It's like talking to a mirror!

Last month I blogged about the importance of finding and using your own professional tone of voice. With everyone. All the time. I heard from several friends and colleagues that this is challenging, particularly at rigidly hierarchical workplaces. It seems they work with some people who self-identify as being "on top" who exhibit the boorish behavior of "talking down" to those below them in the org chart. And I reiterate: don't do it.

One of my friends read my blog and brought up a related topic. She said my discussion of professional tone reminded her of an old habit: emulating the tone of whoever she was talking to. I have noticed many people do this, and it is often a hard habit to break! Because it is something that we can all slip into, unconsciously, as a way of reaching out and connecting with others. This phenomenon has been studied quiet a bit: researchers call it communications accommodation theory. I looked up some academic papers to see if I could find a succinct definition, but the best one I found was in Wikipedia (and it seems pretty accurate): communication accommodation theory (CAT) was developed by Howard Giles. It posits that "when people interact they adjust their speech, their vocal patterns and their gestures, to accommodate to others". There is more to unpack here, but the gist of it is that we do this (intentionally or not) to fit in. A couple of studies that came out in psychological journals in 2010, "Alignment to Visual Speech Information" (Miller et al.), and "Imitation Improves Language Comprehension" (Adank et al.) note that this tendency often gets carried even further. They say their studies have demonstrated it is easier to understand a foreign accent if we mimic it ourselves. Of course there are disclaimers accompanying discussions of these studies: "don't try this at home!"

Research has shown we naturally gravitate to emulation or imitation of tone, even accent. But we are advised against giving into this impulse wholeheartedly. The reasoning seems to be that it could be taken as mockery of the speaker, and therefore offensive. While this may be true, it focuses too much on others' perception of you. I prefer to look at this as something you need to control because it will directly benefit you. Because when you are imitating someone else, even with noblest of intentions or instincts, you are not speaking in your own voice. You become a reflection of the person you are speaking to. For a few professionals this is desirable, and they engage in this practice intentionally. But for the rest of us? You can see that this could become one big loop of imitation, like speaking in a room full of mirrors. Which raises the question: how does a new voice get heard? How are new thoughts expressed? 

Before you know it, your very honest, well-intentioned imitation has created, literally, an echo chamber of communications. This could lead to some pretty bad outcomes—much more serious than just offending someone with a bad accent. So find your voice. And use it.

****************************

Artwork:
Trees that Bring Wealth and Prosperity: Beauty
by Utagawa Hiroshige Utagawa Hiroshige
courtesy Arthur M. Sackler Gallery 

Getting the tone right

"Bigger Than All of Us" at the Kennedy CenterEarlier this month I was watching actors rehearse my latest play. Well, not watching so much as listening. Carefully. I needed to make sure all my characters sounded believable. And different. Because while people who live or work together may mirror each others' speech to a certain extent, most of us speak in our own unique voices. It poses quite a challenge to the playwright to create well-rounded characters who use speech--vocabulary, sentence structure, rhythm, silence--in a variety of ways. So I have become a careful listener. And very adept at hearing the differences in tones of voice.

I am often asked by clients what "tone" is best to use in the workplace. Before offering an answer, I ask for more specifics. Usually, the questioner wants to know how to speak to a superior, like a boss or supervisor, or how to address someone who may have higher status in a given situation, like a potential client.

I advise them to shift their focus and set a higher goal: to develop good habits of professional communications. Period. Find your personal professional tone, one that you can use in all circumstances. After all, you meet the same people on your way up the ladder as you do on the way down. So it's good to get in the habit of speaking with what you might think of as "office courtesy." But it won't work if it comes across as an "act" or just another business strategy. It has to be genuine and all-inclusive.

It's not as hard as you might think to cultivate such a tone. Be respectful--listen to what others have to say, make sure you are communicating clearly, and take the time to clarify. Think of it as the office variant of The Golden Rule: speak the way you would like to be spoken to. This will help take drama out of the office and put it onstage where it belongs!

Playwrights' wisdom

I have been doing a lot of writing this summer, mostly of  the creative variety. And I am excited to tell you that my latest play, Bigger Than All of Us, will have its premier reading at The Kennedy Center on Labor Day, September 7. I have been up to my eyeballs in rewrites and revisions most of the summer, and am thankful for the feedback from my very able playwriting colleagues, who have supported me every step of this process. At our last meeting we were debating whether a line conveyed the "tone" I wanted, and one of my friends said, "At some point you have to trust that your words will be able to stand alone." She meant that I won't always be in the rehearsal room to make sure the director and cast know exactly what I want to convey, and how I want to convey it.  I must make my precise intention crystal clear through the lines and the action of the script. My friend is right, of course. Though sometime we playwrights do "nudge" the interpretation a bit by including stage directions in our scripts to show how we hear a certain line in our heads ("sarcastically," "with suppressed glee," etc.). But we can't use that crutch too often, unless we want to identify ourselves as novices who have not learned to write very well.

As I have been refining my script, I have also been developing a business writing workshop. My client and I are discussing this same issue: how do you convey the proper "tone?" Of course the first rule for business writing is the same first rule for all writing (whether it is a play or a speech): know your audience. Once you have the specifics of your audience in mind, you take some of the guesswork out of finding the right tone. But then you need to do what we do as playwrights, get outside your own head and listen to your message with different ears. And make no mistake: this is important for all types of writing, not just speech writing. You need to hear how your message sounds. Because when people read what you have written, they hear it in their heads. And if there is any possibility at all that your message can be misinterpreted, you need to rewrite it. Usually this means simplifying the sentence structure, and revising your word choice to use concrete language and active verbs. Sometimes it means tweaking your organization, so you clearly lead with topic sentences and choose your supporting points more judiciously.  But you always need to "consider the audience" and how they will receive your message. If you write in a way they find oblique, opaque, or disrespectful for any reason, whether or not that was your intention, you will lose them.

So take a page from the playwright's script, and make sure your words clearly speak for themselves. Because you don't have the luxury of including stage directions!

Back into the frying-pan

This time last week I was very successfully not thinking about clients, business, or my new play as I spent time with my family relaxing in the relatively cool Maine weather. When we were not at the beach, eating lobster, or visiting historical sites and lighthouses, I immersed myself reading the much-ballyhooed Go Set a Watchman by Harper Lee. I found it fascinating! As a playwright who spends a fair amount of time constructing back stories and unfolding the histories of my characters, I could not wait to see what Ms. Lee's original concept of "Scout" Finch and her father Atticus were. And when I compared them to the characters they became, later-yet-earlier, in the classic To Kill a Mockingbird , I truly felt that I learned a lot about the process of a literary genius!

Snapping out of my creative reverie on the ride home last Sunday, I tried to catch up on the news. As we drove south and the temperature soared, I was delighted to read an important article in The Guardian by feminist author Naomi Wolf urging young women to stop engaging in the distracting and destructive practice of vocal fry. I cheered and mentally tipped my hat to Ms. Wolf. In her article she reinforced what I have been telling clients for years. A sample: "Voice remains political at work as well. A Catalyst study found that self-advocacy skills correlate to workplace status and pay more directly than merit. In other words, speaking well is better for your career than working hard."

But in the days that followed, a backlash to her sound reasoning gathered steam. It has perplexed and dismayed me. Some read Wolf's practical advice (to strengthen your voice and so reclaim it) as silencing those voices. Well, if Wolf is a stifler of voice, then so am I. I  advise all my clients and students--men and women--to kick to vocal fry habit. This gravelly sound may sound sexy or grown-up to your inner ear, but to those listening it sounds as if you a) just don't care or b) might be ill. Telling young people on their way up the career ladder to eliminate a bad habit (experts say vocal fry is usage problem, not a physiological one) seems like a smart plan to me.

I know that voice is intensely personal. It is one of the tools we use to signify to the world who we are. I work with my clients to help them polish up their existing vocal tool kit, so they can maximize their vocal potential. I would never attempt to throw out anyone's personal toolbox and replace it with something that is inauthentic. But remember: you need to use the right tool for the job.

I don't care how much you creak or fry or wallow in the gravel when you speak privately or socially. But if you are a client of mine, young or old, male or female, I will certainly help you eliminate that sound from your professional and public speaking. Because I know I am not alone in experiencing a fingernails-on-the blackboard visceral response when I hear vocal fry. Consequently, I don't/can't listen to people who do it.  Which is a sure-fire way, regardless of age or gender, to silence your own voice.

Little words tell a big story

I have just finished a month teaching gifted, ambitious high school students at a summer program run by the School of Communications at American University. It is always rewarding work. I teach two classes that focus on real-time verbal communications: Speaking for Impact and The Art of the Interview (students from that class are pictured here at WUSA-9). Students work hard in our sessions to improve, and one of the areas we concentrate on is awareness and elimination of verbal tics.

Here's a tic that seemed most prevalent this year: the over-use of "little words." Not your usual filler words, these—"just" and "so"—specifically diminish the power of statements they are attached to. As with many of these unconscious verbal tics, I first notice it with my kids, but soon become aware that it had seeped into adult communications. And like a few others ("upending?" "vocal fry"), this "just-and-so-itis" seems to disproportionately effect female speakers. I am not the only one to have noticed this trend. Check out this article from Business Insider, in which author Ellen Petry Leanse observes that the over-use of "just" by women can dilute the power of their message. I agree. "Just" should be used judiciously, correctly, and never as an un- or sub- consciously apologetic or permission-seeking word.

As for "so:" one day 90% of the girls in my classes used it to preface many of their sentences. Only one of the boys did. Over the course of a month, I heard several speeches at the podium beginning with "so," (often paired with its good friend "OK"), and several interview questions started that way as well. That usage might be appropriate if—and only if—you are sitting in the guest chair being interviewed in a very informal setting. But when you use it to begin a speech, or before you give context or ask your question, it gives the impression that you need some kind of springboard to launch into what you have to say, which signals that you may be ill at ease. Or unprepared. Speakers might think this humanizes them (whatever that means!), but it really draws attention to their nervousness and speaker anxiety.

I am also seeing a lot of "so"s used to begin written communications from professional women who should know better! These are most often in e-mail messages and social media posts, but wherever they are, they weaken the message. It's as if the writer has some need to "back in" to the conversation, fears she does not have enough standing to simply begin. I know the women who do this would never consciously characterize their communications style this way. So why do they do it? Are they trying to be coy in order to soften a statement? Playing some kind of passive role so they can turn the tables later? Or are they simply unaware? Whatever the reason, they are not doing themselves any favors.

As I told my students, sometimes we should sweat the small stuff. Or at least be aware of the little words.

Getting the story out

I took a break from wrangling the first draft of my latest play to watch the Tony Awards last Sunday night. I was amazed by the depth and variety of the work represented onstage at Radio City Music Hall that night! And amazed that any work ever makes it to the staging stage. It is hard work mounting a new play--and a musical? Fuhgedddaboudit! It's all but impossible! 

As playwrights we know that the chances of actually seeing our work produced are slim at best. So why do we keep writing? Because the need to share stories is as old as humankind, possibly older than spoken language itself. And playwrights have stories that we are compelled to bring to life by giving  them voices, faces, character names. We want the world to see/hear/feel our stories. Humans respond to stories. We use stories to bind us together in community, to help us sort out problems, lay out arguments, and celebrate our successes.

Stories can be used to teach in a deeper way, reaching a different level of understanding. We waste their power if we relegate them to the stage or story-telling venues. In TED talks, personal stories combine with research outcomes, results of experiments, or conclusions from lived experience. Speakers use them to weave narratives that compel us to keep listening. We want to know what happens: How did more children in India learn? Did Kenneth's grandfather stop sleepwalking? How does Rookie fill the teen void in popular media?

Even scientists are harnessing the power of story to clearly communicate complex ideas (I blogged about this, too. You can read it here).

We all need stories. It's no secret. Yet during our hours in workplaces and offices we are often discouraged from telling them. They are deemed fanciful, recreational, only suitable for our "off hours." Facts and data rule this world. Yes, these are important; and sometimes we must include them. But facts serve our narratives--not the other way around.

So next time you set out to write a presentation, don't just slap a bunch of numbers or bullet points up on a slide and call it good. Include some illustrative stories, a framing narrative, or a thematically significant tale. Your audience will thank you. And you'll be amazed how much better your message will stick. 

What was that you said?

Yesterday many of my social media friends were posting this link to a funny story that I missed on NPR  about "eggcorns.  An "eggcorn", according to Merriam-Webster, is "a word or phrase that sounds like and is mistakenly used in a seemingly logical or plausible way for another word or phrase." The print version of the story lists some very funny "eggcorns." Look it over if you want a chuckle. If you live in North America I can guarantee you have heard many of these.

My favorite one was missing, though: window seal for window sill. I heard a friend say use that expression a few years ago, but I thought it was just a regional vowel substitution. Then I saw it written in lesson plans when I was substitute teaching later that spring. One of the assignments could be found, the teacher wrote, in a book on the window seal. Since this was a 6th grade English classroom with a few stuffed animals as well as books on the window sill, I hunted for a stuffed seal, hoping to find the book in question there! No seal, but I found the book—on the sill.

It's problematic when a middle school teacher makes these mistakes, but other people who should know better make them, too. And though it may be fun to laugh at friend who use language so idiosyncratically, you should probably let them know it also reveals a lot to other listeners. Those of us who are in the business of communications know that such verbal mis-steps are markers that identify the speaker as someone who is either not well-read, has not ventured too far outside a closed community, and/or is over-confident or stubborn. There may be good reasons for misunderstanding a word or phrase, but someone who wants to use it correctly and is unsure how to say it or spell it will look it up. When I gently point out "eggcorns" to students (and the occasional client) I find their willingness to self-correct correlates directly to each person's ability to master the art of dynamic communication.

But hey! If you want to keep misusing words, be my guest. There are plenty of people who will gladly rush in to fill the vacuum created by your lost credibility. After all, as Gloria Pritchett will tell you, it's a doggy-dog world out there!

Batter up!

Practice makes perfect. Theoretically, yes. But I'd like to offer this caveat: you need to practice the right thing, not just repeat mistakes. Consider this: if practice was all it took, by September, every MLB batter would be batting 1.000! 

This is also true when it comes to speaking. Taking advantage of many opportunities to speak (whether in a formally organized group like Toastmasters International, or in an informal workplace-based group) does indeed offer the opportunity to hone, to refine, to perfect. But you need to know what it is you are aiming for, what habits of yours need correcting, what new skills you need to acquire. The problem with peer-to-peer groups is that they may help you become more aware of what needs fixing, but they don't always offer an effective way to fix it. Often, someone will energetically advise you to "try this; it worked for me." But using tactics that worked for them may not help you at all. And the anxiety produced by this sense of failure can tie you up in even more knots.

As a speaker trainer/presentation skills consultant I spend a lot of time undoing those knots. I work with people who have been beating themselves up for years because they need to use notes, or have to let speeches "marinate" before they are fully formed. All because some "expert" (who is good at doing this himself but has no idea how to teach) proclaimed "only losers need notes" or "what's the big deal? You know your stuff,  just get up there and talk about it." You can guess what I say to that! I have blogged about these issues, here and here and probably several other places as well.

If glossophobia.com is to be believed, as much as 75% of the population suffers from a fear of public speaking. So whoever is offering you advice likely had his own issues to deal with. And whatever they were, they were overcome. So hurray for him! But here's the thing—your issues are not the same. Following the same methods for fixing them is like taking someone else's pills. They might work—or they might disastrously backfire. You need your own prescription.

In speaking, as in baseball, you need to train with a coach, not just other players on the team. Sure, you need to show up on the field and practice pitching, batting, and catching, but your technique won't improve with practice alone. You need to work on the skills with someone who can recognize what you are doing wrong and offer you exercises, techniques and strategies for improvement. Then you can go out and practice. And practice, practice, practice. Ask your coach for continued help as you progress. She'll make adjustments and you'll keep working.

Stay strong! Your peers, most of whom mean well, will weigh in. Take their feedback as just that, not instruction or advice. They aren't up at bat with you, they're just watching from the bench. So smile and thank them. And then go do what you were trained to do!

Conversation stoppers

My clients have recently been asking me about interrupting and over-talking. The fact is, everyone interrupts. It is not longer just "what rude people do"—if, indeed, it ever was! So it's time for all of us to stop being so reflexively judgmental, and look at intentions and outcomes.

Some peopIe, in a misguided attempt to "stick to the agenda" wield the "no interrupting" cudgel more forcefully than any preschool teacher ever dared. I won't take time here to explain that this action in itself can be disruptive, or analyze the importance of perceived power to those who still cling to this idea. I would just like to ask them to calm down a bit, get off their high horses, and note that linguists and anthropologists have been pointing out for years that communication styles vary across cultures. What one group sees as incredibly rude over-talking, another sees as necessary bonding activity. Deborah Tannen's landmark 1990 book, You Just Don't Understand, is remembered for shedding light on the different conversational styles between men and women. I read it back when I was a Midwestern transplant to NYC, and what struck me most was her analysis of the influences of geography and related cultural norms. Now I live in Virginia, where I am in meetings with those who pride themselves on their "gentility" while speaking. As I look around the room, I find I am not alone in hoping they will soon get to the point.

The interruptions will always be with us. Because unless you are living in a homogeneous world, those at the table will not share the same perspective on what is acceptable. Many see interrupting as a positive thing, a chance to show enthusiasm, as in "Yes! what a great idea! I agree!" Others only see someone grabbing the conversation and commanding the floor. But let's step back. Are these all, really, conversation-stopping "derailers?" The type of interruption that serves no purpose other than to glorify the speaker? In a recent piece for his very clever advice column, writer David Eddie points out the differences between these odious high-jackers of conversation and "garden-variety interrupters," offering some amusing (and probably very effective) ways to deal with them.

I am no advice columnist, but I will urge you all—friends, clients, and colleagues—to look at why interruptions take place and where they lead. Unless they are total communications disrupters like Eddie's derailers, it is often prudent to go with the flow and let those interruptions happen. Of course you need to keep the conversation on track, but think of yourself more as the school crossing guard, making sure everyone gets to their destinations safely, rather than the traffic cop who issues tickets for (sometimes minor) infractions.

Rules? What Rules?

Every so often I hear about my clients' previous public speaking training—usually an onsite workshop or a long-ago college course. And far too many of them were told that there are Absolute Rules They Must Always Follow. 

I sigh, and say it's time for them to forget those rules! Sometimes I encounter resistance to that statement, but generally I see relief in their eyes.

Since we are all individuals with different strengths, talents, and—most importantly—learning styles, we need to find out what works best for each of us. The Rules can serve as a starting point before we have developed skills in this area. But as soon as we can devise our own strategies we should loosen their grip on our speaking technique.

Once you become an energized, dynamic speaker no one ever really challenges you on your use of notes or hand gestures. But I have had many mid-career professionals and even senior executives tell me they dare not break The Rules. They hold themselves back on many levels. For example, their bodies are stiff and inexpressive because they were told long ago to stick to formulaic hand gestures. I recently blogged about the silliness of this sort of advice on what to do with your hands. 

And as to the notes/no-notes issue, I have written about this as well. This is a choice that depends very much on the situation. You often do need your notes because it's a colossal waste of time to commit a speech to memory, and it is better to use that time on preparing content and delivery. But The Rule makers say "Don't read, but don't memorize it,either. You should be able to speak off the cuff." I have long considered "off the cuff to be over-rated; think of all the boring, meandering wedding toasts, team briefings, or panel presentations you have endured. You have seen firsthand how "off the cuff" can alienate and bore an audience. 

Furthermore, making people present without the notes they need is just cruel. And counter-productive. I know of no surer way to undermine a colleague's confidence than to imply she does not "know her stuff" if she needs more than a few bullet points. We each build our speeches in different ways. Some of us rely on specific word choices more than others. So if you are a bullet-point person, do not assume that your way is the best way for everyone. Most formal, high visibility speeches are delivered as written because every word counts. Many speakers feel that way about even casual public speaking occasions. Reading a speech without making eye contact, of course, should never be encouraged. But I, for one, would rather hear a well-thought-out speech read than watch someone hunt for phrases and fill the air with jargon and non sequiturs.

Start out with The Rules if you must. But give yourself permission to discover your own technique, perfect it, and use it proudly. If anyone objects, send 'em my way!

Digging out from winter

Spring is finally here! Where I live in Northern Virginia the daffodils are dancing and the hyacinths will join them soon. Dogwoods are flowering and the cherry blossoms are about to burst forth with a "better late than never" attitude. It was one tough winter. And we are exceedingly glad to wave it good-bye.

Much of the winter I was working on a new project: developing content for an e-learning course. I am putting this course together with my partners at AQQOLADE. Since they are in the business of providing communications and leadership training, they asked me to design a course we could distribute to a wider audience than we reach with in-person events. Last week we traveled out to Oregon to tape video segments at the headquarters of Choose Growth, the media company building our e-learning course. The whole experience has been quite an interesting one for me, especially as I converted the content of my interactive workshops into easily digestible units. There were a few technical hurdles to overcome as well. Those of you who have worked with me can imagine the conversations we had about filming the Stretch/Whoosh exercise with a single camera!

We are aiming for a soft launch by the beginning of May, so watch this space for more information.

Spring tune-up?

As spring gets into full swing, I know we are all doing seasonal tune ups and repairing things that may have gotten a bit beat up by winter. But it's not just homes and "stuff" that need to be checked for wear and tear. Your speaking style may have gotten a bit rusty over the long winter. You may have started dreading your regular presentations, or at least found them boring to do. That is not good! Even—or maybe especially—at internal meetings, you need to be a dynamic communicator.  

And if you spent the winter noticing one of your colleagues could use skill development to become a clear, effective speaker, please feel free to recommend my services. I work with people at all skill levels, meet them where they are, and offer expert help with content development as well as delivery issues. Have them give me a call and you might just enjoy your next six months of meetings!

Why TSA can't "read"

I did a little dance of joy when I heard this news on NPR today: The ACLU is suing the Transportation Security Administration over its one billion dollar "Behavior Detection" program, SPOT. You know this one--it's the program that trains TSA officers to recognize potential terrorists by assessing their behavior. Yes, trying to pick out "threats" from the masses of people going through an arduous screening process at a crowded airport, usually while they are either pressed for time or in desperate need of a bathroom (or is that just me?). The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request last October, and, according to USA Today, filed the lawsuit on March 19th, after that request received no response.

Why does this make me happy, aside from the hope that someday my airport wait will be shorter and less fraught? As a communications coach, I have been counseling my clients for years not to waste their time trying to "read" their audiences (see blog post from last March). The junk science such a belief is based on is just that - junk! And our tax dollars have been thrown away on variations of this behavioral detection since 2003. Wasteful, not to mention needlessly disruptive for countless travelers. As Behavioral Science Professor Nicholas Epley at the University of Chicago says in the NPR story, "The data that comes from experiments that test whether people can detect these subtle kinds of cues suggests that it can't be detected very well. . . a lot of those kinds of claims come without data to back them up." 

But TSA isn't the only government agency who does this: an acting student of mine years ago argued with me that she had learned this "skill" working for one of our more . . . secretive agencies. And you know that businesses have jumped on this bandwagon and are paying big bucks for it.

The truth is you cannot know what someone is thinking by looking at facial expressions, behavior, or body language out of context any more than you can read someone's mind! But Hollywood loves this plot line (the example that springs to mind is Fox's 2009-2011 series Lie to Me), and people love to think they can become "expert" at something that could be so useful in their personal and professional lives. Just think what an advantage you will have every day when you, too, can "read" your new boyfriend, your workplace nemesis, your industrial competitor!

But here's why this does not work: even if you succeed in correctly identifying fear or anger on someone's face, you can never be sure what has caused that emotion to flutter or flare. If you assume it is necessarily due to something you said or did. . . well . . .  you know what happens when you assume. 

As an acting teacher I know that even amateurs can convincingly channel emotions they do not really feel. And at airports, in workplaces, and on first dates we often choose which role we will "play." And when we do not do this consciously, it may be because we are preoccupied with different concerns that have nothing to do with our present situation.

Hoipefully SPOT will go by the wayside, my tax dollars will be better spent, and my clients will stop thinking they need to learn the trick of "reading" their audience. So a tip of the hat and a "thank you" to you,  ACLU!

"Demonstration of a proposal for automated detection of suspicious persons" training photo from Science and Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

In your own voice

Recently a friend shared a link to a TED-Ed video purporting to prove that the plays of Shakespeare were, in fact, written by a playwright named William Shakespeare!

Guessing the "true" authorship of Shakespeare's canon has been an odd sort of obsession for the last century and a half. But those of us who have had the privilege to act in Shakespeare's plays onstage know who wrote them: a man who had a genius for creating living, breathing characters speaking truth for the ages. His varied, complex, unique point of view is evident in every character and every situation. We know these plays are his because they are all written in his distinctive voice.  The TED-Ed speakers discovered this same thing by applying linguistic tools, and share their conclusions in the video. But if you have ever studied the works of Shakespeare's contemporaries—many of whom are brought forth as possible authors of his works—you will find none that look and sound like The Bard of Avon.

I'm no Shakespeare, not even a Thomas Kyd, but in my work I often help clients write speeches. We brainstorm together, and I help with organization, structure and flow. Then they draft a speech, using their own words, their own idiomatic expressions. It is tremendously important that the speech is written in the client's own voice.

Recently, a client asked another communications professional look over her speech. Fair enough: if you have time, it is often a good idea to ask multiple readers/listeners for feedback on the clarity of your presentation. But this "feedback" took the form of editing that scrubbed all the personality from the speech. I really deplore that particular kind of wordsmithing, when someone else "fixes" your content. When a speech is constructed this way, it ends up sounding very much like a boring pronouncement written by committee.

The best way to gain and hold an audience's attention is to sound fresh and genuine. No one wants to hear the same old words describing the same old positions. If your content is not earth-shatteringly original (and who is always that lucky?), you can at least speak with an original, authentic voice.

Good speechwriters study their principals' every public utterance, and are aware of how they speak in private, too. They catch the rhythm, the turn of phrase, the vocabulary that is unique to the speaker. That is not always an easy task, but it is essential to the writer's success. While most of us don't have our own personal speechwriters, we do have something even better: our own voices. Use that voice to share your uniqueness and your authenticity with others.

No one else will ever be Shakespeare. But no one else will ever sound exactly like you, either!

Shakespeare, after the Chandos portrait, courtesy Folger Shakespeare Library

Just a gesture

A little gesture can mean so much. 

We all know that. And when we speak, we can get hung up on what our gestures are saying. There are, in fact, a lot of people who make money giving advice to speakers about using appropriate gestures.  That makes us all doubt ourselves. Are our gestures "giving us away"? 

This micromanagement of gesture is very old. Back in the days before microphones, speakers did have a specific gestural vocabulary that they employed. One of the reasons they needed to use it was so those in the back could at least "see" some of what they were saying. This practice was called chironomia, and it traces its origins to the ancient Greeks and Romans.

Today, body language and gesture are used to convey confidence and focus. If a speaker is using gestures that are not congruent with her message—for example, if she is very inviting with her words and has a warm tone, but is gesturing with downward hand chops—we wonder if she really believes what she is saying. Or if he is presenting a stern ultimatum using open palm gestures, maybe he is not really feeling as committed as his speech indicates.

And then there are the "empty" gestures that someone decided looked like they meant something but really don't. Politicians have a big vocabulary of these! My favorite is the "politician's thumb"—the gesture JFK is thought to have originated that Bill Clinton perfected. It is intended to be a polite gesture of power (which in itself is contradictory), unlike straightforward finger-pointing. So it has won a permanent place at the political podium. The mythical President Frank Underwood uses it a lot this season on House of Cards. I have noticed, though, that his usage of this thumb thing increases as he feels his power slipping away.

There are other specifically political gestures that my candidate clients have been told (by others) to use, like steepling fingers together, or "holding the melon" in front of you when standing. When I ask them what these mean, they usually reply they are trying to "show" something. I don't doubt that is what they were told. But my acting training has taught me that "showing" is never as effective as "being." In fact, "showing" usually conveys some falsehood or pretense. In this case, it means you feel a need to use your hands to convey a confidence you don't really feel, and are not sure how. So you fall back on something you have been told has worked. For others. In the past. If you can't own these gestures, and know what they mean to you, they are less than useless. If you don't know what to do with your hands, don't use 'em. Gesturing for the sake of gesturing just calls attention to your discomfort in the situation.

The goal, whenever you are speaking, is to be open, relaxed, confident. You get that way by being centered and physically grounded. So you stand tall and gesture appropriately. Don't slap some random, inorganic, impersonal gesturing on top of your speech and think it will work. No matter how many experts tell you it will, when you have real people watching—it won't.

Illustration from A Manuel of Gesture by Albert M. Bacon, 1875

When the clock is ticking

I am reading a wonderful book for my book club, The Lost Child of Philomena Lee. You may recall the story from the movie Philomena starring Judi Dench that was up for four Oscars just last year. Thought it does not have Dame Judi's stellar performance to keep you glued to its pages, the book is every bit as interesting as the movie. Maybe even more so, since it gives us more detail about the life of Philomena's lost child Anthony, rechristened Mike Hess by his American parents. Martin Sixsmith, the journalist who uncovered this gripping story and retells it like a good detective novel, drops in a few moments of comic relief when he can. I laughed out loud the other day when I read this sentence, describing the 1979 American Bar Association Christmas party in Washington, D.C. : "At around ten o'clock the MC tapped a glass and called for silence. The speeches were the usual mix of pomposity and bad jokes and Mike noticed a few people looking at their watches long before. . . the closing remarks." Chuckle, chuckle, cringe. I have been to events like that. And I am sure you have, too.

But it doesn't have to be that way! Just because this has become "the usual," as Sixsmith says, doesn't mean it is the only way to handle special occasion speeches. Celebrations, holiday parties, awards ceremonies, business social events of all types call for a "few words" given by senior staff and honorees. But so many times those people kill their own credibility, or reduce their own stature by trying to be something they are not—entertainers! When you get a platform, as on a festive occasion, the rule of thumb is short, sweet, and to the point. You can use the opportunity to make a point, of course (because every speech needs to be about something) but plan ahead and say it in a few well-chosen words for maximum impact. Don't hold your audience hostage just because you are having a "starring" moment.

People who actually are stars know the importance of preparation—partly because they know their speeches will be filmed, replayed and scrutinized, and partly because they know they will be "played offstage" if they drone on too long.  Last night's Oscars ceremony gave us a surprising number of speeches that made an impact and stayed within the allotted time limit! My favorite performer this year, Patricia Arquette, rallied the troops with her cry for women's equality, and Graham Moore encouraged those who feel like outsiders by pointing out that difference can lead to great achievement.  John Legend used his acceptance speech to powerfully call out pervasive racism that lingers decades after Selma. In fact, most of Hollywood's finest seemed to have gotten the message last night and actually prepared their remarks beforehand. That is something I always urge clients to do, so I was quite pleased.

I rarely hold up Hollywood as an example of How To Do It Right in Real Life, but Oscar 2015 gave us many strong examples of classy people delivering powerful messages. And it's always fun to see The Beautiful People being . .  . well, beautiful!

Time Totem by Peter Pierobon, 1993, ebonized mahogany, mahogany, and steel
courtesy Smithsonian American Art Museum

Can we agreee to disagree?

 These days it seems no one can agree on anything. In fact, compromise and concession have become dirty words. They imply weakness, frailty. What is needed is a thick skin, a strong backbone, and a loud voice. No statement, no matter how benign, or even factually true, can go unchallenged. Public figures of all stripes are wielding arguments like weapons, beating their opponents into submission at every turn. And it has leached into our private discourse as well. The level of incivility on social media often tempts me to turn it all off, shut it down.

Several recent online and real life screaming matches reminded me that things have only gotten worse since this article, "For Argument's Sake; Why Do We Feel Compelled to Fight About Everything?" was written 'way back in the last century. It's by Debora Tannen, the brilliant linguist and author. Tannen sums up the way such discourse limits our capacity to communicate: "Staging everything in terms of polarized opposition limits the information we get rather than broadening it. For one thing, when a certain kind of interaction is the norm, those who feel comfortable with that type of interaction are drawn to participate, and those who do not feel comfortable with it recoil and go elsewhere." Her book The Argument Culture expands on this point, and provides much insight into why this kind of miscommunication leads us to situations where everyone loses.

I work with clients who often need to manage tense, adversarial situations. And in those situations, the way to show true leadership is to actively diffuse any confrontation. It can be a tricky maneuver and takes some skill. But it has to be done: fighting "to be right" stands in the way of making progress. Oh sure, one person may think some sort of victory has occurred if her "side" has scored more points. But what has really been accomplished? Not much. The fact is, our workplaces, committee rooms and homes are not sports arenas or battlefields. If you want to move forward and achieve your goals, connection and compromise are the way to go. The compulsion to always be "winning" only gets you so far. Just ask Charlie Sheen.

Battling Bolo, full length portrait as boxer, courtesy Smithsonian American Art Museum

Trans-parent language

Lately I have been watching and enjoying the Amazon television series Transparent. I was thrilled when it won the Golden Globes for Best TV series as Best Actor in a comedy. And now everyone will have have a chance to watch it when Amazon streams the entire season for free on January 24th.

Much has been written about this ground-breaking series since it debuted in the fall. I really do love Jeffrey Tambor's lovingly humorous portrayal of Maura, the transgender parent of the title. He is an actor that I have become familiar with over the years. He has triumphed in countless roles before; he outdoes himself here. And series creator Jill Soloway is acting as a positive disruptive force in the world of formulaic, often sexist Hollywood sitcoms.

So watch it if you like comedy, if you like good acting with smart dialogue, and if you like gorgeous California real estate. If you are squeamish about sex scenes or gender-questioning, this isn't the series for you. But you probably already guessed that!

I also really appreciate how the series, and the growing visibility of the transgender community that it reflects, demands that we examine the powerful role language plays. Maura's family has many questions, but they are summed up by his daughter Ali, who simply asks, "What do we call him now?" The name she settles on, "Moppa," is a lovely compromise, one that Soloway used with her own trans-parent. But personal pronouns remain problematic, and cause some confusion, notably in Episode 5.

I welcome this examination of the power of these words. For too long, many of us protested the offensiveness of using "men" or "mankind" for "people" and "humankind." And were told "oh, you know what I mean." Unfortunately, we did. But refusing to acknowledge the power imbalance implicit in this terminology seems laughable to most of us today. Pick up an old textbook or newspaper, though, and that language propels you right back to the days of the unapologetic patriarchy. So I understand the importance of getting this right. Identity is tied up in how we label ourselves, and how the world labels us. If transgender people, or those who identify as genderqueer want to be referred to as ze, why should we fight it? Nouns and pronouns influence how we see ourselves in relation to society. I grudgingly admit that the growing use of "they" might just solve this problem, though it is extremely hard for my grammar-loving heart to embrace this term. But logic (and the very clever columnist Steven Petrow) convinces me I may have to.

Who knows? If we keep going down this path, someday I may realize one of my wildest dreams, when once and for all we bury the boorish  "you guys" in favor of the simple, elegant "you."

Here come the awards!

Happy New Year and welcome to Awards Season! The Golden Globes were Sunday, and the SAG Awards are later this month. As a member of that union, I get to vote, so I have been preparing: watching movie screeners and video links sent by movie studios. There are some terrific performances this year, even in movies that weren't that strong (Julianne Moore is heart-breakingly brilliant in Still Alice, though the movie is rather predictable). One movie I loved months ago when I saw it was Boyhood. And I was thrilled that Patricia Arquette won the Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actress Sunday night. Her performance was so nuanced, so true. It never felt forced, or "acted." Director Richard Linklater, filming the same actors over 12 years, created an extraordinary film. And for that, he won Best Director at the Golden Globes and Boyhood was named Best Picture-Drama. The movie focuses on Mason, the titular boy growing to manhood, but it is the character of his mother, Olivia, who provides the strongest anchor.

Arquette plays Olivia with an ease that I rarely see onscreen. And I know that it takes incredible trust to let yourself just be the character so completely. Of course, as actors, we don't have some sort of personality transplant to actually become someone else. But each of us constructs an inner life for our character, based on what the writer and director have given us. During production, we go live that life. It takes tremendous courage to trust that creation, to just let go. To ignore the nagging fear that we will be judged on our performance. Yes, we likely will be—but such thoughts intrude on the character's reality and make it hard for us to fully be there. We need to live in the moment; react to others around us. Be sensitive to what is going on. And pick up those unexpected treasures we happen to stumble across.

If leadership is in the script 

When my clients come to me for help giving speeches, making presentations, or leading meetings, I give them similar advice: "stick to your script," i.e. your preparation—the structure built on your intention and how you will achieve it. The paradox here (as in acting) is that when you are sufficiently grounded in that script (or game plan, agenda, etc.) you are able to let go and just be. You are a better listener, your answers are clearer, your reactions more strategic. You even feel free to improvise a bit, as long as you keep the foundation of that script in mind.

Most of us won't win any acting awards during Awards Season. But we can genuinely be there for our audiences the next time we engage in leadership conversation.

New Year's Day with NPH

Neil Patrick HarrisHappy New Year!

If you want to read yet another blog about New Year's resolutions or predictions for what 2015 has in store for us, I apologize. This is not that blog. But you are welcome to look at what I have written about resolutions in the past. I also have an astrologer friend who makes some interesting predictions based on what the sky tells us is happening now and in the coming months.

No, this first column of the New Year will highlight a wonderful episode of NPR's Fresh Air I heard on New Year's Day. The incomparable Terry Gross rebroadcast an interview with actor/singer/author Neil Patrick Harris from October 13,  2014. Somehow I missed its original air date but am glad I caught it this time around!

Harris is an incredibly wise and grounded (not to mention talented) performer, and he gave a warm and funny interview: I recommend it to you. In conversation with him, Gross covered many intriguing topics. NPH (as he is known to his fans) has had an interesting career as an actor, recently playing a trans-gendered German rock singer in the musical Hedwig and the Angry Inch on Broadway. It was a challenging role, to say the least, and he won a Tony Award for it in 2014. Gross asked him about his approach, specifically about how he transformed physically and vocally into the female rock-singing persona.

As readers of this blog probably know, I coach clients to be better speakers by using the vocal production technique I learned as an actor. So I was particularly fascinated by what Harris said about his vocal routine, and his work with veteran New York voice coach Liz Caplan. She engaged him in detailed work on breathing and posture habits affecting his vocal production, just as I do with my clients. And, like most of the people I work with, NPH had a few things to learn: "As it turns out, the way I carry my personal body is a little neck strained... meaning that I don't stand perfectly tall, I jut my neck forward a little bit. And instead of using my diaphragm and my full breath, I tend to sort of clench my breath right around my throat and allow the sounds to come through... that compression is not so good on your cords because  ... [it] causes some kind of vocal problems later, like nodes or losing your voice". Caplan also gave him exercises for tongue tension, which can add to that vocal stress. Gross, apparently as fascinated by his technique as I was, asked NPH to demonstrate several exercises. They weren't exactly the ones I use, but I would guess any clients of mine who happened to catch the show recognized the similarities.

It was a rewarding episode for me to hear. To know that I teach a technique that works (even for such pros as NPH!), that I continue to share with others who can really be helped by it: what a wonderful way to start the New Year!

Time to light the candles

Ah, December!
The days grow short and there is much to be done to "get ready."  I know the holiday frenzy can set in any minute, so I have taken some time recently to reflect on the year as it draws to a close. I did try to keep a mental tally, but lost count of my many blessings. I do know, though, that right up there on the list is fulfilling work with wonderful clients. I am blessed with many talented, creative people who ask me to help give them a boost to more clearly communicate their visions to others. They are from all walks of life; they work in education, corporations, political organizations, government agencies, non-profits--you name it, I've trained 'em! But this time of year I think a lot about my clergy clients, many of whom are in their "crunch" season.

One of them, Casey FitzGerald, has a podcast series, Tales from the Jesse Tree, designed to offer a new spin on an age-old way to mark the holiday season. Casey is a Master Biblical Storyteller, and has worked on using storytelling as a communications tool for years. I am "guesting" on this season's podcast for Advent, sharing my techniques for speaking and presenting. I demonstrate breathing and centering exercises, and offer tips for dynamic delivery. Check it out!

Even if you aren't especially interested in telling Biblical stories, I think you will find Casey's overall approach instructive. Because when we use a "story learning" model for internalizing important messages, they really stick! When we are truly inside our stories, sharing them, we use our words, our bodies, our energy to connect. We are not judging, we are doing. And we can clearly communicate what is on our minds--and in our hearts.

Happy Holidays to you and yours.
See you in 2015!