Alan S. Oser

“Hello Boris, call me back.”

“Who’s th . . .” Too late. She hung up.

Aside from the fact that my name is not Boris and I do not know any Borises, and that the voice gave no reason for the call, left no callback number and hung up immediately – aside from all that – aside also from the irritation that such abrupt and unclear messages arouse in me – aside, I say, from all that – Boris has my sympathy.

The call may have been important, even urgent, for Boris, whoever he is. But he will not get it. I was never given the chance to say, “I am not Boris, you’re calling the wrong number.” Eventually Boris will get the call, but by then it may be too late. Suppose the caller was his Boris’s sister, wanting to say, “Mother is dying, come quick.” I’m sure that Mother will be dead by the time her daughter figures out that she called the wrong number.

Clearly the caller knows nothing about telephone etiquette, a subject that is insufficiently taught in our society. It should be taken seriously, and learned at a young age by all who use telephones.

I have formulated several rules on this matter. They can be divided into two categories: those that apply to conversations with complete strangers or people not called frequently, and those pertaining to conversations with people the caller knows well and speaks to frequently. The initial greeting is especially important in the former category, and obviously is more formal than the greeting used in the second category. But many other principles apply to both conversations.

In what I shall call the strangers category, I favor the following greeting: “Hello, my name is ____ and I’m calling about _____.” If appropriate, this is the right time for the caller to say how he got the callee’s name and phone number. The identification of self is obviously simpler when the caller’s voice is known to the callee, or responder. For example, “Hello, this is Herman.” But it is dangerous to take it for granted that the responder will recognize one’s voice. Do not speak on and on without the certainty that your identity is clear.

If the caller is asking for money, that should be confessed promptly. The conversation may end right there. However, most calls I have made to strangers were not about raising money, and I have found that my direct explanation for my call at the outset is the best way to get a constructive conversation off the ground. All attempts at humor must be avoided.

The initial exposition should end quickly, and with a question for the responder. That way the responder will find it easy to pick up the conversation. If the caller is making an invitation, it should come soon after the responder has had a chance to say a word or two. I favor this language: “XXX (wife’s name) and I are planning YYY (nature of event) on ZZZ (date). Is it possible you can join us?” This may come as soon as the responder is clear who’s talking (you). The intervening phrase “How are you?” is acceptable.

My rules for phone conversations extend well beyond the initial phase. They take a harsh view of soliloquies, and provide tactful ways of interrupting without falling back on that old-time favorite, spoken with sarcasm, “May I get a word in edgewise please?” This comment is nevertheless preferable to “Enough already for God’s sake.” The impulse to put the headpiece aside and turn to other tasks while the soliloquy proceeds must be resisted. My preferred interjection is “If I may cut in . . . .”

Tact and brevity – these are my prescriptions for phone conversations. Recognizing that excessive brevity can be tactless, I do not define brevity as blunt laconic expression. Nor do I advocate brevity at the expense of clarity. It is merely important to be conscious of the tendency to speak too long, to say so much that the main point, if there is one, is lost on the listener.

It is also important not to raise one’s voice. Any hint of anger will put the hearer in a different mood – defensive, anxious, alarmed – and give the conversation a turn that will probably end it badly. Once both parties have hung up they will seethe or brood, making matters worse. They will stew over what was said, and over what they wish they had remembered to say. And they will place an ever more dire interpretation on the significance of the conversation.

For conversations on a sensitive subject, which may lead to anger or tears or some other display of emotion, one should not use the telephone at all. Such conversations must be held face to face, where there is a better chance that they will end on a conciliatory note. Brevity is not possible, or desirable. And a telephone should never be slammed down in anger on someone with whom one has an ongoing relationship.

The following is a model phone conversation between a caller seeking a donation and a stranger. The caller is inviting the callee to a fund-raising party at the suggestion of their mutual friend Andy, who has given the caller the callee’s phone number.

“Hello, Leo?”

“Yes?”

“My name is Farnsworth Moneysucker, and I’m calling at the suggestion of a mutual friend, Andy Featherbottom. He gave me your number.”

“Who?”

“Andy – Andy Featherbottom. You know him?”

“Andy Featherbottom? Yes, I think so. Is he all right?”

“He’s fine. We’re both trying to raise money for an important cause – treating depression in orphan girls. We’re holding a social event in a month to raise some money. We’re hoping very much that you and your wife will come.”

“For orphan girls? I have a daughter, but she’s not depressed.”

“It’s really tragic when you go to an orphanage and see these young girls, with no family, no hopes, nothing. Many of them are clinically depressed. We want to help.”

“That is very nice of you. When is the event?”

“It’s on Sunday November 16 at an apartment on Central Park West, starting at four o’clock. Do you think you can make it?”

”I’ll check with my wife. Will Andy be there?”

“Andy will be there, and he’ll be very pleased to see you. May I send you the details in the mail?”

“Yes, I suppose that’s all right. Depressed girls, you say?”

See how easy that was? Leo must quickly receive the follow-up letter. He’s good for at least $100, I’m sure.

Many conversations require a higher level of subtlety, but it is not my intention to write an exhaustive textbook. Instead, I stress general principles: do not raise the voice, try not to interrupt the speaker, stick to bland language, avoid the application of adjectives and adverbs in a misguided attempt to excite the listener. Do not speak longer than two or three sentences before allowing the other party to speak. Do not let the phone call last longer than ten minutes.

Other principles of mine are more idiosyncratic. I oppose phone calls made for the sole purpose of chatting, unless this is desirable for the psychological wellbeing of the person called (e.g., sick and lonely grandmother). I oppose phone calls made for the purpose of reprimanding the person called, even if it’s a tradesman who has let one down. This must be done by letter or in person.

And I am suspicious of calls from unidentified strangers, especially if they report good news.

“Hello, Mr. Weatherspoon. I have wonderful news for you," the caller said. "You have just won half a million dollars in a drawing.”

I actually received such a call once. In retrospect I wish I had at least asked for an explanation. But crotchetiness prevailed. I hung up.