HBR: Making Time to Really Listen to Your Patients

Do you think the following concepts around patient care can be applied to the building supply industry? What is the cost of hurried encounters with your customers? Below is a blog from the Harvard Business Review by Leonard L. Berry and Rana L.A. Awdish:

Making Time to Really Listen to Your Patients

Modern medicine’s true healing potential depends on a resource that is being systematically depleted: the time and capacity to truly listen to patients, hear their stories, and learn not only what’s the matter with them but also what matters to them. Some health professionals claim that workload and other factors have compressed medical encounters to a point that genuine conversation with patients is no longer possible or practical. We disagree.

Our experiences — as a critical-care physician whose own critical illness led her to train physicians in relationship-centered communication (Rana Awdish) and as a health services researcher who has interviewed and observed hundreds of patients, doctors, and nurses (Len Berry) — teach us that hurried care incurs hidden costs and offers false economy. In other words, it might save money in the short term but wastes money over time.

Why Listening Matters

Actively listening to patients conveys respect for their self-knowledge and builds trust. It allows physicians to assume the role of the trusted intermediary who not only provides relevant medical knowledge but also translates it into options in line with patients’ own stated values and priorities. It is only through shared knowledge, transmitted in both directions, that physicians and patients can co-create an authentic, viable care plan.

A doctor’s medical toolbox and supply of best-practice guidelines, ample as they are, do not address a patient’s fears, grief over a diagnosis, practical issues of access to care, or reliability of their social support system. Overlooking these realities is perilous, both for the patient’s well-being and for efficient delivery of care. We believe not only that a clinician should share medical decision making with the patient but also that it must occur in the context of an authentic relationship.

The Costs of Hurried Encounters

Compressed medicine has real risks. Clinicians become more likely to provide ineffective or undesired treatment and miss pertinent information that would have altered the treatment plan and are often blind to patients’ lack of understanding. All of this serves to diminish the joy of serving patients, thereby contributing to high rates of physician burnout. These consequences have clear human and financial costs.

The medical literature increasingly offers potential solutions to the inefficiencies that rob patients of physicians’ time and attention, including delegating lower-expertise tasks to non-physician team members, improving the design of the electronic health system, and greatly reducing the paperwork bureaucracy that adds little or no value. We can create more space for active listening. Unhurried medical care may be elusive, but it is practical.

Reimagining Roles

Beyond time pressures, the typically unquestioned roles that physicians and patients assume also inhibit relationship-building. In their medical training, physicians often are taught to maintain a clinical distance and an even temperament. They are warned not to get too close to patients, lest they internalize the suffering and shoulder it themselves. The best physicians, we know, reject this advice because it diminishes their humanity and disadvantages their patients, who need more than a highly-qualified body technician, especially when they’re seriously ill.

Patients learn roles, too: adhere to the doctor’s plan, squelch errant thoughts that might sound foolish, don’t ask too many questions, defer to the expert, be “a good patient.” In a new article we co-authored with others, we show that many patients, especially those with serious disease, behave like hostages in the presence of physicians — unwilling to challenge authority, understating their concerns, requesting less than they desire. Most physicians certainly don’t want patients to feel like hostages, but the patients often do. When patients feel like hostages, the ideal of shared decision making is a pipe dream.

It’s no wonder, then, that for patients with serious illness, the emotion they most often cite is “overwhelmed.” The diagnosis, the options, the treatment, the myriad side effects, the change in identity when living with disease — all of it can indeed be overwhelming. In this complex, fraught situation, people need a compassionate guide — a wise, comforting sherpa who knows the mountain, the risks of various routes, the viable contingency plans. The physician-sherpa should be a partner on the journey, not simply a medical operative, extracting formulaic rules and implements from a toolbox. Patients need and deserve much more.

When doctor and patient join forces, the team dynamic dismantles the harmful hierarchy. Both members of the dyad can rely on each other because neither owns all the data that matter. Speaking at a White Coat ceremony for medical students, Dr. Rita Charon, a pioneer in the rising discipline of narrative medicine, stated:

I used to ask new patients a million questions about their health, their symptoms, their diet and exercise, their previous illnesses or surgeries. I don’t do that anymore. I find it more useful to offer my presence to patients and invite them to tell me what they think I should know about their situation.…I sit there in front of the patient, sitting on my hands so as not to write during the patient’s account, the better to grant attention to the story, probably with my mouth open in amazement at the unerring privilege of hearing another put into words — seamlessly, freely, in whatever form is chosen — what I need to know about him or her.

An Organization that Listens and Heals

Not hearing the patient’s voice harms the patient and the clinician. They don’t have the benefit of pooled knowledge, ability to make fully informed mutual decisions, or time to build trust. Health systems that want to avoid those pitfalls need leaders who invest in shaping an organizational culture that values hearing patients’ voices. Here are some steps such organizations might take:

  • Share patient stories and related lessons at every meeting. Perhaps one should be a story of success (what we did well for a patient) and another of a failure (where we must improve).
  • Offer a communications curriculum to clinical and non-clinical staff. The professional development should be engaging and dynamic so that adult learners seek it out because they view it as worthwhile.
  • Encourage and reward clinical curiosity, whereby generous questions are asked to elicit generous patient responses. Emphasize listening for not just what is said, but also how it is communicated. Consider a narrative-medicine component.
  • Convene patient advisory boards that meet regularly with practice leaders to convey concerns and make suggestions about improving patients’ experiences.
  • Use multiple methods to identify and systematically address impediments in clinicians’ daily work — the “pebbles in the shoes.” Examples include rounds, conducted by senior leaders, with both staff and patients; staff focus groups and anonymous surveys; and CEO feedback meetings with small groups who speak openly about what prevents them from delivering better care.
  • Create a balanced scorecard of physician performance that tracks not only productivity but also professional development, team building, safety and quality metrics, timeliness of care or access, communication skills, and care coordination — measures that matter to patients.

A Way Forward

Medicine is constantly evolving as new ways to treat, heal, and even cure emerge. We must continually reflect on the changes, and correct the course as needed. This work cannot happen in a vacuum of forced efficiency. Physicians, patients, and administrators all must maintain and build on what is sacred and soulful in clinical practice. We must listen generously so that we nurture authentic, bidirectional relationships that give clinicians and patients a sense of mutual purpose that no best-practice guideline or algorithm could ever hope to achieve.

Advertisements

HBR: Listening to Your Customers When Your Customers Disagree 

What should you do when customers have conflicting opinions? Are you listening to social media channels? Below is a blog from the Harvard Business Review by Alexandra Samuel:

Listening to Your Customers When Your Customers Disagree 

Smart companies recognize that both their marketing and their broader business strategy need to be informed by carefully gathered customer insight. But what do you do when your customers disagree—especially if their disagreement echoes throughout your various social media channels? What if their needs or desires are mutually contradictory?

That’s the situation the airline industry may soon face, thanks to the FCC’s reconsideration of in-flight mobile phone use. Customers have long been clamoring for in-flight phone liberation, but since its announcement the FCC has also been flooded with comments from passengers who dread the prospect of noisily chatting seat mates. Should the FCC move away from its pervasive ban on in-flight phones, those conflicting views will become a problem for individual airlines—or even individual flight attendants.

When you’re faced with a decision that’s going to make some customers angry no matter what you choose, it’s hard to know which voices to listen to, or whether to listen at all.

There is no more valuable time to listen to your customers than when they disagree, however. If you take the time to dive deep into a controversial topic—ideally with a group of customers who have been providing ongoing input into your business—you have a better chance of identifying strategies that will either help you satisfy competing interests, or focus your attention on the most crucial customer groups.

In a survey of 1,014 Americans who weighed in on the topic last month(January 2014), we heard the following about mobile phones on airplanes:

  • 44% of respondents agree that the FCC should permit the usage of cell phones on planes in flight, while 45% oppose the idea.
  • 40% of respondents say they would be very likely or somewhat likely to choose airline carriers based on their in-flight mobile use policies. Of these, the majority (54%) would choose a phone-fee carrier; 29% would choose a phone-friendly carrier, and 17% would prefer a carrier with lower mobile rates for in-flight phone use.
  • 55% say the regulation of phone usage should be a joint responsibility of both airlines and FCC. Only 12% thinks it should be the exclusive responsibility of the FCC, while 15% thinks the airlines should establish the guidelines.

These survey results reflect the public divide on this issue—and also show that rules on cellphone usage can indeed sway people’s ticket-buying decisions. If you’re in the airline industry, you better be tuned in to your customers.

So what should a business do when customers have conflicting opinions? Often the answer lies in looking more closely for nuances and patterns other than the overarching disagreement. For example, our data shows that while customers are divided on the issue of whether cell phone use should be permitted in flight, they do agree on some issues. Most notably, a full 70% think that airlines should have at least partial responsibility for determining the guidelines, so airline carriers can’t stand on the sidelines and let the FCC sort it all out.

Here are best practices to help you find the best path forward among your battling customers—and that could help airlines navigate through this turbulent issue:

Find a middle ground. While the public is evenly divided on whether cellphone use should be allowed in flight, most passengers (80%) object to voice calls. At the same time, most would-be in-flight cell users primarily care about texting (72%) Internet access (69%), and email (65%); only 28% are interested in making voice calls.

Almost half (43%) of all respondents think that if cell phones are allowed in flight, it should be for data use only, and only 18% think phone use should be totally unlimited. Allowing data in flights but not calls therefore appears to be a potential middle ground.

Figure out which groups of customers feel which way. Only 25% of would-be in-flight talkers say they’d be prepared to pay roaming rates for in-flight phone or data use. But if these consumers fly more frequently than other consumers, it still might make business sense for airlines to try to meet the needs of these consumers. They should explore providing different offerings for different groups. Failing that, they will need to determine who their most valuable or strategically important customers are and target their approach accordingly. If they know that some customers are alienated by phone use, but others are prepared to pay richly for the privilege, you can at least make an educated decision.

Educate the opposition. While the overwhelming reason (80%) for opposing cellphone use in flights is that people don’t want to hear other people’s calls, half of those who disagree with in-flight phone use also worry about safety (54%). These stats suggest education on actual risks could soften opposition. If you end up making a decision that you know will make one set of customers unhappy, look for opportunities to change their minds. For example, the data-only solution may still make customers unhappy if they are worried about safety, but evidence suggest that the risks are low , so airlines may find that passenger education can relax some of those worried opponents.

Equip your employees. Flight attendants are right to worry about what cell phones would mean for their workload: 55% of people who believe in setting some limits on in-flight phone use think flight attendants should be the ones to help enforce those limits by warning violators. While many also think that signage (44%) and signal jamming (41%) should be part of the picture, there is clearly a widespread expectation that flight attendants will be a key part of enforcement. This highlights the need to educate your people in the front lines: Whichever consumer group you end up siding with, equip your employees (including your social media community managers) with the information and the tools they need to answer people’s questions and address opposition to your decision.

Ultimately, any business dealing with conflicting customer opinions will have to understand the factors driving people’s attitudes. Should the FCC change its rules on in-flight phone use, the airlines that will benefit will be those that understand not just the broad dimensions of disagreement among their customers, but the specific preferences, concerns and purchasing patterns of each group—otherwise they will be flying blind.

 

HBR: Become a Better Listener by Taking Notes

Are you taking notes during meetings? Sabina explains why taking notes makes you a better listener. Meeting notes will help you make better decisions. Below is a blog from the Harvard Business Review by Sabina Nawaz:

Become a Better Listener by Taking Notes

Team dynamics can make or break a meeting. Have you ever been in a meeting where people interrupt each other, introduce new ideas when they should be building on the conversation, and repeat someone else’s point just to be heard? These communication issues waste time and energy, and usually lead to more meetings to correct misunderstandings, reiterate decisions, or soothe hurt feelings and interoffice tensions.

But there is one thing you can do that can make a significant difference to improving the quality of time you spend in meetings: Listen. By improving the way you listen and understand others in meetings, you can make that time more productive by reducing repetition and misunderstandings.

If simply listening can solve so many problems, why is it so hard to practice? One reason is we’re listening to interrupt with our ideas or rebuttals. We listen so we can jump in with our perspective. Or we’re worried we’ll forget what we want to say if we listen for too long. We focus on our own communication, rather than listening to understand others.

Through my work with executive teams, I’ve developed a simple technique that can help anyone listen more effectively in meetings. I call it Margin Notes. You may already take notes during meetings, but unless you’re using them wisely to understand others and plan your response, you may still fall into the same trap of speaking before you think. Margin Notes allows you to think, process information, make connections between points of discussion, and ask effective questions instead of blurting out the first thing that comes to mind.

Here’s how it works:

  • Set your page with a wide margin and take notes when someone else is talking. In the main body of your notes, capture only what the other person is saying. These don’t have to be verbatim; just jot down the key points. You can accurately quote individuals later.
  • In the margin, capture your ideas, judgments, rebuttals, and questions to each of the points you’ve written down. By marking them to the side, you separate your own thoughts from what others say. It lets you set aside (literally) your own voice and gives you space to listen to others. For example, when your boss excitedly outlines idea after idea for a product launch, you might note in the margin, “Ask about budget” or “Remind about CEO memo.”
  • When you speak, only bring up items from your Margin Notes that haven’t already been addressed and are the highest priority, and cross them off as you go. If you’re unable to raise some topics during the meeting and the items are important to you, tag them for follow-up.

For example, Ari is chief of staff to Brenda, the CEO of a 200-person scientific organization that was struggling. Its main source of funding had been favoring its competitor, and some key people had left to start their own ventures. Tensions were high, and some of the remaining team members were trying to one-up each other in discussions. Others were desperate to take any action as soon as possible. The ensuing miscommunications, high-stakes decisions, and panic led to conflict and unproductive meetings.

Brenda gathered her direct reports to discuss how they might sharpen their efforts in the face of dwindling resources. Ari took these notes following the Margin Notes model:

***

Ari assessed his Margin Notes and focused his questions during the meeting on the most important issues he had jotted down: What are the decision criteria for budget cuts, and should cuts be spread across projects, rather than cutting projects in their entirety? He waited until the end of the meeting to also ask about cuts in infrastructure and marketing.

Then, in a one-one-one with Brenda, Ari tackled some of his other concerns: “We’re an action-driven culture. Do we need to slow down? Do we lose possibilities by not questioning assumptions?” He also noted, “The team doesn’t question you; they just jump into action. Are we relying too much on your judgment alone? Should some of these decisions be passed on to others in the team?” Lastly, Ari observed, “I worry we may not be fostering a culture of healthy conflict. Jennifer seems nervous whenever Josh and John seem to argue, and tends to turn to your guidance.” There were also several points that Ari chose not to raise because they were low priority at the moment. He marked these comments, so if they continued to be an issue, he could raise them later.

Ari’s Margin Notes enabled him to make a considered decision on how to guide the conversation more strategically toward business outcomes, rather than further fuel the competition between John and Josh. He was then helpful to Brenda by reflecting some of the dynamics he observed in a separate meeting. This allowed Brenda to approach the next meeting’s agenda more thoughtfully and adjust her own behavior. Based on Ari’s comments about the team’s culture, at their next leadership team retreat, Brenda facilitated a discussion about their implicit cultural norms. They collectively brainstormed changes to become a higher functioning team during these lean times.

As you take these notes, don’t just write down the facts of the discussion. Here are some things to consider when taking Margin Notes so you can listen better:

  • Write down themes from your main notes. When you listen across topics, what is a common theme? How are they related to each other? What’s the bigger story they’re telling? For Ari, his observation about culture was one of these themes.
  • Capture questions and flag them to ask at the appropriate time. Ari held off on asking the question about cuts across infrastructure and marketing in addition to projects until the end of the meeting so as not to take the focus off the hard trade-offs that needed to be made on projects first. He also took some of the personal dynamics to a private one-on-one with Brenda, rather than openly critiquing other team members in the meeting. This helped him to avoid calling out or embarrassing his colleagues, while also providing an opportunity for Brenda to create conditions for better communication in future meetings.
  • Test assumptions. When someone makes a general statement for the first time in a meeting, examine it from all angles before considering action. Ari considered several assumptions about how the budget cuts could be implemented and whether there were ways to expand funds instead of simply cutting the budget.
  • Pay attention to what’s not said. There’s rich data in both what’s unsaid and what is said nonverbally. In Ari’s case, he noticed that no one asked questions or challenged assumptions; they immediately jumped into discussing specific projects and implementing the budget cut. What’s more, he observed some nonverbal behaviors. When John and Josh talked about their projects, they made eye contact with only Brenda and never looked at each other or other team members. It made Ari wonder if John and Josh were competing to lobby Brenda to consider the merits of their projects over others. He decided to raise this concern with Brenda separately so she could look deeper into these projects.
  • Be discerning about what you ultimately share. You don’t have to share everything from your Margin Notes, especially in a meeting setting. Ari simply asked three questions which shifted the tone of the session. He later followed up privately with Brenda about some of his other concerns, and noted some points that could wait until high-priority items had been completed.

 

Capturing others’ words helps you track what they’re saying, and by writing down your thoughts next to each point, you can ensure you won’t forget important follow-ups while still digesting the conversation. Allowing yourself to listen more deeply to meetings gives you the opportunity to connect the dots, present your ideas more convincingly, and get more real work done in meetings.

HBR: What Great Listeners Actually Do

Which level of listening would you like to aim for? Are you using all four qualities to listen? Below is a blog from the Harvard Business Review by Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman.

What Great Listeners Actually Do

Chances are you think you’re a good listener. People’s appraisal of their listening ability is much like their assessment of their driving skills, in that the great bulk of adults think they’re above average.

In our experience, most people think good listening comes down to doing three things:

  • Not talking when others are speaking
  • Letting others know you’re listening through facial expressions and verbal sounds (“Mmm-hmm”)
  • Being able to repeat what others have said, practically word-for-word

In fact, much management advice on listening suggests doing these very things – encouraging listeners to remain quiet, nod and “mm-hmm” encouragingly, and then repeat back to the talker something like, “So, let me make sure I understand. What you’re saying is…” However, recent research that we conducted suggests that these behaviors fall far short of describing good listening skills.

We analyzed data describing the behavior of 3,492 participants in a development program designed to help managers become better coaches. As part of this program, their coaching skills were assessed by others in 360-degree assessments. We identified those who were perceived as being the most effective listeners (the top 5%). We then compared the best listeners to the average of all other people in the data set and identified the 20 items showing the largest significant difference. With those results in hand we identified the differences between great and average listeners and analyzed the data to determine what characteristics their colleagues identified as the behaviors that made them outstanding listeners.

We found some surprising conclusions, along with some qualities we expected to hear. We grouped them into four main findings:

  • Good listening is much more than being silent while the other person talks. To the contrary, people perceive the best listeners to be those who periodically ask questions that promote discovery and insight. These questions gently challenge old assumptions, but do so in a constructive way. Sitting there silently nodding does not provide sure evidence that a person is listening, but asking a good question tells the speaker the listener has not only heard what was said, but that they comprehended it well enough to want additional information. Good listening was consistently seen as a two-way dialog, rather than a one-way “speaker versus hearer” interaction. The best conversations were active.
  • Good listening included interactions that build a person’s self-esteem. The best listeners made the conversation a positive experience for the other party, which doesn’t happen when the listener is passive (or, for that matter, critical!). Good listeners made the other person feel supported and conveyed confidence in them. Good listening was characterized by the creation of a safe environment in which issues and differences could be discussed openly.
  • Good listening was seen as a cooperative conversation. In these interactions, feedback flowed smoothly in both directions with neither party becoming defensive about comments the other made. By contrast, poor listeners were seen as competitive — as listening only to identify errors in reasoning or logic, using their silence as a chance to prepare their next response. That might make you an excellent debater, but it doesn’t make you a good listener. Good listeners may challenge assumptions and disagree, but the person being listened to feels the listener is trying to help, not wanting to win an argument.
  • Good listeners tended to make suggestions. Good listening invariably included some feedback provided in a way others would accept and that opened up alternative paths to consider. This finding somewhat surprised us, since it’s not uncommon to hear complaints that “So-and-so didn’t listen, he just jumped in and tried to solve the problem.” Perhaps what the data is telling us is that making suggestions is not itself the problem; it may be the skill with which those suggestions are made. Another possibility is that we’re more likely to accept suggestions from people we already think are good listeners. (Someone who is silent for the whole conversation and then jumps in with a suggestion may not be seen as credible. Someone who seems combative or critical and then tries to give advice may not be seen as trustworthy.)

While many of us have thought of being a good listener being like a sponge that accurately absorbs what the other person is saying, instead, what these findings show is that good listeners are like trampolines. They are someone you can bounce ideas off of — and rather than absorbing your ideas and energy, they amplify, energize, and clarify your thinking. They make you feel better not merely passively absorbing, but by actively supporting. This lets you gain energy and height, just like someone jumping on a trampoline.

Of course, there are different levels of listening. Not every conversation requires the highest levels of listening, but many conversations would benefit from greater focus and listening skill. Consider which level of listening you’d like to aim for:

Level 1: The listener creates a safe environment in which difficult, complex, or emotional issues can be discussed.

Level 2: The listener clears away distractions like phones and laptops, focusing attention on the other person and making appropriate eye-contact. (This behavior not only affects how you are perceived as the listener; it immediately influences the listener’s own attitudes and inner feelings. Acting the part changes how you feel inside. This in turn makes you a better listener.)

Level 3: The listener seeks to understand the substance of what the other person is saying. They capture ideas, ask questions, and restate issues to confirm that their understanding is correct.

Level 4: The listener observes nonverbal cues, such as facial expressions, perspiration, respiration rates, gestures, posture, and numerous other subtle body language signals. It is estimated that 80% of what we communicate comes from these signals. It sounds strange to some, but you listen with your eyes as well as your ears.

Level 5: The listener increasingly understands the other person’s emotions and feelings about the topic at hand, and identifies and acknowledges them. The listener empathizes with and validates those feelings in a supportive, nonjudgmental way.

Level 6: The listener asks questions that clarify assumptions the other person holds and helps the other person to see the issue in a new light. This could include the listener injecting some thoughts and ideas about the topic that could be useful to the other person. However, good listeners never highjack the conversation so that they or their issues become the subject of the discussion.

Each of the levels builds on the others; thus, if you’ve been criticized (for example) for offering solutions rather than listening, it may mean you need to attend to some of the other levels (such as clearing away distractions or empathizing) before your proffered suggestions can be appreciated.

We suspect that in being a good listener, most of us are more likely to stop short rather than go too far. Our hope is that this research will help by providing a new perspective on listening. We hope those who labor under an illusion of superiority about their listening skills will see where they really stand. We also hope the common perception that good listening is mainly about acting like an absorbent sponge will wane. Finally, we hope all will see that the highest and best form of listening comes in playing the same role for the other person that a trampoline plays for a child. It gives energy, acceleration, height and amplification. These are the hallmarks of great listening.

 

3 Ways Good Leaders Get Conversations Wrong

Blanchard LeaderChat

Male Question Marks Misunderstanding Enigma Men Pop Art Comics RImproving the frequency and quality of conversations that take place inside your organization is one of the best ways to improve the overall quality of your company’s leadership. That’s the message Ken Blanchard and Scott Blanchard share in their latest column for Training Industry Magazine.  With the speed of work, the generational and cultural diversity of the global workforce, and the variety of day-to-day challenges leaders face, the ability to communicate effectively with direct reports may be the defining skill that sets great leaders apart.

And while managers never intend to have unproductive conversations, bad conversational habits can often get in the way of effective communication.  Here are three they recommend that leaders keep an eye on:

Intentionality lapses. Leaders sometimes plunge ahead in an inappropriate setting with negative consequences. For example, you bump into a direct report who has a question, and before you realize it the…

View original post 322 more words

You forgot my name! Is it that important as a leader?

It’s very important to address someone by their name. Below is a blog post from Mike Rogers the founder and owner of Teamwork and Leadership  about how to remember people’s names.

You forgot my name! Is it that important as a leader? 5 TipsYou forgot my name

I have to admit that it might be a silly pet peeve of mine, but I don’t like to be addressed by “hey.” Or “How are you?” instead of “How are you Mike?”

This can happen for a number of reasons. Maybe they forgot my name. Or possibly they are not sure how to address me given several formal titles I have had in the past. But I have a feeling it is just simply easier for some not to take the time to remember.

Is it important for a leader to address someone by their name? I say of course it is! Think of how you feel when someone you look up to remembers your name. What if your CEO or other senior leader remembered your name when passing you in the hall? It feels good when people remember who we are.

I would suggest if you aren’t comfortable, for whatever reason, in addressing others by their name, then get comfortable. Start by addressing your friends by their names and work from there.

If you have a difficult time remembering names, then here are a few tips that are helpful, and have worked for me.

1. Really Listen. Often times we don’t remember names because we don’t care enough to listen.

2. Verify and Repeat. “Do you like to be called Pam or Pamela?” Or “Do you prefer Dr. Morris or Ted?” Ask how people like to be addressed and then repeat it in your head several times.

3. Imagine it. Picture the name of the person you are talking to on their forehead. It really works!

4. Word Associate it. This is one of my favorites. Simply associate the persons name with someone you know with the same name, an object, an animal, a place, a thing or whatever else will help you remember their name. I have found that the sillier the word association the better.

5. Frequently Use The Name. Another one of my favorites is to use the persons name in the conversation as much as is reasonably possible.

From time to time you might get someones name wrong. That’s okay, it happens. It’s happened to me a number of times. The benefits are bigger than the risks. I would rather come across as a leader who cares, is interested and connected than someone who is distant, not connected, aloof, non-caring and maybe even rude.

It might seem like a minor thing on the surface, but remembering someones name can make a big difference.

Do you feel it is important to address someone by their name? Why or why not? Do you have any additional tips that are helpful in remembering others names?