As more and more businesses go remote, these are ways to be more effective and efficient on conference calls. Update: Since this story originally ran, the worldwide coronavirus outbreak has made video conferencing an essential component to keeping businesses running. This story originally ran in 2017, but the advice is as relevant as ever.
Here are 10 do’s and don’ts that I believe elevate the overall experience of a video conference.
Do: Mute your microphone whenever you’re not speaking — even if you’re alone in the room. Background noise can be an annoying distraction and stifle any meeting’s flow.
Do: Be aware of your video settings. Check if your microphone is muted before delivering a two-minute monologue that no one will hear.
Don’t: Position your camera too low, too high or hooked onto a different monitor. Weird camera angles can be very distracting — and unflattering — during video conference calls. Make sure your camera is eye level and on the monitor you plan to use for the conference.
Do: Make sure your room is well lit (side lighting is the best). Few things are worse than having a professional meeting while feeling like you’re talking to someone in a dungeon. Use natural light from windows or simply turn on the overhead light in the room to brighten up the conference.
Do: Wear appropriate clothing. I know it can be tempting — especially if you work from home — to wear a work shirt and athletic shorts but dress as if you’re meeting face to face. You never know if you’re going to have to get up suddenly or if your camera might fall. So wear clean, professional clothing for your video calls.
Do: Your wall art or decorations should be work-appropriate and your surroundings clean. If your room looks like a college dorm room after a bender, clean it or find a different room. This also includes your desk! Avoid having multiple coffee mugs, dishes and trash on the surface.
Do: Test your microphone before you video call, especially if it’s an important meeting. Test it by video conferencing your colleague before the meeting. Nothing is worse than trying to share something critical, and not being able to communicate clearly because your audio clarity and volume are poor.
Do: If you’re in a group call without video, introduce yourself before you talk. Consider something like “Hi it’s Jim, I have a question.” While several programs will notify you as to who is talking, conference line numbers will not. Therefore, be polite and introduce yourself.
Don’t: Check or read emails or peruse articles while on the video call. This also includes doing additional work beyond the call. It’s easy for other participant’s to tell if you aren’t fully focused and present during the video call.
Do: When you’re talking, look into the camera instead of looking at yourself talking on the computer screen. It will help others on the call feel like you’re 100 percent engaged and present.
It’s important to remember that video conferences are essentially in-person interactions that allow businesses to communicate more effectively.
Microcoaching: the next generation of personal development...getty
As the modern workplace evolves, its associated practices must too. An office used to mean a fixed location, now it’s anywhere with an internet connection or something to write with. A multi-million dollar business used to require heaps of staff and complicated infrastructure, now it could be a teenager with a Shopify site. Meetings used to always be face-to-face. Emails used to be faxes. Instant payments used to be cheques. You get the idea.
Ambitious entrepreneurs are maximising their time; fitting in more of what matters and doing less of what doesn’t. More is automated, delegated and eliminated than ever before. It makes sense that coaching is up for discussion.
What is microcoaching?
Microcoaching is an alternative to traditional coaching, consisting of smaller and more frequent questions, guidance and assistance. Rather than scheduling hour-long calls or face-to-face meetings, microcoaching might involve a five-minute chat every few days, and the exchange of voice notes or text-based questions and prompts between coach and client. The principle is that frequent doses of guidance might help keep someone on track better than an in-depth discussion every two weeks, for example.
Microcoaching is used by coaches looking to adapt their practices to a changing workplace, as well as the evolving demands of a modern entrepreneur. It’s used within larger organisations, to enable senior team members to offer support to junior ones, or to enable peer-to-peer development. It might be used within entrepreneur networks or between friendship groups. Whenever you’re spending time with someone who is helping you find solutions or holding you accountable, you might be on the receiving end of microcoaching.
Formal, structured coaching has its place, but for some clients of coaches it’s surplus to requirements and shorter, more frequent bursts of motivation, inspiration and nudging may prove more beneficial.
What makes microcoaching so effective?
Microcoaching, by its very nature, enables more frequent catch ups and a real-time method of keeping in touch. This means challenges can be assessed and dissected and a plan of action made without waiting for the next scheduled session, which may be weeks or even months in the future. This is particularly useful if the microcoaching recipient feels they may have made a mistake, could have handled a situation better, or they have a big decision they’d like to discuss.
The faster implementation of microcoaching can make the recipient more effective in their work. Whether self-employed or an employee, they are less likely to waste time pursuing practices that are ineffective or go too far down a rabbit hole before they’re caught. Feedback loops are far shorter meaning actions can be redirected accordingly. Furthermore, the microcoaching receiver can access frequent doses of motivation, keeping their levels topped up rather than allowing for boom and bust.
One of the key benefits of microcoaching is its flexible nature, especially when communication is delivered asynchronously. This means the coach and their client can exchange thoughts and questions in their own time, whenever is convenient. This removes the need to find time in two busy schedules and block out an afternoon for a call and review period. Long coaching calls can be draining for both parties and they’re not always effective. Furthermore, long coaching calls might require an initial phase of catching up, which microcoaching negates the need for.
How can entrepreneurs benefit from microcoaching?
Ambitious entrepreneurs are hungry for knowledge, including feedback and pointers of how they can improve. They can open themselves up for microcoaching by letting key individuals around them know that regular feedback is welcome.
Within a formal coaching relationship, where an entrepreneur has commissioned a coach, they might adapt the schedule so they communicate in smaller bursts and incorporate ad hoc phone calls, shorter catch ups or voice notes, saving the longer sessions for when deep dives are necessary or when there’s something significant to discuss. This adaptation may be welcomed by their coach and make the arrangement more effective.
Outside of a formal coaching relationship, for example in mastermind groups or between friendship groups consisting of entrepreneurs, each member can administer and receive microcoaching according to the boundaries of those involved. If a friend is explaining a business problem, for example, I might ask them if I can offer feedback, ask some questions, or suggest a new way to frame the problem. In turn, they may hear of a business challenge I’m facing and ask if it’s okay that they probe, in order to help me reach a solution.
When microcoaching is met with an open demeanour and willingness to learn, it can be effective. When it’s unsolicited, defensiveness may ensue, and no solutions reached, hence why it’s crucial to check before offering input.
Entrepreneurs who question every aspect of their career and work will inevitably find better ways of conducting business. Modern businesses have reimagined what’s possible; applying the same to personal development could unlock the progress ambitious business owners are seeking.
Entrepreneur psychology and how to run a business without it running you. Post-exit entrepreneur, author of Ten Year Career and Forbes’ 30 under 30 social entrepreneurs in Europe 2017.
“The Difference Between Coaching And Mentoring”. Forbes. Retrieved 4 July 2015.coach, Online Etymology Dictionary, retrieved 4 July 2015.Lines, David; Evans, Christina, eds. (2020). “A Meta-Analysis of Coaching: Re-tracing the Roots and Re-analysing the Coaching Story”.
“26 Benefits of Adult ADHD Coaching”. Psychology Today blogs. Retrieved 4 July 2015.Knouse, Laura E.; Bagwell, Catherine L.; Barkley, Russell A.; Murphy, Kevin R. (May 2005). “Accuracy of Self-Evaluation in Adults with ADHD: Evidence from a Driving Study”.
Coaching in Education: Getting Better Results for Students, Educators, and Parents. Professional Coaching Series. London: Karnac Books.Neenan, Michael (2018). Neenan, Michael (ed.). Cognitive Behavioural Coaching:Grant, Anthony M. (2005). “Grant, Anthony M.; Cavanagh, Michael J. (2018). “Life Coaching”. In Cox, Elaine; Bachkirova, Tatiana; Clutterbuck, David (eds.).
ONE of the time-honoured tropes of writing on business is the detailed description of the life of a corporate titan. Readers are expected to marvel at the stamina of Tim Cook, for example. Apple’s chief executive rises at 3.45am to deal with emails. Spare a thought for his underlings, whose iPhones buzz at 4am every morning.
Some subordinates may have the fortitude to sleep through it all; many will be guilt-tripped into answering the boss. Highly effective people often inflict all their idiosyncrasies upon their hapless juniors. Perhaps the aim of admiring biographies and articles is to prompt their readers to emulate the work ethic of such leaders. But they will not reach the top of an S&P 500 firm if they do. All this columnist would achieve if he rose at 3.45am every morning is a divorce from Mrs Bartleby.
A particular danger for executives is that their supposedly inspiring examples make them look out of touch. Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, recently told a conference that he likes to “putter” in the morning, read a newspaper, drink a coffee and have breakfast with his kids. He schedules his first meeting for 10am. It all sounds very relaxed. But that option isn’t available to workers at many of his warehouses.
At Amazon’s British ones the two possible shifts are 7.00am-5.30pm or 5.45pm-4.15am, according to the GMB union, both of which make it hard to breakfast with the children. Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Group, also put his foot in it recently by declaring that “there’s very little that annoys me in life, but people turning up late really does irritate me.”
Frazzled passengers on Virgin’s train service swiftly took to social media to note that they too liked to be on time, but that one in five trains had been late over the past 12 months. It is also easier to avoid being late if you don’t have to worry about dropping the kids at school or the vicissitudes of public transport. Top executives, both male and female, are surrounded by people whose job it is to help them, from executive assistants and personal drivers at work through to cleaners and cooks at home.
Bosses also vie with each other on early-morning gym routines. Again, a hard-working parent with children to look after may not have the time, or the money, to do the same. A well-paid middle manager might be able to join a gym, only to find that every time they get on the StairMaster they get a call or an email from someone up the hierarchy.
It is easy to confuse correlation with causation. Tim Cook would probably be just as effective if he rose at 6.45am. He will have some qualities other than hard work and an unusual circadian rhythm to explain his rise. If long hours were the key to success, after all, people who hold down two jobs, or nurses on the night shift in emergency rooms, would be rolling in wealth. Ronald Reagan became president despite quipping that “I’ve heard that hard work never killed anyone, but I say why take the chance?”
Homilies about successful executives involve lots of virtue-signalling. No boss is going to admit that on Friday nights they consume pizza and watch box sets of “Game of Thrones”. Instead they claim to meditate or read improving books. Many business profiles resemble medieval “lives of the saints”, with the subjects of the hagiographies receiving share options instead of canonisation.
Some executive habits may be harmless, such as the preference of Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg to wear the same outfit every day. But the danger is that a leader’s eccentricities and views become so embedded in the culture that they damage the business in the long run. Henry Ford achieved great success with the Model T , but he failed to change it when it became old-fashioned; his dislike of credit also held back Ford when other producers allowed consumers to buy in instalments.
Gerald Ratner’s fondness for outspokenness (after childhood sales lessons at London’s Petticoat Lane Market) turned sour when he described his jewellery chain’s products as “crap”. Hobbies can be destructive, too. When Bear Stearns, an investment bank, was in danger of going bust in 2008, Jimmy Cayne, its chief executive, was indulging his passion for bridge in Nashville, and was out of reach by email or phone.
The danger of copying chief executives is that what makes their habits fashionable is usually strong profit growth and share price performance, and those can be ephemeral. Quirks that look daring and groundbreaking in good times seem more of a liability in testing times. Just ask shareholders in Tesla.
After dizzily swelling for weeks, COVID-19 cases seem to be leveling off in New York and Chicago. In the greater Boston area, the amount of SARS-CoV-2 found in wastewater is going down as quickly as it had gone up. The hard part isn’t over yet, but the omicron wave is starting to break and roll back out to sea. Soon we’ll see if any treasures are left behind in the tide pool.
Between Dec. 1 and Jan. 17, at least 18 million Americans contracted COVID. Data suggests that the vast majority of those cases were in unvaccinated people, but plenty of people who got their primary series of the vaccine also caught the immunity-evading omicron variant. By the time this wave is over, American bodies will know this virus like never before. But will the survivors gain anything from having had the disease? After all, there will be more variants in the future. Could the hard-earned immunity we’ve gained from omicron help fight them off? Could this wave be the last?
On Monday, White House chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci said it’s too soon to answer these questions. Scientists we spoke to agreed. But they also said the reason these questions were so difficult to answer was because of an issue that hasn’t always gotten much attention in the public sphere:
The immunity provided by a COVID infection itself. Scientists have learned a lot about this “natural immunity” since the pandemic began. But omicron has upended many of those expectations, and the more we learn about this variant, the less clear it is what we should expect for the future of the virus and our immunity to it.
Scientists have been studying infection-induced immunity since COVID first emerged. In fact, it was the only kind of immunity anyone could really study at that point, said John Moore, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Cornell University’s Weill Cornell Medical College. And while there are now many more studies on vaccine-induced immunity thanks to clinical trials and easily trackable vaccinated populations like medical staff, there’s a lot that can be said about natural immunity, pre-omicron, with a reasonable amount of certainty.
One important takeaway from all that pre-omicron research: Infection-induced immunity and vaccine-induced immunity are pretty similar. On the whole, studies found that the efficacy of infection-induced immunity was about the same as what you’d get from a two-dose mRNA vaccine, and sometimes higher.
For example, research from the U.K., in which a few hundred thousand participants were followed in a large-scale longitudinal survey, found that prior to May 16, having had two doses of the vaccine (regardless of the type) reduced the risk of testing positive by 79 percent, while being unvaccinated and having had a previous infection reduced the risk by 65 percent. After the delta variant became dominant,1 vaccination became less effective, reducing the risk by 67 percent, while a previous infection reduced the risk by 71 percent.
Likewise, both kinds of immunity seemed to wane over time — though Moore said infection-induced immunity might take longer to decline because a vaccination happens nearly all at once, while an infection takes longer to go through a process of growing, declining and finally being cleared from the body. “But it’s also not radically different [from antibody titers to vaccination]. It’s not measured in years, but months,” he said.
This is why some countries, including the member states of the European Union, treat documented recovery from COVID-19 as functionally the same as vaccination in their “vaccine passport” systems.
The pre-omicron research also indicated another downside to natural immunity: namely, that it can be more variable. All immunity differs from person to person and holds up better against some variants than others. But infection-induced immunity can also be more or less effective depending on how severe your case of COVID was, explained John Dennehy, a professor of biology at the City University of New York’s Graduate Center.
Then came omicron. The public desire for information on omicron is moving faster than science can produce, but we do know that this variant escapes natural immunity as easily as it does vaccine immunity. Omicron carries a lot of mutations that make it able to evade antibodies — and it doesn’t really matter how you got those antibodies in the first place, said Jeffrey Klausner, a professor of medicine in the Division of Infectious Diseases at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine.
Beyond that, the picture is murky. For example, we know milder infections have, with past strains, produced less effective immunity. If a hallmark of omicron is milder infections — and that’s the main reason why there’s so much chatter that it might just be better to get this variant and get some natural immunity — how much immunity can anyone really expect to come out of those mild infections with?
“We’re going to know for sure in a few weeks because a ton of preprint is coming out about it, but I don’t know the answer today,” Moore said. It’s information journalists can come back and update you on later, but it makes informed speculation hard now. (Meanwhile, keep an eye on our COVID-19 research tracker.)
The same holds true when you start trying to parse out what vaccinated people can expect from a breakthrough case of omicron. The combination of vaccine and infection-induced immunity has been shown to produce a hybrid that is probably more effective than either type alone — but, again, that research came from pre-omicron studies. Is a breakthrough case as good as a booster?
If you’re going to get a booster after you’ve had a breakthrough case, how long should you wait? Those are questions scientists don’t have the answers to yet, partly because there’s no clear through line of what to expect once you’re dealing with omicron.
“Maybe your readers are right in being confused, because we don’t really know how long-lasting the immunity you get from omicron will be,” said David Thomas, the director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins Medicine.
Which brings us to the biggest question of all: Will the many infections, reinfections and breakthrough infections associated with omicron maybe — finally — put us in a better position for a well-protected, safer society? Maybe even a society that doesn’t have any more big waves crashing on its head?
Theoretically, yes, Klausner told me. And he’s optimistic that it will. Thomas and Dennehy, on the other hand, were more cautious. After all, Dennehy pointed out, there’s no guarantee that future strains will be related to omicron. If omicron is different enough from delta that it evades immunity from that previous variant, what happens if a future variant comes along that’s evolved from delta and not omicron? It’s not unreasonable to expect a whole new wave.
And what does Moore think? He was just ready to take a pause from speculation and get some data before anyone starts making decisions for themselves or for society. “I’m fed up with winging answers to reporters like yourself, because I don’t know the answer,” he said. “None of us know for sure.”
Coronavirus Resource Center – Harvard Health”. Harvard Health Publishing. Archived from the original on 11 January 2022. Retrieved 7 January 2022. Lab studies, animal studies, and epidemiological data all indicate that Omicron may cause less severe disease than previous variants.
Omicron Is Milder”. The New York Times. Retrieved 7 January 2022. A few weeks ago, many experts and journalists were warning that the initial evidence from South Africa
Battered by a steep broad-market selloff this week, Moderna shares fell for a sixth straight day Friday as experts questioned whether Covid-19 vaccine sales alone will help justify the firm’s meteoric valuation, intensifying a crash that’s wiped out more than 60% of the value in one of last year’s top stocks and turned it into this year’s worst performer.
Moderna stock fell 4.4% Friday to an eight-month low of $160, pushing shares down more than 20% over the past week amid growing research suggesting Moderna’s Covid-19 booster, while very effective against previous strains, has been less effective against the rapidly spreading omicron variant.
Though the number of Covid infections has spiked amid the omicron-spurred wave of the pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Friday that Moderna and Pfizer boosters were 90% effective at preventing people infected with the new variant from being hospitalized.
Speaking to Yahoo Finance on Thursday, Jefferies analyst Michael Yee said the “overly high expectations” set last year, as Moderna’s Covid-19 vaccine became widely available to the public, will “lead to challenges . . . as people digest” what’s next for the firm beyond Covid vaccines.
Yee said the recent stock drawback has helped put Moderna’s valuation in line with other biotechnology competitors, but he warned analysts increasingly expect Covid vaccine sales—currently Moderna’s sole revenue source from a commercialized product—will fall over the next few years as the pandemic becomes endemic and competition heats up among treatment and prevention options.
Moderna’s stock plunge has pulled prices down so much that Bank of America analyst Geoff Meacham told investors in a Friday note that its valuation is now “back to earth” after its meteoric rise during the pandemic.
Meacham said he’s now focused on the company’s pipeline beyond Covid (Moderna is also developing a flu vaccine), pointing to the firm’s massive $17 billion in cash as a source of “strategic” opportunity.
In a Friday note, UBS analyst Eliana Merle was more optimistic about Moderna’s prospects, calling its mRNA technology a disruptive force in the $35 billion annual vaccine market and saying its success with Covid-19 suggests a high likelihood of success for other vaccine targets.
Shares of Moderna have plunged 67% from an all-time closing high of $484 on August 9, wiping out about $133 billion from the firm’s market capitalization, which now stands at roughly $65 billion.
Though it skyrocketed 143% to land the S&P 500’s third-best gain in 2021, Moderna stock has plummeted 35% this year—even worse than Netflix, which is down 32% after a steep 20% plunge Friday following a disappointing earnings report. To compare, Devon Energy and Marathon Oil, last year’s top- and second-best-performing stocks in the S&P, have climbed 7% and 11% this year, respectively.
$5.3 billion. That’s how much Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, who joined the firm in 2011, is worth Friday, according to Forbes. The French native owns a roughly 8% stake in Moderna and was at one point worth more than $12 billion.
Founded in 2010, Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Moderna spent nearly a decade developing the technology for its messenger RNA vaccines, which tell the body to produce part of a pathogen to trigger an immune response—unlike traditional vaccines that instead use a piece of the pathogen.
Once the pandemic hit, the company doubled down on the efforts and filed for an emergency use authorization for its Covid-19 vaccine in November 2020. The shots have proven to be a massive boon for businesses heading up their development, but Moderna shares have struggled in recent months as critics increasingly question whether or not sales of Covid-19 vaccines alone will prove a viable revenue stream in years to come.
In November, the company reported third-quarter sales and earnings that failed to meet analysts’ expectations, with revenue falling short of $5 billion, despite average analyst projections calling for $6.2 billion. In addition to lower sales projections, supply chain constraints and the development of antiviral Covid-19 treatments have also dented investor sentiment—and triggered Moderna stock selloffs.
Moderna is expected to report fourth-quarter earnings by the end of February.
Shares of Moderna plunged 17% shortly after the market opened Thursday, wiping out more than $24 billion in market value and pushing prices to a three-month low of $287.
Triggering the morning crash, Moderna on Thursday reported third-quarter sales and earnings that failed to meet analysts’ expectations, with revenue falling short of $5 billion despite average analyst projections calling for $6.2 billion.
In a conference call, Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel blamed a “more complex” supply-chain environment for the disappointing performance, adding that longer delivery times for international shipments may shift some deliveries to early 2022, instead of 2021’s fourth quarter.
Moderna said it now expects to deliver between 700 million and 800 million Covid-19 vaccine doses this year, down from previous projections calling for between 800 million and 1 billion doses; sales should now fall between $15 billion and $18 billion, instead of the $20 billion originally projected, the company said.
Covid-19 vaccines, which are Moderna’s only commercialized product, have proven to be highly effective in preventing serious illness and the market’s best defense against the virus—making them a massive boon to a slew of businesses heading up their development.However, Moderna shares have struggled in recent months as critics increasingly question whether or not sales of Covid-19 vaccines will prove a viable revenue stream in years to come.
In August, Bank of America sparked one of the biggest selloffs in Moderna’s history after saying future sales expectations don’t justify the company’s current valuation. The analysts warned that lower-than-expected vaccine sales and more intense competition as Covid-19 research advances marked the biggest risks to Moderna stock prices.
Despite its recent weakness, Moderna is still the S&P’s best-performing component this year, with shares skyrocketing about 200% thanks to the company’s Covid-19 vaccine becoming widely available across the world. Still, shares have crashed nearly 40% from an all-time closing high of $484 on August 9.
$9.5 billion. That’s how much Bancel, who joined Moderna in 2011, is worth as of 10:00 a.m. EDT Thursday, according to Forbes. The French native, who owns a roughly 8% stake in Moderna, has seen his fortune plunge by about $1.6 billion as a result of the stock’s rout on Thursday.
I’m a senior reporter at Forbes focusing on markets and finance. I graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where I double-majored
Tim Robberts | Getty Images
