quite personal: particularly the "I'm surprised at..." which is a cruel and patronising put down. I envisage the giver wishing to sit on a high seat with the recipient sitting at his feet.... you know the scenario.

I am interested in YOU ensuring that you give feedback without compromising on your image or risking your respect being eroded away. I have come across the "Sandwich" feedback;
*Feature a positive point from the task that worked - such as the idea; the delivery; the visual element etc.
*Add a recommendation "You might have considered this to make it work even better...."
* Finish on another positive point.

The benefits of this are that as an expert, you are not damaging your professional image by being patronising; egotistical or jealous. You will be gaining respect from your team, but you have the opportunity to provide some advice.

More information from http://www.executivevoice.co.uk

The BIG Event - Hertfordshire's most exciting Business Conference 4th March

Executive Voice are delighted to be involved with the BIG event on 4th March 2010 at the Fielder Centre, Hatfield Business Park, Hertfordshire.

http://www.the-BIGevent.com offers the opportunity for businesses, business organisations and entrepreneurs in Hertfordshire and the East of England to share ideas; discuss new initiatives and hear expert speakers such as James Caan; Andy Lopata; Mindy Gibbins-Klein, Julie Mayer and Penny Power. in addition there will be workshops: 2 led by Susan Heaton Wright of Executive Voice; round table discussions and networking opportunities.

As a reader of this blog, we are offering you a 25% discount on the entrance fee. Contact Executive Voice for your discount code.

We look forward to seeing you there!

www.executivevoice.co.uk

Facebook accounts and how you present yourself

I came across this 'warning' for graduate job hunters, regarding their Facebook accounts.


http://www.gradplus.com/graduate-news/graduate-job-hunters-warned-over-online-profile-19588077.aspx

We have to be so aware of the boundaries between work and home - and how we present ourselves for each. Unfortunately, due to Social Media, it is easy for potential employers to search for information about yourself; your tastes; activities - and behaviour. Social photographs, which are fun, but might not present you in the best possible light could be visible to potential employers - and they could base their decision on whether or not to employ you, on this. Within Facebook, photographs of you could be put on your 'Wall' and be associated with you - AND be visible to people wishing to find out information about you.

There are some measures you could enforce to avoid sending the wrong message about yourself:

• Set up privacy options on your account, so that your photos and profile are only visible to friends.
• Be careful what you include on your account.
• Remove any dodgy photos.
• Set up a 'professional' and 'friends' accounts and have appropriate friends for each aspect of your life.

In the end, you want to present yourself in a positive light; I'd hate it if you missed out on a great opportunity, because a photo of you in a Toga was misconstrued!

http://www.executivevoice.co.uk

The dishonesty and suffering as a result of the MMR Scandal

I fully understand how upsetting it must be for parents to see their children 'change', and how they could attribute these changest to the MMR jab. I also understand how they could latch onto and believe the findings of Andrew Wakefield.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7094081/Andrew--Wakefield-was-dishonest-and-irresponsible-in-MMR-research.html

However, as a parent of a 10 year old, I experienced first hand the hysteria which resulted from his deeply flawed investigations. Despite having a dear friend who has a child of an identical age, who, as a pharmacist had all the research available about the MMR, I still didn't sleep the night before my son had the MMR. I investigated the possibility of single jabs, but discovered from my friend that one of the vaccines was not pure and therefore not available in the UK for health reasons. Some of my friends believed all of the hype and 'research' on the internet; paid to go to an unregistered "doctor"- without investigating him, for single jabs, and found their child had to have the MMR at a later date due to the poor vaccine.
Parents also put their children's health at risk by refusing to have the MMR vaccination. This was all due to Andrew Wakefield and the parents he was representing. Their motivation was to sue the Government for their children's 'illness' - i.e. autism, and they needed to have proof that the MMR caused this. There is NO evidence that there is any connection, but there is evidence that their VERY vocal voice and the unprofessional behaviour of Andrew Wakefield has led to many children's health being risked.

I am very pleased that he is being struck off. What a scandal.

Has the art of the hand shake gone out of fashion?

Today I read in the Daily Mail that hand shaking was going out of fashion; that 'the young' preferred 'Air kissing'.

Here's the article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246424/Modern-youngsters-air-kiss-goodbye-handshake-etiquette-faces-killed-off.html

Well, of course the Daily Mail has it's own twist on this (and it is worthwhile reading the readers' comments for added value). And it's worth remembering when we were 'young': did we consider the formal handshake to be, well, rather old fashioned?

However, it is an interesting idea to think about. For 100s of years, we have used the handshake
as a form of greeting. Apparently it was brought to the Western World when Sir Walter Raleigh used it in Elizabeth I's court.

A firm handshake (not a hand crusher) accompanied by eye contact, gives the impression of a confident person engaging with another person. A floppy, or sweaty (yuck) handshake, gives a negative image! The Masons, of course, have their own handshake where they're able to identify and reveal their membership to each other.

As a universally understood greeting, the handshake goes a long way as an acceptable greeting.

If we consider air kissing: and yes, I am partial to this myself; it does have its drawbacks. I never know "Which way the other person is going to kiss first..."; there can be a clashing of noses; a possible snog accident, or plain embarrassment. In addition to this, there is the "How many kisses do we give?" anxiety. I'm not sure how hygienic it is; if you are worried about hygiene when shaking hands, a good antiseptic gel will clear any bugs on your hands, but this won't work when you're breathing in some one's germs.

In December, I ran a workshop at Hertfordshire University, and we practised a good handshake and eye engagement to develop a positive greeting at interviews. The feedback I had from the students was that they felt empowered by a strong handshake, and that they had engaged the other person. Interesting....
Of course, greeting a friend or close acquaintance with an air kiss is friendly, BUT, your boss?? Your client?? Competitor?? For me there is a line between using the handshake and air kiss. The former is for business relationships and people you don't know, and the air kiss for friends; acquaintances and very good business relationships.

My advice is: get it right!!

Tense jaws - and what an impact they make on customers!

When I first came to London, aged 22, I responded to an advert for a flatshare. The person answering the phone went "Hello" in a perfect Monty Python voice. My response was to put the phone down; I couldn't have shared a flat with this bloke!!

I now know that he had a very tense jaw; it impacted on the quality of his voice. It also affects the non-verbal messages you give to others, as it closes your face to other people.

In addition to this, a tense jaw could create headaches; and not only are these unpleasant, but you might reduce your communication - engagement with others on the phone; face to face etc.

So; here are a couple of tips for relaxing your jaw. Remember not to force any movement.

1. Very gently move your jaw from side to side.

Be aware of background noises when you telephone

Today I received a phone call from one of my regular clients; she is always an absolute pleasure to speak to. She is a successful headmistress of an award winning school, and is such an inspirational person.

She mentioned that she is fed up with 'Government Officials' who call her throughout the day, asking for information; figures and checking she has received 'Urgent' information. She believes she has enough to do, without constantly speaking to them on the phone.

Last week, she had to cover a class, due to staff absenteeim, when the school secretary came into the class asking her to come to the phone "It is an urgent call and it can't wait". The secretary had explained that my friend was teaching, but this was not considered relevant; the caller had to speak to her NOW.

The headmistress was therefore surprised that in the background "The Teletubbies" was audible, and on several occasions during this 'important' telephone conversation, the caller stopped and said "Drop that", "Leave it" and other commands to a child who called out. It neither endeared my friend to the caller, or made her appear professional.

We all understand that there are emergencies when childcare is an issue, but there is always a choice of when important phone calls are made - and they certainly don't take place with children's TV (or infact a football match!) audible in the background. If you want to make a good impression and be taken seriously, either move to another room; do a call at another time or switch the TV to mute!

More information from http://www.executivevoice.co.uk

Blonde women born to be warrior princesses - Times Online

Oh let's have a go at blonds again..... However, I rather like the concept of being a 'Warrior Princess'. Finally, I could drop the "English Rose" approach...

Blonde women born to be warrior princesses - Times Online

Why we must treasure our regional accents -Times Online

Further to my last blog, I've had a response. Yes; other people agree that grammatical errors devalue the speaker's message; their trustworthiness and unfortunately their intelligence. One reader mentioned the habit of inflections at the end of phrases, so that every sentence sounds like a question. "I'm going to the gym" - with an upward inflection. Also the "I went to the shops, and it was, like, SOO busy." - complete with rolling eyes and flicky hair.

I've come across another article promoting regional accents.
Why we must treasure our regional accents -Times Online

My message is still to treasure regional variety, but to be aware of your use of grammar; speak clearly and don't go up at the end of every sentence unless it's a question!!