The handshake isn’t just an abstract symbol of greeting or congratulations. It is a real interaction—a moment of physical connection through the actual touching of hands. That contact serves to ever so briefly create a bond between the people shaking hands. It reinforces the message being communicated through speech. That’s why it is so important when we greet each other.

Typically, Americans aren’t touchy-feely people. Studies have shown that we really get uncomfortable if a person stands closer to us than eighteen inches. So it stands to reason that the physical contact of a handshake is a moment in which we impinge on that comfort zone and assure each other of our trust and pleasure at being together.

Besides greetings, handshakes are commonly used when we offer congratulations. One of the most recognized moments of congratulation occurs during graduation ceremonies, only in this case the person doing the congratulating doesn’t do it just once, he or she can be on the hook to shake hundreds if not thousands of hands in a short period of time.

Does the handshake at graduation matter and is it worth the possible discomfort the president or chancellor or whoever will experience after so many handshakes? The LA Times examined the question in a June 19 article Graduations can be a real handful. It seems the congratulatory handshake is still perceived as an important part of the graduation ceremony: “UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal attended seven graduation ceremonies over three days last weekend — shaking about 3,500 hands. He's averaged that many for the last seven years, he said. 'Some years my hand has been sore, one year my shoulder hurt, but I was in pretty good shape this year,' he said. 'I'm honored to do it. Every hand I shook, those students worked hard for four years and accomplished a lot — that's what keeps me going.'"

As you attend graduation ceremonies this year, enjoy the moment that has arrived and is a culmination of years of work. Appreciate the moment when your graduate receives a diploma and shakes hands. And then, as you watch the procession of hundreds or more cross the dais, take a moment to appreciate the person doing the handshaking, too.

NPR recently had a report on The Two-Way, its breaking news feature, that tickled my funny bone. Apparently, the U.S. Navy has come to terms with the computer age, at least as it relates to the use of all upper case letters in message transmittals.

According to James McCarty, the naval messaging program manager at U.S. Fleet Cyber Command, estimates that the new system will cost 10% of the current system—a savings of as much as $15 million a year. "The Navy gains significant cost efficiencies by eliminating the current Defense Message System (DMS) infrastructure and simply using the existing email infrastructure for final delivery." The transition won’t be seamless as the Navy still has a few systems that won’t be able to handle upper/lower case (sentence case) messages. Messages to those systems will automatically be converted to all upper case. But by 2015 that bug will be fixed and all systems will be able to operate in sentence case.

For years the Emily Post Institute has been advising people to write their electronic communications in sentence case. One reason is that it seems like you’re shouting when you write in all upper case. The Navy found that younger recruits considered it rude to write in all caps. But, there’s another equally important reason: All upper case type is simply harder to read and it takes longer to read as well. If you don’t believe me, click here to see a version of this blog in all upper case. So it makes sense that if you want your message to be read quickly and accurately, (and perceived as polite) sentence case is the way to go.

Of course the best part of the Navy’s decision to move to sentence case was the delivery of the actual message:

"AUTHORIZED TO USE STANDARD, MIXED-CASE CHARACTERS IN THE BODY OF NAVY ORGANIZATIONAL MESSAGES."

Last Saturday my wife and I had a dinner party. Six people. Very nice. We sat outside. Steak, a couple of salads, some nice wine, good company. It was summer dining to perfection. And that evening got me to thinking about the Game of Thrones, the red wedding, hospitality and what a good host should do for his guests.

The scene was set in the ninth episode of season three of The Game of Thrones, The Rains of Castamere. At the wedding feast Rob Stark, King of the North, and his band of followers were enjoying a sumptuous feast at Lord Walder Frey’s castle. They were reasonably comfortable even though Rob had had to beg for Lord Frey’s forgiveness for having broken a vow to wed one of his daughters. After all the apologies, Rob and his mother and his compatriots had been offered bread and salt which, according to tradition, put them under the protection of their host. Nothing would happen to them; they were free to enjoy the wedding feast.

SPOILER ALERT! READ NO FURTHER IF YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AND DON’T WANT TO KNOW.

Well, they were slaughtered. Interestingly in an interview with EW.com, George R. R. Martin, author of A Song of Ice and Fire on which the television series is based, explained that not only is the tradition of hospitality and protection offered by salt and bread steeped in history, there are cases when it was violated. Martin cited the Black Dinner and the Glencoe Massacre in Scottish history as two examples of guests being bludgeoned while under the protection of their host.

All this carnage got me thinking. What is a host’s obligation to his guests? Surely, not shooting them full of arrows and ramming swords through their hearts. Seriously, in today’s world, what should the good host do?

• Greets his guests at the door. We don’t have to offer bread and salt to symbolize protection, but a warm handshake, a friendly hug—these are symbols of welcoming that set the stage for the evening to come.
• Facilitates conversation. He introduce guests who don’t know each other and is prepared to offer conversation starters. “Mary didn’t you just go to Tuscany? I think John and Joan are planning a trip next spring.”
• Watches over his guests. He makes sure they are enjoying themselves, but if they enjoy themselves too much, he is prepared to step in and take them home. Safety trumps everything else.
• Remains calm. Even in the face of a disaster—the grill ran out of gas before the steak was even turned—the good host is poised and adapts to the circumstances. His calmness—and sense of humor—radiates and affects everyone else.
• Is flexible and gracious. The worst guest faux pas is to arrive with uninvited guests, but the gracious host rolls with the punch and sets an extra place. For his own peace of mind, he calls the miscreant the next day, explains the problem and politely discourages a repeat performance.
• Is appreciative. He makes sure he says good night to each guest and thanks them for coming. Doing so sets the stage for the next get-together.

And finally, as a guest, if you notice your host start locking the door, run.

One of the key pieces advice the Emily Post Institute offers is how to engage in controversial or difficult conversations. That advice contains one critical point: refrain from making personal comments about the other person. When your responses become personal—for instance “I can’t believe you actually think that” or “You’re lying”—then the conversation leaves the realm of civil discourse and becomes an ad hominem attack.

Over the weekend Congressman Darrell Issa proved the truth of this piece of advice. Here’s what happened:

Issa’s committee has been investigating the IRS and on Sunday, June 2 Issa appeared on CNN’s State of the Union with Cindy Crowley. During a part of the interview focusing on the IRS, Issa (R California) referred to White House press secretary Jay Carney as “their paid liar, their spokesperson”.

Instead of focusing on the IRS issue, Issa deviated and attacked the press secretary personally. What happened next?

The story shifts to Issa’s attack and away from the situation at the IRS. Now the conversation is about: Did the White House press secretary lie? I was watching MSNBC on Monday morning when former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was interviewed about the incident. Gibbs pointed out that the conversation has now side-tracked to what Issa has said about Carney. Then, I saw that Politico.com reported on Gibbs’ comments and one upped the ante by headlining its story: Robert Gibbs: "Darrell Issa must apologize.” So now the focus isn’t just on Issa’s comment about Carney, it’s about whether Issa will apologize to Carney. It may blow over or it may not unless Issa apologizes. But for at least a couple of days and a couple of news cycles the story is about what Issa called Carney and not about what happened at the IRS.

When you find yourself in an argument or a discussion about a controversial topic, do yourself a favor: Keep your focus on the issue and stay away from personal attacks.

Have you ever noticed how some people seem to be able to strike up a conversation with ease with just about anyone? Marvel at their glib, self-assured way, how they simply seem to make conversation with a stranger such an easy event?

For the rest of us it can be intimidating. You go to a social event and you’re going to have to talk to people who, basically, are strangers. How do you do it?

Here are three tips to make your engagement in small talk a success.

1. Small talk starts before you ever arrive at the event. Make a conscious effort to become familiar with a variety of subjects: what’s going on currently in the sports world; the latest happenings in the entertainment world; what’s new and talked about on television. To be knowledgeable you will have to read up on current events regularly, either in the paper or online. Watch the latest hit television show, even if it’s only once so you know who the characters are and the basic current plot line. Don’t just read the headline news; peruse the lifestyle pages or the entertainment sections of Google News.
2. Before you actually go to an event or a cocktail or dinner party, use your newfound knowledge to develop several questions: “I was surprised Candice Glover won American Idol. Do you think she deserved to win?” Or, to be a bit provocative, “What are the chances the Sox will make it this season?” (Lots to interpret by the fact you are even asking the question!)
3. Then, when you are actually talking with someone at the event, you can pull out one of your questions, ask it, and then sit back and listen. You don’t have to be a great talker. You just need to know how to ask questions that will get the other person doing the talking.

Along with being knowledgeable and asking questions, you should be a good listener. That means paying attention to your conversational partner. Look them in the eye. Smile. Ask a follow-up question occasionally. Nod and utter an “Uh-huh.” You pay a person a great compliment when you make them feel important by being a good listener.

That’s it: Be familiar with current topics, ask questions, and be a good listener. That’s the formula for being successful in situations when you are expected to engage with people you’ve just met.

“I’m sorry.”

Without some context, the written words fail to convey any sure sense of the meaning behind the words. Did the person who is quoted really mean the sentiment of the words or was he or she flippantly offering an apology just to settle an issue?

But, when we hear those words spoken we immediately understand the meaning and the sincerity or lack thereof. We know what the person means by the way he or she says it—the tone of voice. Tone of voice is an important quality that makes a difference to how people hear you. Here are four more qualities that help you be better understood:

Inflection is also an important voice attribute. Try this: Speak to a group for a couple of minutes in a flat monotone, no inflection at all. It will become painfully obvious that without inflection no one will listen for very long. Inflection keeps the sound of your voice interesting, and it allows you to stress words that carry more importance. Inflection, like tone of voice, is critical to voice communications.

Pronunciation matters as well. When we mispronounce a word, the listener’s focus turns to the mispronunciation rather than the message we are trying to convey. Commonly mispronounced words as identified at alphadictionary.com include: arctic (artic), candidate (cannidate), espresso (expresso), isn’t (idn’t), jewelry (jewlery), nuclear (nucular), and perspire (prespire).

Speed will get you every time, especially on a telelphone where a listener doesn’t have any visual cues to help interpret what you are saying. Slow down to be better understood.

Accent also can be problematic. It’s not just for people who speak English as a second language, accent is also noticeable in different parts of the United States. When speaking English when it’s not your native tongue or with someone outside your general geographic region, slow down and take care to enunciate as best you can.

Want to be really misunderstood? Combine speed with accent and you have a formula for really being unintelligible. The other night, my wife and I were watching a British import on TV and got hung up on an actor’s line. After replaying it several times, and doing our best to lip read, we finally turned on the Closed Captioning. Never would have guessed the fast-spoken phrase in a million years.

“I’m sorry.”

Without some context, the written words fail to convey any sure sense of the meaning behind the words. Did the person who is quoted really mean the sentiment of the words or was he or she flippantly offering an apology just to settle an issue?

But, when we hear those words spoken we immediately understand the meaning and the sincerity or lack thereof. We know what the person means by the way he or she says it—the tone of voice. Tone of voice is an important quality that makes a difference to how people hear you. Here are four more qualities that help you be better understood:

Inflection is also an important voice attribute. Try this: Speak to a group for a couple of minutes in a flat monotone, no inflection at all. It will become painfully obvious that without inflection no one will listen for very long. Inflection keeps the sound of your voice interesting, and it allows you to stress words that carry more importance. Inflection, like tone of voice, is critical to voice communications.

Pronunciation matters as well. When we mispronounce a word, the listener’s focus turns to the mispronunciation rather than the message we are trying to convey. Commonly mispronounced words as identified at alphadictionary.com include: arctic (artic), candidate (cannidate), espresso (expresso), isn’t (idn’t), jewelry (jewlery), nuclear (nucular), and perspire (prespire).

Speed will get you every time, especially on a telelphone where a listener doesn’t have any visual cues to help interpret what you are saying. Slow down to be better understood.

Accent also can be problematic. It’s not just for people who speak English as a second language, accent is also noticeable in different parts of the United States. When speaking English when it’s not your native tongue or with someone outside your general geographic region, slow down and take care to enunciate as best you can.

Want to be really misunderstood? Combine speed with accent and you have a formula for really being unintelligible. The other night, my wife and I were watching a British import on TV and got hung up on an actor’s line. After replaying it several times, and doing our best to lip read, we finally turned on the Closed Captioning. Never would have guessed the fast-spoken phrase in a million years.

I live in Vermont. It’s been a long winter. People bundled up in layers of clothing to be warm outside and able to shed layers to remain comfortable inside. Come April (if we’re lucky) and May (like this year) the temperatures shoot up into the 80’s and out comes the summer clothing.

And with that summer clothing comes choices: choices of what is and is not appropriate summer business clothing.

Summer business casual can be tricky for both sexes so here are a few guidelines to help avoid hearing: “I can’t believe he (she) is wearing that!” For every piece of advice I’m about to give, there’s usually an exception. But beware of the exception, especially if it results in opting for more casual attire. Remember, you can always dress your clothing down but dressing it up is much harder. For instance, a guy can wear a tie and then take it off, but if he doesn’t have a tie and discovers he needs one, he’s out of luck.

Regardless of the advice that follows, if your company has a clear policy about what’s acceptable, adhere to that policy. Here are some trouble spots:

For men:

Collarless shirts. Watch out for the tee-shirt, especially anything with a slogan on it. However, a collared golf shirt or polo shirt will usually pass muster.

Shorts. Don’t push the envelope by wearing shorts.

Socks. Wear them at work. Loafers without socks are okay in social settings but not at your job. We all know how sandals look with socks so the advice here is, if socks are a must, then sandals are not for work.

For women:

Spaghetti straps. Michelle Obama has made the sleeveless look okay thanks to her tank dresses with wide “straps,” but narrow straps or spaghetti straps are still not acceptable at work.

Flip-flops. They’re great for summer fun but they are simply not professional so unless you are absolutely sure they are okay, avoid wearing them at work.

Panty hose. They’re no longer required, especially in summer, though if you wouldn’t dream of going without them, by all means wear them. Again, if the occasion is business formal, wearing them gives a more professional look.

Cropped shirts. I hear they are in fashion again, but any clothing that bares the midriff is not appropriate business clothing, even business casual.

Shorts. Stick to skirts or slacks. And while we’re at it, beware of skirts that are too short, either when you are standing or sitting. The definition of too short? “When people notice your skirt rather than you.”

Boarding airplanes is one of those unique etiquette/life experiences that reminds me just how civil we all can be toward each other. I fly a lot, both for business and for personal trips, domestically and internationally.

Depending on the airline I might be in boarding group 2 or 3 or 4 or even higher. What’s amazing is how kind and generous people are as their groups are called to join the line to board the plane. For the most part, they don’t push and shove to get ahead of each other (even though it might mean losing the last open spot in the overhead bins for carry-on luggage). More than once I have had the person standing shoulder-to-shoulder with me look me in the eye and motion for me to go first. And that’s what etiquette is all about—showing consideration and respect for the people with whom we interact. Emily Post said it best when she defined etiquette as: “Whenever two people come together and their behavior affects one another, you have etiquette.”

I have experienced this behavior by the flying public so often that I know it’s not an aberration. People are actually showing consideration and respect for the strangers around them, and, in doing so, make the experience just that much more pleasant for all.

So, when people ask me if we, as a people, are ruder now than people were twenty or thirty years ago, I see examples of civility, like boarding airplanes, that belie that perception, in spite of the fact that 69% of Americans think we are ruder today.

My fellow airplane passengers have reminded me that etiquette is alive and well even if 69% of us think we are ruder today than we were twenty or thirty years ago. It’s the little, seemingly inconsequential, everyday interactions with our fellow man that prove that we still care.

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.