Your client doesn't pay. An employee's work is not up to snuff. A co-worker's habits drive you crazy. You've got to do something about something...and you keep putting it off rather than bring up a difficult subject.  What's the best way to broach a conversation you'd rather not have?
    It's not so much by figuring out what to say, says Deborah Goldstein, managing director of the Triad Consulting Group, of Cambridge, MA. What's most important is figuring out how to listen.
    Most people believe they are right and want others to agree with them, Goldstein said at a recent meeting of the Healthcare Businesswomen's Association Boston Chapter. This was clearly evidenced when most people insisted they had accurately counted passes of a basketball in a video she showed. But it turned out that many of them counted wrong...and had been so focused on the task that they (and I!) missed seeing a gorilla step into the scene and beat his chest for attention. (I was pleased to have counted right, at least!)
    Because we face information overload and can be very task oriented, Goldstein said, it's important  to understand before going in to a difficult conversation that (a) you could be wrong  (b) the other person could see things that you do not.Hence, the best way to make your case is to NOT to make your case. Rather, ask questions to make sure you understand where the other person is coming from, thus validating his or her point of view--and starting a "give and take" that allows you to listen to one another.By asking questions and bringing the group into her presentation, Goldstein convinced me that her method works. But I'm still dreading the conversation I need to have with a difficult client!
    ---  Anita M. Harris
    HarrisComBlog is a publication of the Harris Communications Group of Cambridge, MA. HarrisCom Also publishes the New Cambridge Observer. You're welcome to link or comment, but all contents are copyrighted by Anita M. Harris, 2009.

 

 

 

 

 

In a “report card” presented on Wednesday, Massachusetts Life Sciences  Center (MLSC) President and CEO Susan Windham- Bannister, PhD, shared both good news and caution following the Center’s first full year of operation.

MLSC was funded in 2008 to steward the  10-year, $1B  Massachusetts Life Sciences Initiative– launched by Gov. Deval Patrick in 2007 to accelerate  biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, diagnostics and bioinformatics in the state.

The good news, Bannister told an audience of approximately 100 over lunch at the Cambridge Innovation Center,  is that investment of $48.5 M in public dollars has attracted nearly $359M in matching investments from companies, foundations, government, institutes and other private investors—an 8-fold return.  “There’s still capital out there and life science is a good place to put your money,” she said.  “By putting state money into the pot, we have ‘de-risked’ investment that the state would have had to find elsewhere”.

Bannister pointed out that the funded projects  could lead to some 950 permanent or building-trade jobs in the near future.

She cautioned, however,  that in the current economic downturn, tax revenues are “iffy” and it’s not yet clear how much money will be available for the Initiative in 2010.

Headquartered in Waltham, the MLSC provides grants for public infrastructure products; tax incentives to encourage corporate growth and expansion; a loan program for early-stage companies, an “innovation fund” to promote potential job creation, revenue enhancement and   scientific advancement; and funds to encourage workforce development.

Bannister said that over the past year, MSLC has invested:

*Nearly $25M for capital projects including:

  • $5.2M for construction of a new wastewater facility to serve the Framingham Technology Park. The project, she said, will allow Genzyme Corporation to build a new facility expected to create 300 new manufacturing jobs in 2009.
  • $10M to renovate part of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole. The investment leveraged an additional $15 M in funding from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and is expected to create 200 jobs in the building trades and up to 50 permanent jobs.
  • $9.5  M to support construction of the New England Regional Biosafety Laboratory at the Tufts University’s Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine in Grafton. The $33.6M project is projected to create 56 full-time equivalent construction jobs and 29 long-term positions—and one of just three comparable facilities in the nation.

*Accelerator” loans totaling $3.4 M for 7 companies, an expansion grant of $7.4M to a Canton company, and $12M to research institutions for collaborations with industry or other universities, attracting new faculty and funding young scientists.

*$695,000 in continued funding for the International Stem Cell Registry, a joint initiative between the Center and the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

(In 2008, the MLSC invested $570,000 in the registry and $7.7 million in the affiliated Massachusetts Stem Cell Bank, which maintains and provides stem cell lines to the research community. The MLSC’s stem cell investments should help Massachusetts compete for new federal research dollars and provide stem cell lines to national and international academic commercial organizations, according to MLSC documents.)

*Funds  to companies for student internship opportunities, and is in discussions with several universities about new degree programs aimed at professional training that will combine business and science.

In 2009, Johnson and Johnson donated $500, 000 to MSLC—with no strings attached, Bannister said.

By adding employment opportunities,  these  investments and incentives could help to absorb some of the job losses expected in other sectors, according to Bannister.

Frank Reynolds, CEO of InVivo Therapeutics, which is developing stem cell/ polymer technology aimed at halting the effects of traumatic spinal cord injury, said that receiving a $500 thousand loan just as  venture capital possibilities tanked this fall made a tremendous difference in his company’s ability to proceed. ”  It’s a great program,” Reynolds said. (Disclosure:   I work with InVivo).

MLSC also provided loans ranging from $400,000 to $500,000 to:

  • Eutropics Pharmaceuticals ($500,000), a Dorchester company that is developing cancer drugs
  • Good Start Genetics of Boston, which is developing a low-cost pre-pregnancy test for 50 genetic disorders
  •  PluroMed of Woburn, for  pioneering injectable plugs that occlude blood flow to provide surgeons with bloodless fields
  • SpectraAnalysis of Marlborough, for  developing instruments to analyze the molecular structure of each compound in a complex mixture
  •  Wadsworth Medical of Westborough, which is developing a painless, needless wound closure system without anesthesia or sutures and
  • Wolfe Laboratories of Watertown, which provides quantitative testing, formulation and strategy for biotech and pharmaceutical companies.

Co-operative research grants were awarded to:

  • U Mass Lowell and Boston Scientific for new polymer materials
  • The Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Science and Physics and Rain Dance Technologies for development of a functional fluorescent-activated cell sorter
  • Massachusetts General Hospital and Idera Pharmaceuticals for targeting of toll-like receptors in auto-immune diseases
  • Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Biomeasure for design and testing of a new regenerative protein for delivery
  • UMass Medical School and RXi Pharmaceuticals for development of orally-delivered RNAi therapeutics.

—Anita M. Harris,  Harris Communications Group,  Cambridge, MA         
Copyright: Anita M. Harris

Welcome!

July 16, 2009

Butterfly1b-webHi–and welcome to  HarrisCom.blog, a publication of the Harris Communications Group of Cambridge, MA

 We’ll be covering and commenting  on issues relating to the traditional and new media, public relations, social media,  health care life sciences, and our clients.   We welcome links, pingbacks, comments and suggestions. Our materials are copyrighted, so if you’d like to use them, please email us for permission.

Thanks for stopping by!

 Anita M. Harris, President

 On Wednesday, July 15, 2009, media consultant Doug Bailey wrote in an  op ed column entitled  ”Got a comment? Keep it to yourself” that space for comments at the end of online newspaper articles should be eliminated because they downgrade the quality of news. 

Bailey,  who does not disclose that he’s a  former Globe editor, suggests that rather than enhance communication, newspapers online forums are “insidiously contributing to the devaluation of journalism, blurring the truth, confusing the issues, and diminishing serious discourse beyond even talk radio’s worst examples.”

He  points out (without naming names) that  the comment sections allow  ”anonymous”, “unverified,”  “agenda-driven”  ”boneheads” to post inaccurate information that  can be picked up by bloggers and then by legitimate traditional reporters who publish “missives” –unaware that the bloggers’ information came from their newspapers’ own Web sites.

Yes, this is a problem–and  it is, as Bailey puts it, a bit  ”insane”. But rather than ban readers’ comments, wouldn’t it make more sense for reporters to verify all sources?  Certainly, real reporting takes time–and traditional journalists are increasingly harried in these days of cost-cutting and layoffs.

But it is verfication and objectivity that separate  independent journalism from  disinformation. And, it is truth, and allowing readers a stake in it–that, in the end, will give us a reason to  pay for news.

Bailey ends his column saying, “By the way, don’t bother posting any comments directly to me when this article appears on the Web. I won’t see them. Instead, go start your own website or blog or buy a legitimate newspaper or write a letter to the editor, or an op -ed (and sign your own name to it). If  you really have something interesting to say, I’ll find you.”

(I was  amused–and glad–to see 168 comments after the online posting.

  • “Kachunk” says he’s posting for “the irony”
  • “Oldpink ”says it’s “ nice for ordinary citizens to be given an opportunity to add something that should have been in the original column, while allowing others to rebut.Messy? Often a bit mean? Commonly inaccurate? Absolutely. Isn’t democracy grand?”
  •  ”Sensibleman,”  writes that he’s using  the first amendment to tell Bailey “to stop submitting articles so if intelligent life ever scans our internet to determine how critical it is to stop at Earth they don’t pass over us due to stupidity.”)

I read Bailey’s column in the print edition–which is delivered  to my door (late, but that’s another story)  every day.   But the Globe allows almost no print space for letters to the editor which, in days past, might have helped keep reporters and columnists on their toes.  Hence, this posting–and comment #169 after Bailey’s piece, online.

But if  I did write in, I’d  include my name and  prior affiliations– and make  clear that like Bailey’s,  my not-so hidden agenda is to attract customers to  my consulting business.  

 Hint, hint:  Anita Harris, a former national journalist,  is president of the Harris Communications Group, of Cambridge, MA.

PS  Comments welcome!