I was amazed at a business meeting I attended recently. Business cards were exchanged by literally, tossing them across the table. As I have travelled internationally, I have come to realize that our American attitude toward business cards can seem downright disrespectful. And that makes no sense. After all, a business card is an extension of a person’s image and, therefore, should be treated with the same respect you offer the person.

It’s not hard to show appropriate respect as you give and receive a business card.

When you receive a card, take a moment to look at it before putting it away. You show respect to the person who gave it to you by making the effort to read it.

Don’t shove it in a back pocket or just drop it in a purse. Put it away carefully and thank the person who gave it to you to continue to show your respect and appreciation.

Always have enough cards on hand to give out to people you will be meeting, and a few extras for those you may meet unexpectedly.

Another issue that causes people difficulty is when to exchange business cards.

Best time is at the start of a meeting. Business cards can be especially helpful for learning and remembering peoples’ names. You can place the cards in front of you on the table in the same relative position as where people are seated at the table. This gives you a quick reference guide to help solidify the names of the participants in your memory.

If you meet someone outside of a meeting, offer your card during the introduction.

Anytime a person offers you their card, reciprocate by offering yours to them as well. Of course this means having cards readily available. A small business card case will keep yours spotless and provides a great place to carefully put another person’s card.

If cards haven’t been exchanged sooner, be sure to exchange them at the end of the meeting or get-together.

Facebook recently released Home and promoted it with three television ads: Dinner, Airplane, and Launch Day. Cute ads, funny. Facebook hit home runs twice but struck out with the third.

In Airplane a guy sees images of family and friends and others come alive around him in the airplane. When the flight attendant asks him to turn off his phone, he quickly takes another peek before shutting down and nodding off.

In Launch Day as Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg announces the launch day to a “staff,” one member of the staff pays more attention to Home on his phone than he does to Zuckerberg. Again the images seem to come alive as Zuckerberg proclaims his excitement about the new product, until imagination becomes reality when the staff member is drenched in water from one of his images.

Finally, in Dinner, an aunt boringly relates lots of nothings at dinner while her rude niece looks at the phone in her lap, cruising Home. Like the other ads her images take on life around the dinner table as she enjoys the Home experience and ignores the people at the table, especially her boring aunt.

As ads, Airplane and Launch day work well, but Dinner sends the wrong message. Here’s why.

In Airplane the guy turns his phone off when he’s supposed to, well almost, but he does turn it off after the flight attendant asks.

In Launch Day ignoring a boss is a big mistake and would be egregious except for the fact that the ad makes the situation absurd when it melds reality and fantasy by leaving the individual soaking wet.

Unfortunately, there’s no such spoofing in Dinner. Here the rude girl does what is so frustrating to so many people today: She focuses on her phone instead of on the people she is with. Unlike Launch Day man who ends up doused in water or Airplane man who shuts his phone off, she benefits from her rudeness, and the ad implies that her rude behavior is totally justified and acceptable.

Over and over we hear how people are appalled at the rudeness exhibited when a phone is more important than the person or people you are with, especially at the dinner table, at a meal with others. Her rudeness is not acceptable, and Facebook shouldn’t be touting rudeness as a benefit of Home.

My and my wife’s thoughts and prayers are with the people who were injured or worse in Boston yesterday and for all the people of Boston. It is hard to comprehend such a horrific event. You can watch the images and listen to the anchors and experts, but it just doesn’t make sense.

“They’re okay,” my wife shouted from the other room. She had just gotten emails from her cousins who live in various parts of Boston. One had been at home. Another had worked near the finish line during the morning but had left before the bombs went off. Others had watched from various vantage points along the route. They live all over Boston, one only a couple of blocks away from the finish line.

I heard her, but I couldn’t move. “That’s a relief,” I answered softly.

I was mesmerized by the television. Wolf Blitzer on CNN had been talking for at least an hour straight, since we had hurried into our home and immediately turned on the television to learn what had happened. He kept trying to make sense of it. The destruction was so evident as the video of the finish line at the time the bombs went off played again and again and again. But he couldn’t help us make sense of what had happened.

I turned the channel the see what Brian Williams on NBC was reporting. Maybe they had more to offer. But he struggled just as Blitzer did. A child was one of those killed. Many others had been seriously injured. And none of it made any sense.

As I watched interview after interview with people who had been there describing their experiences and their reactions, my mind went from watching what had happened over and over and over to thinking about the people, about how awful what they had experienced had been on what was meant to be such a joyous occasion.

And that’s when I realized how important it was for my wife and me to hear from family and friends in Boston. Not only to know they are safe, but to let them know and all of Boston know we are thinking of them as we pray for the victims of this senseless tragedy.

Recently, I’ve found myself talking a lot about texting. Texting has fast replaced email as the preferred way we communicate, at least when it’s not related to business. I’m a perfect example of the migration to texting, and now I’m far more likely to text than email my friends and family.

Long ago I learned that communicating with my daughters was much easier and I got a much faster reply from texts than I did from emails or from voice mail messages. On a side note, I’ve stopped bothering with voice mails in many non-business situations—people simply see they have missed a call and call back without even checking or listening to voice mail. Interestingly, I even find myself doing the same thing.

Back to texting. While it is clearly one of our communication tools (and perhaps even now our preferred communication tool), it’s easy to misuse it. Like email, texting creates an electronic brick wall that leads us to write things we might not ever communicate if we were face-to-face with the recipient.

When you start writing a text, apply my “Who, What, When, Where” rule to your message. If it passes the test, send it. But if it doesn’t, consider talking with the person face-to-face or at least picking up your phone and calling them—even if you have to leave a voice mail message. The “Who, What, When, Where” rule is exactly what it says: Keep your messages confined to the facts. The minute you get into the “Why” or opinion or emotions or relationship issues, that’s when misunderstandings happen. That’s when you write something you think is positive in tone and the recipient thinks it is negative. That’s when feelings get hurt. That’s when relationships become strained.

Texting is a great way to make plans, to connect, to keep in touch on the go, to build relationships. Keep your texts that way by applying the “Who, What, When, Where” rule as you compose them.

I’ve written a lot about the need to apologize when you make a mistake. Owning up to your mistake is the first step in recovering and regaining the trust you have lost.

However, you can’t keep repeatedly apologizing for mistakes because the repetition engenders a suspicion that perhaps you really weren’t sincere to begin with. Instead your apology begins to look like a sham.

Consider the story today in Silicon Valley’s MercuryNews.com by Jeremy Owens. He reports that Apple CEO Tim Cook has apologized again—this time to the people of China.

China’s state-run media has been waging a campaign against Apple's repair and warranty system, claiming “Apple has different policies in China than in other parts of the world.” To right the wrong Cook announced that “Apple will provide Chinese customers with an improved repair policy on the iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S, clear and concise warranty information on the Apple website, increase supervision and training of authorized Apple retailers, and improved accessibility to feedback.” Taken by itself, the apology is a first step in repairing the damage done to Apple’s potential business in China.

This is not the first apology Cook or Apple has offered. When IOS 6 was released the furor over the half-baked Apple Maps resulted in an apology to consumers. Bloomberg Businessweek expands on Apple’s apology history, reporting that in 2007 “co-founder Steve Jobs offered users rebates and an apology because early customers complained about a price cut two months after it went on sale.” In 2010 Jobs again apologized for problems with the iPhone4’s antenna and even gave the purchaser a free case to help resolve the problem.

The problem with repeated apologies is that they begin to appear hollow—perhaps even insincere. And when they are perceived as insincere, your audience stops believing in you. Apple’s stock price closed at $428.91 on Monday. That’s a far cry from the heady days of +$700 value.

Apologies are great, and they work to resolve difficult situations. While one or two or even three or four apologies may be taken at face value, how many times can a person or company apologize before their audience loses faith?

Imagine you’re at a conference and you hear a fellow employee tell what is clearly a sexist comment. What would you do?

1. Do nothing.
2. Tell a manager about the incident.
3. Tweet the alleged sexual comment and include a photo of the individual who made the comment.

Adria Richards was working for her company, SendGrid, at the PyCon 2013 when she overheard the person telling the joke. She turned around and snapped a photo of him, and then posted the photo in a tweet along with the alleged comment.

The reaction was swift and, for Richards, unexpected. PyCon 2013 officials saw the tweet almost immediately. An article on Boston.com quoted Jesse Noller, chairman of the conference: “We pulled all the individuals aside. We got all sides of the story. They said she was right, and they were very apologetic.”

While owning up to the transgression and apologizing was the right thing to do, the person making the comments was fired. Unfortunately for Richards, she was fired, too.

And therein lies the problem. Twitter is a public forum. In posting the tweet, she not only exposed and publicly shamed the perpetrator, she potentially hurt the company’s reputation. Instead of excelling at the conference, SendGrid had to initiate damage control and deal with an employee problem.

Richards forgot a key teaching point of etiquette: it’s not a matter of “if” you’re going to do something, it’s a matter of “how” you do it that’s important. From SendGrid’s point of view, there’s no question that she should have reported the incident. The issue is how she chose to do it. SendGrid’s CEO explained the company’s decision in a posting on its website: “Her decision to tweet the comments and photographs of the people who made the comments crossed the line. Publicly shaming the offenders — and bystanders — was not the appropriate way to handle the situation.”

Twitter is a great communication device when used appropriately. But because it is a public means of communication, when it’s used inappropriately, it can boomerang and end up hurting you as much as you are trying to hurt the person you are tweeting about. Don’t believe me, just ask Adria.

You can follow me on Twitter at @PeterLPost.

I visited Emily Post this past weekend.

Or perhaps, I should say, I visited her burial site. Emily is interred at the cemetery in Tuxedo Park, NY. Just below and to the right of her marker is that of her son Bruce who died in 1927. Just to the left and below her marker is that of her son Edwin “Ned”, my grandfather, who died in 1973.

I was asked to give a talk about Emily at the Tuxedo Park Library. Prepping for that talk began a journey for me into the private life of Emily. For years I have been writing and teaching about etiquette and drawing on the public Emily, the one known as the arbiter of etiquette in America ever since her book, Etiquette, was published in July, 1922.

I’d like to share three things about Emily, who is my great grandmother, that even I didn’t know before.

First, Emily should never have been an etiquette expert. Her real love was being on stage. Had it been up to her she would have been an actress, except in her day and age, she toed the line of her parents’ edicts. After seeing Emily on the Tuxedo Park stage, Pierre Lorillard, who founded Tuxedo Park, commented to Emily’s parents, that she should not be allowed to pursue acting as a career. It wasn’t ladylike to be in the public eye. Her parents concurred, and that was the end of Emily’s acting. What’s ironic is that after Etiquette was published, she became one of the most famous people of the twentieth century, a very public author with a newspaper column and a highly successful radio show. She ended up on the largest stage of all, the American stage.

Second, Emily returned to Tuxedo Park after her divorce. I always thought she continued to live in New York City after her divorce from Edwin Post in 1906, but instead she chose to live in her family home in Tuxedo Park. Her choice cements for me how important Tuxedo Park was to her. It was the place she turned to after the trauma of a very public divorce at a time when divorce, and especially divorcees, were frowned upon by “polite” society . Here she felt safe, accepted, and could be herself.

Third, as a writer and novelist Emily gave clues long before she wrote Etiquette about what she believed was really important and at the heart of etiquette. One clue came in her novel The Title Market, which was published in 1909, almost 13 years before Etiquette. The story is about an American woman who marries an Italian prince. It turns out that even though she gains a title, she does not gain the accompanying wealth one would expect. Yet, the heroine is the perfect model of a wife and a hostess. In spite of the fact that all she served at her parties were “small cakes and sandwiches,” Emily wrote, “the princess was one of those hostesses whose personality thoroughly pervades a house; a type which is becoming rare with every change in our modern civilization, and without which people might as well congregate in a hotel parlor. Each guest at Palazzo Sansevero carried away the impression that not only had he been welcome himself, but that his presence had added materially to the enjoyment of others.” That, in Emily’s view was the real mark of a hostess.

I loved having the chance to find out more about my great grandmother, the private person, the person who loved to act and who cared deeply about a place and who intrinsically understood what is really important—not some rules about how to behave but how we treat each other. That is Emily’s real legacy.

Now you can follow me on Twitter @PeterLPost.

Tiger Woods won again at the WGC Cadillac Championship.

That’s not what this blog is about. It’s about a fellow competitor, Steve Stricker and his role in Tiger’s win. Stricker came in second, two strokes behind Woods. That wouldn’t be blog-worthy.

What’s blog-worthy is that on Wednesday of last week, the day before the tournament started, Stricker gave Woods a putting lesson. And in spite of how the tournament turned out for Stricker and for Woods, Stricker never once bemoaned his choice of helping out his friend and competitor.

You should know that Steve Stricker may be the best putter in the game. He worked with Woods for about 45 minutes, suggesting subtle changes to his posture. The result: Woods started sinking putts and gaining confidence. And, in putting, confidence is the key.

There was a time when Tiger Woods was the master of putting. He was winning tournaments and majors and overwhelming his opponents. But as he hit hard times, his putting became merely mortal. Don’t get me wrong; recently he’s been winning even while not putting like the Tiger of old. Consider that in the past 19 tournaments played he has won five times, four of them before Stricker’s lesson.

Rory McIlroy (he’s number one in the world right now, although Woods is breathing down his neck) texted Stricker after the tournament: “PUT A SOCK IN IT NEXT TIME, MAN. YOU AWAKENED THE BEAST. WITH FRIENDS LIKE YOU, WHO NEEDS ENEMIES? SIGNED, JUST A GUY WHO WANTS TO HANG ON TO THE NO. 1 RANKING FOR A FEW WEEKS LONGER.” We’ll interpret his remarks as a little tongue-in-cheek ribbing.

What Stricker did is unique in sports. He offered a competitor advice, actionable advice that markedly improved his competitor’s performance. Woods completed the four rounds with exactly 100 putts. For any non-golfing-readers, that is lights-out putting. Can you imagine Peyton Manning going over to Tom Brady before the start of a game and offering some subtle advice on arm position that improves his passing and leads to a record-setting day for Brady? Not likely.

Remember, Stricker lost to Woods by only 2 strokes. His lesson could have been the difference between walking off with the trophy and $1.5 million rather than second place and $880,000. When asked if he regretted giving Woods the advice, Stricker said, “Who knows, he might have putted just as good without my help. He feels really good about what he’s doing on the greens, so that’s a good thing.”

In his post-game interview Stricker never second-guessed his choice to help out his friend. He knows it was the right thing to do. “It’s good to see him win even though he clipped me by a couple of shots. It’s always good for our tour and for us when he does well. He generates a lot for our sport. A lot of attention comes our way when he wins. It’s all good. And he’s a friend.”

Kudos to Stricker not only for being willing to give the advice but also to defend his decision even in the face of coming in second and all he didn’t win.

An attitude has evolved with people using the electronic world that somehow they are protected from the reaction of others when they do something negative to the other person. They hide behind what I call “the electronic brick wall.”

That brick wall provides a sense of immunity for people who are on social media and who communicate electronically. The result: They say or do things they would never do if they were face-to-face with the other person. They also use that brick wall to avoid dealing with another person face to face. Obvious examples include bosses firing employees over email or someone breaking up with a significant other via texting.

Take friending for instance. Friending is ubiquitous on Facebook. People casually mention the hundreds of friends they have. Of course those “friends” aren’t always really friends. The nature of online friending has changed the very meaning of the word “friend.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary online defines a friend as “one attached to another by affection or esteem.” Clearly, all 657 people who someone claims as “friends” aren’t all attached by affection or esteem.

So, it follows that if they’re really not friends, at least not in the traditional way friends are thought of, then unfriending them shouldn’t be a problem or result in repercussions that severing a friendship in real life might cause.

Right. And if you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to talk to you about.

A recent study done at the University of Denver tells us what we already knew: Unfriending a friend online has a real chance of materially hurting your relationship with that person. In fact, the study found “40 percent of people surveyed said they would avoid in real life anyone who unfriended them on Facebook. Some 50 percent said they would not avoid the person and the remaining 10 percent were unsure."

That’s 50/50 that you’ll avoid a person in real life who has unfriended you online. So before you go pushing that unfriend button, think twice about who you’re unfriending, why you’re unfriending them and what the real life consequences might be for this online, behind-the-electronic-brick-wall action you are about to take. And given that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, you might want to take more care with accepting friend requests in the future.

Numerous online sources including the Telegraph have reported that on last Friday a leaked internal memo written by Yahoo! HR head Jackie Reses disclosed plans to put in place a “No Telecommuting” rule. Yahoo! employees will, starting in June, have to work in a Yahoo! office. The memo explained, “Speed and quality are often sacrificed when we work from home. We need to be one Yahoo!, and that starts with physically being together." It went on to talk about the benefits of collaboration and creativity coming from in-person interactions.

Needless to say, a firestorm of comment has erupted across the Internet. Interestingly, while the majority of commenters are taking both sides on the issue, others are questioning the manner in which the rule change is being instituted.

Part of Reses’s explanation focused on the importance of collaboration and interaction: “Being a Yahoo isn’t just about your day-to-day job, it is about the interactions and experiences that are only possible in our offices.” Reses uses Yahoo as a noun to refer to anyone who is a Yahoo! employee.

I wonder how long it will be before Yahoo! starts turning up as a verb? For instance a Yahoo! employee who chooses working at home over working at Yahoo! might comment to a friend, “I got Yahooed.” Or maybe “I got Yahood.” Whatever.

One thing I know for sure. While Google as a verb has a connotation that reflects positively on the brand and on the brand’s function, i.e. as a search engine, being Yahood is not a brand image Yahoo! wants for its name.

You can see the entire memo at All Things D.

When teaching dining etiquette, I am amazed to find how many people aren’t sure where to place the knife, fork and spoon, and which bread plate is theirs especially at a crowded table.

One of the best tricks for knowing which bread plate is yours is the “b” and “d” hint. On each hand, make a circle by touching the tip of your thumb to the tip of your forefinger. Then straighten out the remaining fingers on each hand. As you look down at your hands, your left hand will look like a small letter “b” and your right hand will look like a small letter “d.” The “b”—that’s your left hand—stands for bread, meaning your bread plate is on the left side of the place setting. The “d”—that’s your right hand—stands for drinks, which means your drinks (wine, water, or any other beverage) are on the right side of your place setting.

And in case “b” and “d” slip your mind, you can always remember BMW instead. “B” stands for bread, which is to the left of “M” which stands for your meal or the plate. “W” represents water, or drinks, found on the right side of the plate Left to right: Bread-Meal-Water, aka BMW.

So, what about FOrKS? FOrKS is a mnemonic that defines the position of the utensils in a place setting. Left to right, start with the “F” which stands for forks, and next comes the “O” which symbolizes the plate. The small “r” tells you that everything that follows goes to the right of the plate. “K” is for knives and they are set just to the right of the plate. Finally, “S” is for spoons and they are set to the right of the knives. Forks, Plate, Knives, Spoons: FOrKS.

Use these simple tricks to take the guesswork out of setting or decoding a table. Better yet, teach your kids, and it’s one less dinnertime chore on your plate.

USA Today reported on a new poll out by the Center for the Digital Future that sheds some interesting light on people’s perceptions of what is and what isn’t acceptable usage of texting.

If you don’t break the statistics down by age, they present a pretty strong case for not using a mobile device while at a meal. Consider the following statistics quoted in the article:

“62% said just having a mobile device on the table during a meal was inappropriate.”

“76% said texting on a mobile device during a meal was inappropriate.”

“84% said talking on a mobile device during a meal was not right.”

The question these statistics raise for me is: Why would you place your device on the table unless you plan to respond to it if it signals you? Yet, the statistics indicate that people would do just that: place it on the table and that’s okay as long as you don’t use it. Weird.

According to the survey, it appears as if the majority of the respondents think that mobile devices don’t belong at the table—until age is taken into account: 50% of 18 to 29 year olds say texting at a meal is okay, while only 15% of people over 30 agree. Frankly that makes sense. Younger people have grown up with texting and social media, while for the older crowd distractions such as cell phones and mobile devices at the table are not acceptable. At a multi-generational table, making an exception for a distraction like texting may be a stretch for the older demographic.

So, while the overall statistics indicate that use of a mobile device at a meal is still considered inappropriate today, when broken down, the statistics may indicate that one day in the future as a society we may decide that texting at the dinner table is okay.

What’s your take on this issue?

Imagine you are a waitperson at a restaurant and at the end of a customer’s meal, you receive a note along with a tip: “I give God 10% why do you get 18?” NBC News reported that this happened recently to a waitress at Applebee’s in the St. Louis area.

Two things happened: Another waitress—a friend of the employee who received this note —took a picture of it and posted it on Reddit where it went viral. Lots of people were appalled by the crass way the waitress was treated. However, the waitress who posted the note received a surprise: She was fired by Applebee’s for posting the note.

Here’s my take. The person who left the note blew it. When that person entered the restaurant, she accepted that part of the cost of the meal was the tip that will help, among other things, to compensate the staff for the less than minimum wages they are paid. For years the typical restaurant tip was 15%. But that has changed over the past decade and most people now tip 20%. (Why, you may ask? Because it is easier to figure out.) Bottom line: if you’re not willing to buy into the tipping culture in America, then don’t go to a restaurant and short the staff. Also, be careful: While restaurants usually add a gratuity for groups of six or more people, recently, I’ve been in restaurants and had the gratuity automatically added to the bill for a party of two. So check the bill carefully.

As egregious an error as the patron made, the waitress’s friend also made a critical mistake: She brought her job into her personal social media world. She reprinted an image of the note. The image included the name of the customer. And, apparently, that’s what got her fired. Applebee’s explained, “Our Guests’ personal information – including their meal check – is private, and neither Applebee’s nor its franchisees have a right to share this information publicly. We value our Guests’ trust above all else. Our franchisee has apologized to the Guest and has taken disciplinary action with the Team Member for violating their Guest’s right to privacy. This individual is no longer employed by the franchisee.”

It’s too easy to think of your social media presence as a private one, a personal one, a place to share whatever you experience in a day, a place to get up on your own soapbox. Unfortunately, it’s there for everyone, including your employer, to see. Keep your work life and your personal life online separate. Be very careful that what you post doesn’t have anything to do with your work life because once it’s out there, you can’t retract it. Even if you think you are in the right to post it, if your employer has a problem with it, then you have a problem, too.

“What a coincidence. We’re both going to the same place.” I had just entered an elevator on the 28th floor of the Borgata Hotel in Atlantic City where I’m conducting a seminar this afternoon. After the doors closed the person who entered the elevator with me had looked at me, smiled and made his comment. It was just the two of us in the elevator.

I responded briefly to his comment with, “Yes, it probably makes sense” as we were both going to the lobby. And then I smiled, and we were quiet for the remainder of the trip.

Other elevator rides during my stay got me thinking about how people interact on elevators. Do they make an attempt at conversation or not? And if they do, when do they seem willing to engage and when do they avoid making a comment?

Usually, when I entered an elevator that was already occupied, the person would smile and maybe nod in greeting or say “hello.” But if more than one person occupied the elevator or more than one person entered the elevator, never was any attempt made at conversation. However, if the people entering or already on the elevator knew each other, they would carry on with their conversation.

But when it was just one other person, then conversation or at least a comment was more likely. The most likely interaction would be to offer to push a floor button. But a real conversation starter, such as the one with my lone companion, that was unusual. Nice, but unusual.

I’m wondering what you think about elevator talk. Do you try to start a conversation with a person in an elevator when it’s just the two of you, or do you think it is better to ride in silence? And if you are in a group, is it okay for your group to carry on a conversation when people you don’t know are in the elevator; or should you pause your conversation until the elevator has reached your destination? Click here to take the Emily Post Elevator Talk poll. Thank you.

I’ve been on vacation the past few days with two other couples. The trip is a reminder of one of the more frequently asked questions received at the Emily Post Institute: How do you handle splitting the check at a restaurant?

The short answer in our case is we each pay a third of the bill, usually by each couple putting in a credit card and then asking the server to split the bill equally. Even at restaurants that say they don’t do separate checks, splitting the bill this way is not an issue. Nothing puts a damper on an otherwise enjoyable evening faster than two couples quibbling over who had the Caesar with chicken and who had it without.

Here are two things to think about:

The tip. Two nights ago the server very kindly informed us that the gratuity had already been added into the bill. So, after ascertaining that the gratuity equaled what we would have tipped, we signed, thanked the server, and left. The next night the server gave us the heads-up that the gratuity had not been included. So between the three of us we quickly agreed on what a twenty percent tip would be, added it in, and signed our slips. I appreciate that in both cases the servers let us know what the gratuity situation was. On a number of occasions I’ve been in restaurants where nothing was said, and we had to examine the itemized charges carefully to determine if a gratuity was added or not. Remember, even if a gratuity has been added, you can always add a little extra if you think the service deserved it or if the amount of the gratuity is less than you normally would tip. Remember, too, that if you use a discount coupon, in our case one supplied by the resort at which we were staying, to tip on the full amount of the check, not the discounted amount.

Uneven split. The even split works when everyone has ordered a reasonably similar amount of food and drink. Problems can surface when for instance one couple doesn’t drink and the other two order a couple of bottles of expensive wine. In that case an uneven split is called for, and one of the imbibing couples should make the offer. Say the bill is $300 and the wine portion is $90. A fair split would be to figure the three-way split on the amount less the wine—$210 or $70 per couple. Then the two wine drinking couples split the cost of the wine—$45 each— and pay a total of $115 each. They ask the server to charge the cards accordingly, and everyone is fairly treated.

So, when it comes to splitting a restaurant check, be aware, be fair, and don’t worry about the pennies.

Yesterday one of my employees said to me, “I sent you an email. Didn’t you read it? You never read your emails.”

To which I responded, “I read them, I just don’t read them the moment they enter my in-box.”

Emails are distractions, pure and simple. I used to receive an audible alert every time an email entered my in-box. Keep in mind that statistically, 90% of emails are spam. So that might imply that 90% of those alerts were for emails that I didn’t want to know about in the first place. The alert was distraction enough, but the knowledge there was a potentially important email (perhaps that one in ten) coupled with the annoying alert repeatedly goaded me to click on my inbox and read the email. And perhaps respond, too.

An immediate response is something people have come to expect. But the toll that immediacy was exacting on my productivity was very expensive.

The alternative to being controlled by my email was to take control of it. And that meant taking two actions. First, I shut off the email alert function. My computer no longer tells me I have an email. The silence is golden. Second, I established several times during the day when I review emails. Now, my focus is on my work without interruption so I’m more productive. And when I am processing my emails, I’m focused on them. Funny enough, I actually end up spending less total time looking at email by doing it in concentrated batches. While senders may not get an immediate response, they will get one at my next scheduled email session usually within an hour or two and that’s plenty fast enough.

Try it. Take control of your email, and you may end up being more productive and less stressed.

Chuck Pagano, the coach of the Indianapolis Colts, wrote an open letter on January 5 to Colts football fans in The Indianapolis Star which demonstrates the fundamental heart and positiveness that Americans across the country display every day.

Pagano was named the Colts coach in January 2012 as the Colts were coming off a dismal season. In one season he has brought the team back to being in the playoffs. In October he was diagnosed with leukemia and had to step aside temporarily as coach for treatment. With his leukemia in remission, he was back on the sidelines last Sunday coaching the Colts in their playoff game with the Baltimore Ravens—a game which unfortunately did not turn out well for the Colts.

In the letter Pagano expresses his gratitude for the outpouring of support he and his family received. You can read the letter here. It’s a beautiful, heartfelt letter.

What struck me was the last paragraph: “On behalf of the Pagano family, thank you for helping me heal and for showing our country that we do have the best fans in the entire world; fans whose love for their coaches and players extends way beyond the football field.”

While I appreciate Pagano’s effort to thank the fans for their support, what struck me was the outpouring of love and care so many people had for a person they had never met. Across our country, in ways large and small, we do that; we step up to the plate to help out, whether it’s:

• People donating to a fund for disaster relief after hurricane Sandy.
• Volunteers packing boxes for our troops in Afghanistan.
• The neighbor plowing my daughter’s driveway when he saw her out there shoveling away.
• Fans and well-wishers offering their best wishes and letting Pagano know so many people were pulling for him.

Amidst the negativity that we see constantly on the news, it’s nice to remember all the good things, the kind things, the generous things we witness every day all around us. As the new year starts, look for your opportunities to be someone who steps up to the plate. You’ll make a difference.

Recently Henry Alford caught my attention in a piece he wrote for the New York Times: When the Manners Police Knock.

In it he writes about the propensity we have for policing other’s foibles. When a woman initiated a cell phone call as a play was about to start, the gentleman seated in front of her gave her a dirty look and when that didn’t work he “reached around and yanked the phone from her hand, hung it up, and handed it back.” Or, on a more mellow note, consider Jenny Douglas the article continues, “who runs the Brooklyn Cottage, an arts salon in Prospect Heights, (who) takes a softer approach, and emphasizes compassion. When waiters sidle up to her at the end of a meal and ask the dreaded question, “Are you still working on that? she will either smilingly say, ‘Actually I’m still enjoying this,’ or she will look baffled and ask, ‘Might you be so kind as to bring me another glass of wine, please, so I can continue to labor?’” Ouch!

The snappy comebacks and quick put-downs are really such a temptation, especially when someone else commits a seemingly unpardonable faux pas. We become the manners police, our self-righteous goal to stop the offending behavior without regard for the effect our rejoinder might have on the relationship. And therein lies the danger of being the manners police: Two wrongs don’t make a right.

The biting sarcasm of Jenny’s comment to the waiter may not really matter to her because she'll probably never see that waiter again. Or maybe she will and service will be just a little slower. But what happens when Jenny finds she can’t turn the sarcasm on for strangers but turn it off for people she knows and cares for? That same sarcasm directed at a friend, significant other or child could mar her relationship with that person.

My daughter Anna, who works as a spokesperson for the Emily Post Institute, was recently interviewed on the Today Show. In one simply phrase she articulated the etiquette alternative to being a manners cop: “The best etiquette absorbs someone else’s mistakes.”

Today is January 1, 2013, the day we traditionally make resolutions for the coming year. This year we could all help foster a more civil, polite and positive society if we all made a grater effort to “absorb someone else’s mistakes.”

Happy New Year!

Technology really is amazing. Just the other day I met a young man. who recently moved to the United States from Baghdad. He’s alone here, all his family remains in Baghdad. We talked about the experience of leaving one’s home to begin living in a new country. I asked if he ever uses Skype or iChat or Google Talk to talk with his family.

“I Skype my mother every morning,” he told me. The pleasure at this small touch he has with home and family was palpable. I couldn’t help thinking how amazing technology is, how it let’s people stay in touch with family and friends in a way that simply never was possible before.

I recently spent a week in Dubai. Yet, every evening I was able to iChat with my wife. What a pleasure it was not only to be able to hear her voice but to be able to see her as well, even if she was in yesterday when I was in today.

Now, today, Christmas day, think how many people are going to be able to touch each other as they video call throughout the day. It wasn’t that long ago that even a phone call overseas was an expensive and almost exotic thing. Not today. Fire up the computer, log onto your preferred video-call program, and you’re connected: You hear and you see, and it’s free. Simply awesome!

The problem with technology is when we abuse it, when it controls us rather than us controlling it. This holiday day as countless people sit down to special meals with family and friends, do everyone at the table a favor: Turn off your phone. Focus on the people you are with. No calls, no IMing, no texting, no surfing, no social media just for an hour or two. It’s one of the best presents you can give to the people you are with: Your undivided attention.

Happy Holidays!

"When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, ‘Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.’ To this day, especially in times of ‘disaster,’ I remember my mother's words and I am always comforted by realizing that there are still so many helpers – so many caring people in this world." Fred Rogers.

When Fred Rogers spoke of helpers, he was speaking of all of us. Being that helper today, now, in this time of tragedy, is one way we can all comfort the people of Newtown, Connecticut and the families that have suffered so much. Many of us aren’t in a position to help directly, but as a society, refocusing on helping each other in any way we can matters.

During his speech on Sunday in Newtown, President Obama addressed the issue of how we can all be helpers. We can help comfort the people of Newtown by the prayers and shared sense of grief that people across the nation and the world feel. “And you must know that whatever measure of comfort we can provide, we will provide; whatever portion of sadness that we can share with you to ease this heavy load, we will gladly bear it. Newtown — you are not alone.”

While being the helper Mr. Rogers and President Obama spoke of is one step we all can take, what of the longer-term future?

President Obama addressed that as well, saying we as a nation are challenged to try to take steps to prevent such tragedies from happening in the future: “If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief that has visited Tucson, and Aurora, and Oak Creek, and Newtown, and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that — then surely we have an obligation to try.”

That challenge is to engage in conversation about what have been difficult issues for us to address in the past, to be willing to listen to all points of view and to find common ground that will help reduce the risk of future Newtowns. That conversation cannot be productive if it is grounded in anger. It can only be productive if it is grounded in the principles that also underlie etiquette–being considerate, respectful, and honest. As President Obama said, surely we have an obligation to try.

Every now and then people ask if I ever make an etiquette mistake.

Well, I do, and I made one just yesterday. Actually, I made three.

I’m in Dubai.

I came here to teach business etiquette, partnering with the Human Relations Institute. While I’ve met with the clients and spent time acclimating to the nine-hour time change, that’s not what this blog is about.

It’s about tipping. Before I left the United States, I did some basic web research about Dubai. But I noticed as I surfed that I wasn’t reading anything about tipping. So I boarded my plane and arrived without a clear idea of to whom or what exactly I should tip. That was mistake number one.

Before venturing out on the first day, I stopped at the reception desk at my hotel and asked what was appropriate to tip the cab driver. The response was a quizzical look and then an unconvincing, “Well it could be a little or nothing.” And so I got into the cab with the still unresolved issue of what to tip. That was mistake number two.

When the cab arrived at our destination, the meter indicated 28.5 dirhams, so I chose to follow the advice from the reception desk and simply let him keep the change from the three ten-dirham notes I gave him. And off he drove. And that was mistake number three.

Later that day I did some more web browsing at my hotel, and found a website titled Expat Echo Dubai, and it had what seemed to be the best and most complete information on Dubai tipping.

That’s where I discovered that tipping in the range of 10-15% is the norm. I appreciated the additional piece of advice, which recommended not just figuring the exact tip but then rounding up to next nearest 5 dirhams. I quickly calculated that my cabbie’s tip should have been about four dirhams. Add that to the 28.5 dirhams for the fare would make 32.5 dirhams. Round up to the nearest five and I should have given him a total of 35 dirhams for the ride, not just the 30 dirhams I gave him.

So, mistake one was not coming prepared. Do your homework before you arrive about customs, expectations and etiquette for the country you are visiting.

Mistake number two was to venture out with poor information. I could have made more of an effort to seek the definitive answer I found later to my question.

Finally, mistake number three was not figuring a full 10-15% tip and then not rounding up. Basing my choice on weak information of “just a little” from a receptionist was the wrong decision.

Traveling abroad is fun and exciting. But it also carries responsibility to be prepared and to know customs and cultural norms before you arrive.

Yes, I make mistakes, and I did this time. And to that cabbie wherever he is, I apologize.

On Saturday, December 1, Jovan Belcher, a linebacker for the Kansas City Chiefs, shot and killed his girlfriend and then committed suicide.

On Sunday, December 2, the Kansas City Chiefs won their game against the Carolina Panthers in what Panthers coach Ron Rivera called “an inspired game.” After the game Brady Quinn, the Kansas City quarterback, spoke to the press about the game and this horrible tragedy. Specifically, he was asked to talk about the emotion he felt after the game.

Here’s how he answered that question:

“It was tough. I think it was an eerie feeling after a win because you don’t think that you can win in this situation. The one thing people can hopefully try to take away, I guess, is the relationships they have with people. I know when it happened, I was sitting and, in my head, thinking what I could have done differently. When you ask someone how they are doing, do you really mean it? When you answer someone back how you are doing, are you really telling the truth? We live in a society of social networks, with Twitter pages and Facebook, and that’s fine, but we have contact with our work associates, our family, our friends, and it seems like half the time we are more preoccupied with our phone and other things going on instead of the actual relationships that we have right in front of us. Hopefully people can learn from this and try to actually help if someone is battling something deeper on the inside than what they are revealing on a day-to-day basis.”

Quinn’s comments are a powerful reminder of the importance of focusing on the people in our lives. That’s not to say that social networking and using devices such as smartphones, tablets and computers to be connected don’t have a place in our lives. They do, and they help us stay connected. But they can’t, shouldn’t and don’t replace the in-person interactions that are so valuable to the relationships in our lives. That’s what Quinn reminded us about.

We should take the time to turn off and put down those devices and focus on the people in our lives sincerely. When he asks: “When you ask someone how they are doing, do you really mean it?” he challenges each of us to examine the sincerity with which we engage people. His horror and shock at what has happened with a teammate and friend has caused him to ask us all to reassess what is important in our own relationships.

Thank you, Brady Quinn.

The holiday season is fast approaching; and that means gift giving; and that, in turn, brings up the issue of thank-you notes. Each year I get asked, “Do I have to…?” and “To whom do I have to send one?”

The book on when a thank-you note should be sent is: Send one when you don’t have the opportunity to thank the giver in person. (The one exception is wedding gifts; a thank-you note should be sent for each wedding gift received whether or not it is opened in front of the giver.) One important reason for sending a note is to let the giver know you received it. In this day and age of on-line shopping and shipping of packages across the country, the gift may never have arrived. Yet without some acknowledgement, the giver is left in the quandary of wondering whether it arrived or if the recipient is just unappreciative.

There is also nothing wrong with following up the in-person “thank you” with a note. That’s where the difference between thinking of a thank you note as an obligation or as an opportunity comes in. As an obligation it’s something you have to do and therefore will be done only as absolutely necessary. But when thought of as an opportunity, the thank-you note becomes a way to build relationships through showing appreciation.

They’re not hard to do. Just three or four sentences written neatly on a note card and sent in the mail. Why mail them rather than email them? Because when the mailed note is received, it’s opened, read and then placed on a counter or desk or attached to a refrigerator with a magnet where the person sees it repeatedly and is reminded of you each time he or she sees it. But when emailed, it’s opened (if it’s not spam blocked), read, and then deleted. Ask yourself: “Would you rather be deleted or remembered?”

The mighty has fallen, yet again. This time it’s General David Petraeus. And email, again, is the tool that did him in.

I’ve written before about the bulletin board rule: Don’t put anything into an email that you wouldn’t put on a bulletin board for anyone to read. Inevitably and at the worst possible time, the most private of messages are the ones that become public.

Petraeus’ case illuminates two corollary rules to the bulletin board rule.

Corollary #1: Trying to hide your emails doesn’t work. Petraeus and his lover, Paula Broadwell, understood that their emails were potentially damaging so instead they tried to make it impossible for anyone to find them by not actually sending them. In its November 19 online edition The Telegraph explained what Petraeus and Broadwell did. In short they set up a Gmail account which they both could access. They wrote their salacious emails as drafts, and saved them to the draft folder. Then the partner could open the same email account, read the draft, and believe it was safe from discovery because the email had never been sent. They knew what they were writing was something they never wanted to be read by anyone else.

Corollary #2: You can’t control what other people might do. In a pique of jealousy, Broadwell took it upon herself to send some anonymous “cat-fight stuff” emails to Jill Kelley, a Florida socialite who was an unpaid social liaison at MacDill Air Force Base and a perceived rival for Petraeus. Kelley didn’t like those emails, so she contacted an FBI friend and asked him to look into who was sending them. It didn’t take the FBI long to identify Broadwell and find the Petraeus emails as well.

End result: Everybody gets outed, Petraeus resigns, and the USA loses a person who is eminently qualified for his position.

Email: It’s great for communicating the who, what, when, and where—just the public facts. But for anything truly private, find another way to send your message—using your secret decoder ring. Even the head of the CIA couldn’t keep his private emails private.

November 8 heralded a new era across America—the silencing of the political ad machine and the quieting of conversations which always seemed to turn to politics and the election for the last umpteen months.

With the media, it was a simple rising of the sun on November 8 with no election in sight that silenced the interminable ads. In our everyday lives I began to notice something else: pregnant pauses—periods of time when people actually had to think of something else to talk about. Suddenly, they were confronted with the challenge of small talk.

Small talk is an art. I’m constantly amazed by people who can engage in it seamlessly. They meet a stranger and somehow manage to strike up a conversation effortlessly, while others are frightened by engaging in even the most innocuous conversation. Yet, small talk itself isn’t that difficult to master.

It begins long before you meet a stranger. The first step is to become knowledgeable about a variety of topics. To do that you need to read the newspaper, not just for the big headline but also for the smaller stories buried on page 7 and beyond. Watch TV; not necessarily the news but some of the shows you hear about. Then, when you read that newspaper or magazine or watch those shows, think for a moment what could be a question you could ask someone. “Have you watched “Homeland”? I understand it’s even one of the few shows the President watches.” Or “Do like watching hockey? Do you think they’ll ever settle the strike and start playing?”

Just last night I attended a party with a band that played 60’s, 70’s and 80’s music. Instead of talking presidential politics we talked about 60 and 70 year-old rock stars still making it on the concert tour circuit. It was plain fun to see how quickly you could identify the song and the artist as the band began to play.

And every now and then the conversation would die down, and people would just look around the table and smile at each other. The silence was golden.