I have a fun variation.
Before I am even prompted I blurt out, “Hello, this is Mr. Guy Slant with SuperBigCorp, calling for Mr/s Director/VP Person Bobbi Smith. I’m not a salesman, I’m calling to arrange service on some equipment.”
You have no idea how much better my odds are with “I’m not a salesman” in the introduction.
I had an interesting conversation with a salesman once. This was at home, lest I be accused of being rude at work. For awhile, I must have been listed in some sort of reverse-directory, so I kept getting calls for my landlord, who shares the same address with me. I always knew it was a marketing call because they would pronounce his name wrong.
Salesman: “Is Mr. [name pronounced wrong] there?”
Me: “Is this a sales call?”
Salesman: [In condescending tone] “That wasn’t the question. The question was, Is Mr. [name pronounced wrong] there?”
Me: “Fuck you.”
Salesman: “Why you… I’ll come over there and kick your ass.”
Me: “I’d like to see you try, old man.”
[hangs up]
And again, we can’t say this too many times. The fact that YOU know that that’s what that prhase is supposed to mean, does not mean that it is technically incorrect for those who take things more literally (in other words to think “who is calling means WHO is calling”) to answer accordingly.
This is an assumption on YOUR part. While it is true that that is what that phrase has come to mean, some people do still take it literally, and to suggest that they’re being obtuse, or lack common-sense is insulting and narrow-minded on your part.
Particularly since, by your own admission, most of the clients who call you DO know who they are to your boss and don’t need more than their first names.
Hijack.
I had a boss who would call from another city for my direct boss and when I would ask that question of him he would say would say “Sure!!”.
Smartass…
I hardly ever deal with business calls, but from reading this thread it seems that what it boils down to is that the person taking the call can’t be expected to know the appropriate amount of information to pass on to their superior in every case. The person doing the calling is much more likely to have an idea of how much information is required and in any case has the right to give only as much information as they want.
Personally, I think I would try to gauge what a person would need to know about me and provide that when I was making a call. If the person I was trying to get in touch with needed more information than my name to know why he or she ought to talk to me, I would give it. The only problem is that I don’t always know what is pertinent, perhaps this is where the gatekeeper might help me.
I don’t know what else to say. We’re just going back and forth on this now. I’ve said several times that “Who is calling?” is not a question that requires a name per se as an answer. Not literally or any other way. Others have pointed this out as well. You continue to simply talk past my point, so I don’t think there’s much need to continue to argue about it.
You seem angry. I’m sorry this discussion is upsetting you. But I disagree. I’m not being narrow-minded. If you are calling someone for the very first time, your name alone imparts no useful information for the recepient to determine if he needs to talk to you. If you can give me a valid reason why a name, that my boss has never heard before, is in any way helpful in determining if it’s an important call, then I will retract what I said. Otherwise, I will continue to assert that common-sense would tell one that if one wishes to increase one’s chances of getting through, one ought to give some sort of additional information. That IS common-sense. I wouldn’t dream of only giving my name if I’m calling someone who doesn’t know me from Adam. That just makes no sense to me. What do they care what my name is? Quite obviously, if they have someone screening their calls, it’s because they need to decide if they want to take that call. An unknown name doesn’t help make that determination. If they were taking all calls, regardless, then they wouldn’t need a screener. You don’t have to be Einstein to figure out that if someone is screening calls, and you don’t give them any information, they aren’t going to take your call.
I’m not saying these people are stupid; just that yes, there is common-sense involved in this one matter. We’ve all done things in our lives that lack common-sense; there’s nothing insulting about it.
Rather than contradicting my point, that actually supports it. The clients who only give their name are using common-sense. They know that they are familiar to us, and therefore realize that they don’t have to waste time introducing themselves. I use my brain when I make a call. I know that if I call my Mom, she only needs to know my name. And I know that if I call a car dealer to buy a part, they need to know I’m trying to reach the parts department, and they don’t care what my name is. Again, it’s just a matter of using a tiny amount of brain-power when you make a call, and not just being a robot, that’s all.
But you asked the question!! In that situation, it’s not the caller’s job, (quite) to anticipate your needs and give you the information that they need to know. You asked a question, and they’ve answered it. If you can’t think of a way to ask them the right question, (ie the one whose answer is the one you really need to know,) that flows off the tongue smoothly, that kind of sounds like your problem.
Of course, given the fact that if you don’t get the answer you want, a lot of people who have a vague notion of what you want will find some way of answering the question and slipping in other valuable information. Considering that, under the context, ‘who you are’ might include other information than a name, like a role or a parent company, that’s understandable.
To me, it seems like what we have here is a social convention that hasn’t fully caught on. If it does, then EVERYONE (or nearly so) will agree on what a proper response would be to the question, and there wouldn’t be so much debate about it. Once there’s a social convention in place, logical responses mostly go out the window. 
But the fact that a lot of people are answering that a literal response is reasonable and that it’s you who should be adjusting your question, then arguing on and on that the social convention is there and full-grown won’t get you anywhere. Your proper response would be to become an advocate of the convention, trying to convince us unbelievers why we should adopt it, how that will benefit us no matter which side of the phone call we’re on, and getting us to spread the word to our friends and colleagues.
Okay, that’s two cents’ worth. Bye for now.
I’m not talking past your point. I’m disputing it. The literal meaning of “who is calling” is just that “who”. And yes, I agree UTTERLY that it has come to mean, in most of society as a phone phrase which is really a request for who and why.
I don’t disagree with that at all. What I , and a several others in this post, disagree with, is the mentality that the few who do still tend to answer literally are somehow stupid, or socially inept or something.
Oh HECK no…I’m just lazy about coding, and use caps in place of bold or italics. (I’m full of faults…:D).
You’re right, it doesn’t. But those few folks who take this phrase literally aren’t doing it to be obtuse or something (except of course for those people who want to be a pain in the butt in ALL they do). My point, and it’s a simple one, is that just because you and I “know” what the phrase “who is calling” is supposed to mean, doesn’t mean that all others do.
Yes, yes…about 90% of us do. But for the 10% who don’t, suggesting, as you have that they’re somehow “don’t know”, rather than that they just happen to take phrases more literally is what I meant by your making assumptions.
I guess that’s where I’m running into a snag, to me, it’s a matter of viewpoints for those people rather than they’re lacking in “common-sense”. When in reality, it’s just that for a minority of people, they do tend to take things strictly literally. Meaning the word “who” means just that and only that. Who, which to that sort of person is their name.
I am NOT in any way arguing that that should then be the proper way to deal with it. I agree that the most expedient way of answering the question is with one’s name AND affiliations.
My point is, that if you are on the receiving end of this sort of caller, there’s really no point in being perplexed, annoyed, or observant, or whatever it is that you are being here in this thread.
See, THIS is the mentality that I’m arguing against. The idea that those who have a less well known way of approaching this question aren’t “using their brains”.
Again, people who take things strictly literally (and again, I’m not talking about those that are deliberately being a pain in the butt), aren’t neglecting to use their brains, they have a different way of responding to the written and spoken word.
Those folks that respond to the language literally do it in many other ways, not just with a phone phrase like this one. They are just as much “using their brains” as others, just in a different way. That, not disagreement that stating name AND affiliation is quickest, is my point.
When I answered phones I didn’t expect people to say why they were calling when I asked who they were. I did expect them to say fully who they were, which in business means “What is your name and who do you work for?”
Actually, the really important thing is “Who do you work for?”
It was incredibly rare for someone not to volunteer that information unless they were a telemarketer.
Only if the company name sounded odd did I ever ask why they were calling.
My calls are screened now. If someone doesn’t give a company (and I don’t recognize the name, of course), I do not take the call. I can hear my assistant from my office and it is incredibly incredibly rare for me to hear “With what company please?”
I’m in manufacturing, which means I’m talking almost exclusively to other manufacturers. If people aren’t part of the business community, they probably ain’t calling me.
Well that’s a tautology. Yes, who means who, but who does NOT mean your name - not necessarily, that is. Who could mean any number of things. Consider:
Who’s making all that noise? - The next-door neighbors.
Who knocked over the trash can? - The garbage-man.
Who wants ice cream? - I do.
None of those questions were answered with a name, yet they were all answered correctly. One’s name is a literal answer to the question “who?”, but it is not the only literal answer. When one says “I took you literally”, that is to imply that the alternative would have been not to take you literally, i.e. figuratively. But there is nothing figurative about the answer that’s expected from “Who is calling?”
In other words, you’re misusing the phrase “take literally”. I think what you mean to say is that they are ascribing a different meaning to my question than that which I intended. Whether they answer with their name, company name, occupation, [the] potential client, whatever, it’s still literal.
So my point is, there is nothing NON-literal about answering the question with your company name or other pertinant information. Therefore, it makes no sense to say “they’re taking you literally”, when they mindlessly recite their name. Literal as opposed to WHAT?
Um, didn’t I JUST SAY I’m not calling them stupid?
Actually, I meant your complaint that I was “insulting” people and that I’m narrow-minded. It sounded angry. I think you’re reading a lot more into this thread that what I put in. I’m not calling for jail sentences for these people, you know.
Quite obviously. Which is why I started this thread - to register my surprise at the number of people who don’t know that.
You want to take another stab at writing that sentence? It’s not making sense the way you wrote it.
Some people sniff glue, but that doesn’t mean they have common-sense. Just because some people “tend to do x” doesn’t mean x makes sense. It makes no sense to offer information (your name) that has no practical value in that situation. And again, you’re talking past my point, because one can remain strictly literal without offering only one’s name.
Oh, I disagree. Quite a few people seemed interested in my topic, and many agreed with me. If you don’t find the topic earth-shattering enough for your taste, then don’t read the thread. It’s quite simple really.
It’s not just a “less well known way”, it’s a way that makes less sense. See, you are implying that both ways of answering the question are equally useful, which they are not. It’s not just “another way”, it’s a nonsensical way.
If you think about it, they AREN’T using their brains, other than in a very minimal stimulus-response way, at least not in answering that one particular question. You can teach a chimpanzee to respond with it’s name, but thinking about why the question was asked, and what response would best expedite the situation takes much more reasoning power. It’s a much more complicated algorithm. But don’t get excited - I’m not comparing anyone to a chimpanzee; I’m merely saying that to recite one’s name takes no reasoning skills, only rote memory.
But really, that’s all a minor point. The main point I was originally making was that I’m just surprised how many people don’t know about that convention.
I don’t know why this offends you so much. It’s not like I’m clubbing these people over the head. It was just a simple observation about something that I find surprising. Try not to let it upset you too much.
Oops, I got so caught up in my response, I forgot I had another point. What I’m telling everyone is: IF YOU WANT TO MAXIMIZE YOUR CHANCES OF GETTING THROUGH, AND YOU’RE CALLING FOR THE FIRST TIME, DON’T JUST GIVE YOUR NAME. Look what jsgoddess said. She won’t even take your call in that situation. And she’s not the only one. If you don’t like having to leave a message and waiting for a return call, give some info.
So I’m not here to say, “Waaaah! I hate these people”, or say they’re stupid (they’re not); I’m here to say that these people are shooting themselves in the foot.
No, you’re just saying that they lack common sense.
Perhaps some of these people are not expecting to be “screened” in the first place. Most of us aren’t important business executives and we are not accustomed to the idea that when someone calls us, if we are actually there and could take the call if we wanted, we might just refuse to take a call that we don’t consider important enough.
This might be familiar in the rarified world of the business executive, but most of us don’t live our lives expecting that someone else is going to refuse to let people interact with us because they haven’t explained themselves thoroughly enough, like a peasant approaching the lord of the manor, cap-in-hand.
I think it’s the gatekeeper’s job to handle this situation.
It’s not realistic to hope the people trying to get “in” are going to volunteer up information that makes it easy for them to be screened out. They are actively trying to find ways past the screener in the first place. If they start doing this…
“May I ask who is calling”?
“Sure this is Jim Williams with overpriced products I’m hoping to get your boss on the phone and sell him some of my goods & services today. Does he have a spare 10 min to chat with me right now.”
Jim will be looking for another job soon.
It’s his job to get past you and your job (the gatekeeper) to keep him out. Everything else is part of the game…IMO.
John F
It has nothing to do with people being peasants. It has to do with me only having so much time during the day. I can only take one call at a time. My company does not do business directly with individuals. If you don’t represent a company you are wasting my time. If you represent a company you don’t wish to talk about (like when you think that I’m in the market for toner), you’re wasting my time.
And, like I said, the people who call me? They know that. They give their company names, sometimes only their company names. Sometimes their titles and company names. Sometimes names, titles, and company names. You can’t do a job like mine for more than five minutes before you realize that who you are isn’t significant to the person on the other end. Who you represent is what matters.
I am a doctor who does life insurance exams. I go to peoples homes or offices to do these exams. When I call an office, I never know if I am getting a general receptionist or an administrative assistant. So I’m never quite sure how much information I should give out.
Usually, just saying “I’m Dr. Pudytat and I would like to speak with Boss”
It’s not the general receptionist’s business to know that Boss is getting a life insurance exam, but sometimes Administrative Assistant knows about the exam and can help me schedule it without talking to the boss at all.
Sometimes, Boss is getting a life insurance exam and naming girlfriend/boyfriend as the beneficiary and not spouse; or company is giving Boss A a perk that it is not giving Boss B, so privacy can be tricky.
Sometimes Insurance Agent is being aggressive and setting up appointment for the exam when Boss is not ready to commit to to policy, and sometimes Boss doesn’t like needles and doesn’t want to get poked, so they put off calling me back, and Administrative Assistant and I get to be friends.
Sometimes, Boss wants to play “power” with Dr Pudytat, and I want to say "Dude (It’s usually the men), I deal with presidents of National/International corporations, and policies as high as $99,999,999.00 who are more cooperative than you are, and I’m really not impressed with how busy/important you think you are.
So it makes my job interesting, and at times frustrating, when I have to call an office. I try to remember that we(phone answerer and phone caller) are just trying to do our respective jobs, and being polite, patient, and having a sense of humor, can go a long way
They don’t do it to be mean, they do it because if they talked on the phone all day, they couldn’t get any work done. My boss sometimes stays in the office until 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning to finish his work when a deadline comes up. We have a client who will sometimes leave 7 or 8 messages in one hour. When the boss does talk to this client, the client often keeps him on the phone for 2 hours, and THEN continues to call back repeatedly, saying, “Oh, just one more thing…”. We have a string of calls all day from salesmen trying to sell us copiers, toner, books, internet research contracts, memberships to health clubs, you name it. Call screening is an unfortunate reality of life, not a punishment doled out to the less fortunate for no reason.
Granted, you may not be accustomed to being screened. But why on earth do you think the receptionist asked who’s calling? Do these people think they just asked out of idle curiosity? I understand that you may not have expected it, but nevertheless it happened. I still think a little common sense would tell you that there has to be a reason they asked who’s calling. If the vast majority of people didn’t get it, then I might change my mind. But most people do get it, so I’m inclined to believe that they are the ones possessing common-sense, rather than the small minority.
I agree. Never said it wasn’t. But, as I’ve said many times, the gatekeeper will often “handle” the situation by taking a message, or transferring you to voicemail. It’s not a slight, it’s just a reality of the business world. Executives don’t have time to take every call that comes in to the office. So they tend to only take the important calls. Imagine you’re an executive: If you had to chose between a call from Joe Blow, or a call from Joe Blow who would like to hire you for a lucrative account, which call would you take?
I was unaware of this custom, but then the only gatekeepers I ever have need of dealing with tend to be for doctors and dentists. I’ve always assumed when asked who is calling, it is so they can look up my file. Or if it’s a first time call, creating a file. Could it be many others of the 10% who don’t know the custom are thinking the same thing?
First of all, you may have missed it, but we’re not talking about people who have an existing relationship with the person, which would be the case if you already had a file. I agree that your name would be sufficient in that case.
So assuming you’re a new potential patient, I don’t quite get your point. Let’s say you want to see a dentist named Dr. Smith, and you’re calling for the first time - you found her/him in the phone book or whatever. I assume the person who answers the phone would be the receptionist:
“Hello, Dr. Smith’s office.”
Now the first thing you would say would be, “Hi, I’d like to make an appointment to see Dr. Smith”, right? So right there you’ve already provided some information besides your name. You wouldn’t ask to speak to Dr. Smith right off the bat, would you? Most dentists and doctors don’t make their own appointments, they have a receptionist who does that.
In the case you describe, you wouldn’t even be trying to talk to the boss, right? So I don’t think that’s at all the same as the situation I described in the O.P. Did I miss something?
Oh yes, the phones, the phones. I have a phone and I know how to use it. I take unscreened calls all day, part of my job. People call me and ask me questions, often I call them back with answers. I am very busy and do not have time to play “who is it?” every time I call. But, I am also experienced enough to know that when calling, I may not get person I must speak to directly, or even if I do, they may need information to place who I am and why I am calling. Sooo, and this is so simple, when I call the conversation goes something like this:
Them: Thank you for calling Bob’s Cat factory, how may I help you?
Me: Hello, this is Bat312 with Claws R Us. I am calling for Professor Bob, I am returning his call.
No need to ask who I am, who work for or why I am calling.
Seems to work quick and easy.
And speaking of phones, when you leave a message on voice mail, would you please speak your name and p-h-o-n-e n-u-m-b-e-r slowly, so I do not have to listen to the entire message 3 times to write it down.
Please learn some basic phone etiquette and stop wasting our time.
I take messages off of a tech support voice mail system.
About 10% of my callers, bless their ever-loving hearts, seem to believe that when they’re done leaving most of their messages and are ready to leave their phone numbers they should speed up their talking.
ARGH.