Better email

Jill Henley and Brenda Miller

Jill Henley and Brenda Miller

Today at the WIM Professional Development session at HSC Brenda Miller shared some very good tips on how to write better emails.

Ask yourself:

Should I write, let alone send this email?
Is it public or private?
Would a phone call be better?
What is the purpose of this email>
Whom is it going to?
Does your recipient need to know what’s in this email?
Will the recipient care about it?
Will they even know why they got it?

Here are a few tips:

Don’t email “under the influence” (i.e., angry, sad, tired, high, etc.)
Don’t overuse emojiis, and not at all in a business email.
Be mindful of cc:ing and hitting Reply All too much.
Double and triple check the address in the To line.

Great workshop.

And, courtesy of “Scream Queens” and Hulu.com, here’s what not to do on email (be patient, the clip is worth it):

Some attendees and Brenda Miller:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Employee Engagement Isn’t Getting Better And Gallup Shares The Surprising Reasons Why

“American business is losing its war on engagement.

“As a quick reminder on why we took up arms in the first place, it was June 2013 when Gallup first released its State of The American Workplace study that revealed only 30 percent of the nation’s workers were fully engaged in their jobs.

“Since then, companies have gone on to launch all kinds of well-intended missions, campaigns and strategies, all with the goal of upending apathy, discontent – and the low discretionary effort too often displayed by their rank and file employees.”
Employee Engagement Isn’t Getting Better And Gallup Shares The Surprising Reasons Why, by Mark C. Crowley, LinkedIn, December 9, 2015

Neanderthals of Science

“In June 2015, Sir Tim Hunt was reviled for arguing in favour of gender-segregated labs on the grounds that ‘girls’ cause men to fall in love with them, and cry when criticized. His comment cost the Nobel Prize winner his honorary professorship at UCL, and his position on the Royal Society’s Biological Sciences Awards Committee. More recently online, The Review argued that campaigning for women in STEM was unnecessary. Gender gaps in different professions, the editorial contends, can often be a matter of biology. Gender is a factor in determining why we study what we study, and blindly incentivizing students to pursue STEM subjects may distort the job market in the longer term.”
Why Campaign for Women in STEM?, by Jonathan Beyer, Mendeley, 2 December 2015

Apparently we still have a long way to go, baby. And this might be funny if it wasn’t so annoying. Cry when criticized? Biology-based gender gaps? Really? Huh.

Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified

“Men and women also gave the same most common reason for not applying, and it was by far the most popular, twice as common as any of the others, with 41% of women and 46% of men indicating it was their top reason: ‘I didn’t think they would hire me since I didn’t meet the qualifications, and I didn’t want to waste my time and energy.’

“In other words, people who weren’t applying believed they needed the qualifications not to do the job well, but to be hired in the first place. They thought that the required qualifications were…well, required qualifications. They didn’t see the hiring process as one where advocacy, relationships, or a creative approach to framing one’s expertise could overcome not having the skills and experiences outlined in the job qualifications.

“What held them back from applying was not a mistaken perception about themselves, but a mistaken perception about the hiring process.”
Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified, HBR, by Tara Sophia Mohr, August 24, 2015

Women at the Table: Placing Policy into Practice

“In our first installment of the Women in the Nonprofit Sector blog series, GuideStar’s VP of Strategy Mizmun Kusairi shared her SOS model for success in Women in Nonprofit Leadership. Last week, Peggy Outon, Executive Director of Bayer Center for Nonprofit Management, contributed her story in Women in Nonprofits: Then & Now. Today, we welcome Anisha Singh White as she joins us for the third and final post.

“Last month, I attended the Gender Inequity in the Charitable Sector session at Embark: the 2015 Independent Sector National Conference. In this panel, four nonprofit professionals discussed the strategic and tactical ways that we could better promote gender equality as a sector.

“In the weeks following this dialogue, I thought about the ways that this session is applicable to myself. While I’m fascinated by gender equality from an academic standpoint, I’m more interested in applying the principles to my own life through understanding how I, personally, can better promote myself in the workplace. As a millennial woman in the first few years of my career, I’m aware that this is arguably the most critical time to establishing one’s self as both a leader and an advocate, for yourself and others. So, how can I be my own best advocate?”
Women at the Table: Placing Policy into Practice, by Anisha Singh, Guidestar, December 4, 2015

Grants: somewhat vague, but possibly useful

“The Foundation’s original charter grants to the Trustees broad discretion to consider support for charitable, scientific, literary and educational areas. The Trustees may elect to give special emphasis to any one or more of these endeavors and may change its emphasis from time to time. However, for all of its history, the Foundation’s primary focus has been on support of private colleges and universities, particularly in California.”
The Fletcher Jones Foundation (NOT the car dealership)

“The I Could Do Great Things Foundation doesn’t just fund great ideas. In addition to an idea, you have to have a concrete plan and a serious commitment. We want to understand what Great Things you intend to do, how you are going to do Great Things and how the money that you get will lead to Great Things.”
I Could Do Great Things