One thing was crystal clear to me as I watched the first presidential debate on September 26th: only one of the candidates was comfortable in her own skin! Hillary kept cool, and expressed her feelings with a secret smile, which seemed to serve as protective armor (the "go to your happy place" technique most women are all too familiar with), and an expression of genuine glee ("all that studying paid off!"). She must have decided to control what she could, and not waste energy worrying about anything she couldn't--like her unpredictable opponent. She maintained her composure and spoke in a relaxed tone of voice, and looked like she felt centered, grounded and as calm as possibe under the glare of those lights. She had, as we say in acting, an objective: something you want to/need to accomplish in the course of a given scene. She made reaching that objective her goal--regardless of her obstacle.
Donald, on the other hand, reminded me of insecure beginning acting students who flash "aren't I great?" looks at the instructor and classmates because they know they have no idea what to do. But they hope their false confidence can hoodwink the audience. The technical term for such a person is "show-off." I think Donald falls into that category, though he thinks of himself as a showman. His "technique" consists of riffing off what his audience gives him. Since he has so little in the way of a coherent message, he depends on their response to guide him, claiming that "off the cuff" is more authentic. (You know what I say about that.) That approach might work for a well-trained improv performer, but not Donald. He's a mediocre showman, at best. And when he is out on a tightrope without the net of audience cheers, he has no center to help him keep his balance. His energy is all outward-focused; he pushes his message at his audience. And when he can't tell if it's connecting, as we saw in the first debate, he has no inner resources to fall back on. Because there is no real objective beyond basking in the crowd's adulation.
The next debate on October 9th is town hall-style. This will be fascinating because Donald will assume he can nail it. But this will be no rally of Trumpers. And it will be moderated. The intimate setting will reveal who is most comfortable in their own skin, who has integrated their message into their very being. Barack Obama, I recall, did an extremely good job of playing to the audience in his 2008 Town Hall. That is where I first noticed he was ambidextrously handling the microphone, so he could gesture inclusively to the entire audience surrounding him. Not an easy thing to do, and one that would not even be on most candidate's radar. But non-verbal connection is important. So if Hillary can keep up her relaxed focus, she'll have an even better time in that informal setting than she did behind the podium. And Donald? He'll shout and stomp, rail and rage. He'd better be careful, though, or he might fall off the tightrope!
Tone policing: Vinegar vs. Honey
Long before it had a name, I was the victim of "tone policing." I was outspoken, but I was also a good girl, so I often swallowed my anger or frustration and heeded the advice to "calm down," and "lower your voice." I got used to having expression of my feelings negated in this way by authority figures of all kinds. But I never got used to it and I never liked it!
I could write a book on how power has been wielded against me in this way by those who felt my speech threatened their privileged worldview. So much that they were justified in silencing me. And this has not been just my experience! Our screens are exploding with examples of that behavior now, on TV, on social media, as well as in the press. Black Lives Matter activists are being told, as they express their quite justified anger, that they won't be listened to until they can "be more reasonable." Transgender allies are being shut out of conversations because they dare to raise their voices in protest of ridiculous "bathroom bills" or police brutality.
Then there is the other side of the coin. The spurious argument about infringement of free speech rights. Supporters of the outlandish candidate for president spew repugnant falsehoods, then turn around and accuse those attempting to engage in civil dialogue of trampling their free speech rights. But calling someone out on hate speech is never wrong. Bigots, racists, homophobes and haters of all kinds do not see it this way; their blindness on the issue is a large part of their problem.
No, shutting down the hate is not tone policing. Tone policing hinges on power imbalance. Assumptions of superiority couple with the fear of losing undeserved privilege and result in reflexive silencing of those who would challenge that privilege. So when the marginalized lash out at their oppressors, the oppressors duck the issue by saying "I can't talk to you; you're too upset!" or "I can't hear what she is saying because she is too shrill!" Or, my personal favorite, the dismissal disguised as "friendly advice" from a gatekeeping stranger: "you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, sweetie."
All these arguments are spurious. People who are angry need to be listened to, not ignored because they aren't using your preferred vocabulary with the correct tone at an acceptable time. Anyone who has successfully raised a child can tell you that! The sooner you address their grievance, the better for all of us. It is a problem-solving short-cut, the most effective one anybody has come up with. So even if the only strife you encounter is in your home or office, be aware that silencing people in this way will only make things worse.
Oh, and by the way--I just had to trap a bunch of fruit flies hanging around my kitchen and guess what? My jar of vinegar caught dozens. And the honey? Not a one!
True trickiness of tone
I have been thinking a lot about tone of voice lately as I have been immersed in writing and directing my latest play, A Very Present Presence. The story involves time travel, ghostly visitations, feminist awakenings, and Millennial angst. As you can imagine, these different characters and their various situations call for a whole rainbow of tones.
So once again I have been deep in the weeds examining the crucial role played by tone in interpersonal communications. What subtext or hidden intention does a character reveal to other characters and to the audience by her particular tone? How do I, as a playwright, convey that through the words I chose to have her speak? And, extrapolating to real life, what does a particular speaker's tone tell us, as listeners? And when we speak, why do we need to be mindful of it?
We all know that how people say what they say colors the meaning. We process words differently depending on what we perceive the speaker's underlying intention to be. And by the way, it seems dogs do this as well (so stop trying to fool poor Fido by crooning "sweet stupid dog" as you pet him).
But there is also unconscious bias on the part of the listener. People often react the way they are predisposed to, regardless of the words said and the way they are delivered. The speaker may be intending to convey something on an entirely different level with her words than she is signalling with her tone (which is where the concept of subtext--or what is said beneath the text--comes in). Then on top of that, the listener brings her own bias to bear, probably without really realizing it.
This potential for misunderstanding and misperception is a goldmine for comedy writers. I have been utilizing this fact of human nature in my plays. And Tina Fey and her team put it to good use in The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt (check it out if you haven't. It's nominated for 11 Emmy Awards). Kimmy chooses to see the best in people. So when she turns to her friends for support and comfort, she is often satisfied by whatever they say, ignoring the fact that their words may not specifically address her problem. They respond, showing they are aware she has a need, and that is good enough for her. It is the incongruity of the situation--the disconnect between apparent message sent and message received--that makes us laugh!
In real life, though, these layer of meaning can cause confusion, or worse. And sometimes it isn't worth your time or effort to sort out what an off-hand remark by a colleague might have meant. But the more you listen carefully--to yourself and others--the more you can learn about messages and the intention underneath. In many professional/public situations this is a valuable skill to possess. In your personal life, maybe not so much. Our private interactions are so subtext-heavy that words very often take a backseat to tone. And if you're like Kimmy, the fact that someone sees you have a problem--and is addressing it, however vaguely--is often enough to convince you that they care.
************
photo from A Very Present Presence at The Kennedy Center, Sept 5, 2106
Being politically "authentic"
Enough with Donald Trump's "authenticity," already! What does that even mean? He doesn't use a telepromter! He is so unscripted! Refreshing! So authentic! Puh-leeze...
If you've read my blog before you may remember this entry or this one where I share my thoughts on using "authenticity" as an excuse for sloppiness, laziness, or pretense. So I was happy to read Mark Thompson's op-ed in yesterday' s New York Times, Trump and the Dark History of Straight Talk. He says Trump is actually one in a long line of political types who use anti-rhetoric (his "telling it like it is" strategy) as a way to prove he is the anti-establishment candidate. But Thompson points out that Trump's "authenticity" is not so very authentic after all: "The quality to which every anti-rhetorician aspires is authenticity. But there is a big difference between proclaiming your authenticity and actually being true to yourself and the facts. So let me use a different term: authenticism, for the philosophical and rhetorical strategy of emphasizing the “authentic” above all."
Donald Trump is playing at being "authentic," but it is a false authenticity. He is quite the showman, however, and his show is playing well with the thousands of voters who flock to his extravaganzas—I mean, his rallies. But scratch the surface, and his authenticity falls away. We see this in his recent imitation of a weathervane when it comes to immigration. His earlier tough talk was just a ploy to knock off primary rivals.
Thompson says Hillary Clinton is the complete opposite of Trump, rhetorically. He calls her the "technocrat's technocrat." I take this to mean she is too "in the weeds" in her speeches. She gives too much detail, is too strategic, too cerebral. She appeals to voter's heads but not their hearts. I am not sure this is true of all her speeches, and certainly the content of many of her speeches doesn't support this assertion (the Reno speech was full of feeling). But her delivery does get in the way of making a connection with her listeners. Which frustrates me no end.
Like much of America, I have been a Hillary-watcher for years. I definitely think I could offer her some help. The secret to connecting with listeners is exactly what I teach: how to communicate your authentic presence; how to speak in your own voice. Even if you are an introvert I can give you strategies for standing up in front of rooms of 25 or 2500 to confidently share your message. The key is using your inner strength to draw your audience toward you, rather than pushing your message at them (which is a hallmark of Trumpian "authenticism").
But discovering how to communicate with such authenticity takes time and self-study. And political campaigns are reluctant to have candidates give me either. When I have had success, it is because candidates have been acutely aware of their need to connect more fully with voters and have sought me out. They have made the time, in spite of grumbling from staffers that they didn't need this training, not really, because they were "fine" on the stump. Working with me (or any speaking coach, for that matter) does not guarantee victory. No single element in a campaign does. But even when my clients lost, they won more votes than they expected.
Until campaigns realize that helping a candidate communicate with true authenticity is an important skill to develop, we may be stuck with campaign as entertainment vs. campaign as lecture. Let's hope the party powers-that-be have this realization soon, or we could all come to dread this peculiarly American quadrennial ritual.
****photo inspired by Emily Dickinson's poem "I'm Nobody"
Want to move up? Listen down
Lining up to hear the candidate. Hot summer, 2016 This political season I have been watching, cringing, and shaking my head. I find a huuuuge gulf between what I think of as leadership and what certain segments of the electorate and media seem to think it is. For one thing, it has become abundantly clear that Donald Trump is not a good listener. Never has been, never will be. And he's OK with that. This should be a red flag for anyone thinking about voting for him. It is disastrous for a company, organization or any sort of coalition when the person in charge refuses to listen to other points of view. Imagine how catastrophic it would be to elect a head of state who does not possess the skill--or even desire--to be a good listener!
Here is a blog I wrote in January, 2014 that unpacks why it is critical for a leader to have good listening skills. Enjoy.
Last week, while trying to solve some communications problems specific to clients in leadership roles, I looked to Adam Bryant's "Corner Office" interview with Penny Pritzker in the New York Times, "On Hearing the Whole Story." Pritzker, a highly successful business leader in the real estate, hospitality, and financial services industries, is currently serving as Secretary of Commerce. She answered Bryant's question about improving her leadership over the years this way:
"Probably the biggest mistakes I’ve made were when I wasn’t listening carefully enough. Sometimes you need help with that. I have often said to my closest advisers that your job isn’t just to tell me what you think, but you also have to get in my face and make sure I heard you. It’s hard to deliver bad news, and part of leadership is giving people permission to give you bad news, and making sure you really hear it."
The thing that struck me was how much humility is packed in that statement. And the acknowledgement that true leadership means a willingness to deal with uncertain, or even negative, feedback. A reminder that when you are a leader it is not about you, but about the shared goal of the stakeholders in your venture. If your staff or team is reluctant to give you bad news, then how can you really find our what is going on? Their job in not to please you, but to give you the information you need.
As Shanti Atkins, President and CSO of Navex Global, said in Bryant's January 2nd column: "Even now I like to have people around me who will disagree with me and who will tell me when they think I’m wrong or something is a terrible idea. If I get the feeling I have people around me who are managing up, I get very nervous. I just instantly start wondering, 'What’s actually happening and why can’t you give me more of a balanced picture?' ”
We all need to be ready to really hear what employees, co-workers, even family members, have to say--especially when it is something we may not want to hear! Let's resolve to be better--and more open--listeners this year. Mindfully practicing our listening skills will improve every facet of our lives, not just the bottom line.
It sure is sticky!
It is hot hot hot here in Northern Virginia these days! When I get up in the morning I dread hearing it's going to be "sticky." Ugh! It's not so bad if I have scheduled a "writing day" indoors, but if I am out metroing to client sites, "sticky" just about does me in.
But "stickiness" can be a positive thing: in verbal communication it is something we strive for--making your message stick. Studies show audience members recall on average less than a quarter of what they hear at any speech, meeting, conference call, etc. With those odds, all of us who speak need to do everything we can to ensure our message is memorable.
I know, I know, everyone says this. But just how do you go about writing a speech, or even crafting talking points, that will stick? Many of us take shortcuts here, believing whatever we say has great value. Because we all overestimate the universal value of our insights, our thoughts and musings. And so we forget to put ourselves in anyone else's shoes and ask--what's in it for them?
There are many resources online to aid in your creation of sticky content, and many consultants like me who would be happy to help! But I'll give you two big tips now. The first thing you absolutely need to do is ask yourself: how can I relate to my audience/listeners? For this you need to do some research and find out who your audience is, and why you are speaking to them about this specific topic at this particular time. Then decide on stories you can share, and vivid, concrete examples you can give that will capture their imaginations and put them in the room with you. Establish that connection right off the bat, and they are more likely to stay aboard your train of thought.
Once you've hooked them this way, make sure you don't lose them: write for the ear, not the eye. Short sentences with active verbs. No jargon. Cut those dependent clauses and make sure your pronouns have antecedents. Be clear, above all.
If you can master these two elements of messaging, you may find yourself in a sticky situation. But a good sticky: like honey, not humidity!
Cool fun in the summer
I have been teaching some really terrific high school students who have come to American University for its Discover the World of Communications summer program. This blog post shares some of the video clips I have used reinforce and illustrate my teaching. Feel free to skip my musings, but watch these videos! You will be entertained by the first and fourth links below, enlightened by the middle two.
This is my eleventh summer teaching Speaking for Impact, where students learn to find their inner presence and embrace it as a way to quell anxiety and project authority. I give them much of the theory and many of the exercises I share with my adult clients, because the fundamental problems of nervousness, lack of confidence, and confusion about preparation are the same.
But the teaching tools I use are different: we watch a lot of video! There are many excellent speeches available online that we can learn from. Commencement speeches are great, of course, but there is a virtual goldmine for instructors and coaches in political speeches and debates. Sometimes these provide timeless examples of what not to do, others show us that even with a textbook perfect speech, your campaign still might fail somewhere down the line.
We also sample TED talks and their progeny. Many of them are quite good, teaching us new things and fresh ways of looking at the world. But the TED mandate to leave the audience with a "charge" or "call to action" is often tacked onto a perfectly wonderful informative speech, and I am often left wondering why sharing information and insight with the audience is not enough of a gift in itself.
And then there is a pervasive TED delivery style: techniques and strategies that get used over and over again because -- well, they work. But when everyone is using the same flavor to spice up their speech it all ends up seeming the same. It becomes familiar, almost bland. Canadian comedian/writer Pat Kelly does a wonderful parody TED talk that hits all the right notes, and has you laughing and cringing at the same time. I just did a TED-style talk (video coming soon!), so I understand the temptation to fall back on the tried-and-true formula. But once you start relying on something so predictable, you dilute its importance. Even if it was once valid or original. Kind of like "passionate" and "passion." Think about it: if there really were as many people who were passionate about saving the planet as you hear on TED talks alone, we would have solved all earth's problems by now.
As I tell my students, there is one surefire way to avoid being a cliché: Don't use them!
What is authentic "authenticity"?
I had to laugh when I read Adam Grant's article in the New York Times last week: "Unless You're Oprah, 'Be Yourself' is Terrible Advice." I have said the same thing to countless clients-- really? Do you truly think "being yourself" is such a good idea? But "authenticity" remains a buzzword. It is almost as if being "authentic" has become a sort of magic wand. Or Holy Grail.
When clients ask me to help them be more authentic, I ask what that means. I receive a wide variety of definitions. So I define it, and we get to work. Actually, I define authentic presence--that confident place where you embody a relaxed energy that gets your message across in a dynamic, memorable way. Because that's what they really want. It's not quite the same thing as "being yourself," especially if you are a "low self-monitor" (as Adam Grant would say) who does not filter much of your inner life.
I teach my clients strategies for recognizing where their presence lies, how to access it, and how to consistently project it. Of course the route to each person's authenticity is specific, but there are some general rules. Practicing proper breathing and posture is essential, as is the understanding that speaking is a physical activity. Then you can get out of your head and into your body, which is where you need to be to convey presence. And when you do that, your authenticity falls into place. You are projecting your best self: in control but not pushy, focused but not self-centered. You are confidently sharing what is important to you with others, yet remain open to their ideas, ready to listen and truly connect.
The opposite of this is false presence. And false presence is pretense. It takes more mental effort to maintain a seamless pretense than most people (professionally-trained actors excluded) are capable of sustaining. And of course, there is the default--no presence--which is what may people project. It's not that they are being inauthentic, it's just that their sense of authenticity is submerged and imperceptible to the listener or audience. The professional term for these people is "boring," and they break the second rule of effective communications (the first is "know your audience," btw).
The good news is that everyone has authentic presence to discover and use. Just don't confuse it with unfiltered bouts of "being yourself."
Studying the script
Lately my work has been running along two separate but parallel tracks: coaching clients to be more effective and dynamic speakers who can communicate their authentic leadership, and writing (and rewriting) my latest play. That script is really taking off, and I will blog more about it later on. But for now I wanted to share something that struck me particularly this week as I was toggling back and forth between these two worlds.
In my play, I carefully craft dialogue to reflect what the characters are thinking, and what it is they are trying to communicate, as well as what they are trying to hide. This necessitates being omniscient--knowing what they know, what they are aware of, and what they are unaware of. So, as you can imagine, when my characters speak there is a lot of pausing, as well as unfinished sentences, interrupting, phrases that are imprecise followed by a "you know what I mean." Because on an intimate level, true interpersonal communication happens in the subtext, the feeling underlying what is said and not said. In fact, often the most important words are left unspoken (for a master of this, see anything by playwright Harold Pinter). The playwright uses this tool to reveal that a character is inarticulate, or does not understand, or cannot utter to words because they are too fraught.
All this is to say, though playwrights craft their characters' speech to reveal certain aspects of character to the audience, the characters themselves may be at a loss for words. Or they are speaking spontaneously, reacting to what has been said to them. Often the act of speaking itself is a sort of connection-making that says much more about them and their relationship to their conversation partner than the actual words do. Just like in real life! When we are engaged in private speech, that is.
So when I work with my students and clients on public speaking, I advise them to do the opposite of what my characters do. Since public speech, broadly defined, can be any type of speaking you engage in when you are not with your "nearest and dearest," it cannot be anything like the private speech I conjure up for my characters. In public speech, the words you say matter very much. You cannot afford to be inarticulate, or skirt the issue or leave things unsaid. You can get into huge trouble if you assume the listener can fill in the blanks. You must plan what you need to say, choose the best, clearest, least ambiguous way to say it, and then be ready to listen to what your conversation partner has to say as a way of furthering dialogue. Avoid the very human temptation to slip into the private conversational gambit of impromptu chit-chatting. You will reveal more than you intend!
The soundness of this advice has been proven to me and my clients time and again, and yet it is still occasionally met with resistance. Those who resist are generally the less experienced communicators who know they need help and so come to work with me. The other big bucket of naysayers are old-school top-of-the-heap blowhards who would never work with me in a million years. Somehow, when they find out what I do, they always feel compelled to brag about their excellent, spontaneous, loose, off-the-cuff communications style. They are lousy speakers, but since they are insulated from real scrutiny due to their positions (this is Washington, D.C., after all) no one ever tells them. Perhaps I will put them in a play someday; they are very entertaining!
Better living through chemistry?
Recently, I was asked what I thought about the use of beta blockers to relieve speaking anxiety. I have to admit I was taken aback. I've known for a while that these drugs have been used by professional musicians to combat performance anxiety, though that is not a common practice. It is, however, controversial. But I had never been asked about use of these drugs for regular speaking-in-public situations! As someone who helps people overcome "speakers' nerves" on a pretty regular basis, I know that some sort of stage fright is absolutely normal. As a professionally trained actor, I am quite familiar with the concept. Yet I don't think I know any actors who rely on this sort of help. We all get attacks of nerves before going onstage, but part of our training is devoted to developing strategies for working through those anxieties. Most of us use some combination of yoga, breathing exercises, backstage rituals, and of course, rehearsal, to get us where we need to be so we don't keel over when the stage manager calls "places!"
It seems a growing number of doctors are prescribing drugs such as propranolol (which treats heart and circulatory conditions) "off label" to patients with speaking anxiety. Before I looked into this, I thought, well maybe this is a relatively harmless little pill, a way to "take the edge off" before a speech. When I looked up propranolol, though, I found it is a pretty heavy-duty drug. If you take it, you have to avoid alcohol, as well as anti-depressants, and NSAIDS (aspirin, ibuprofen, etc). And of course there are side effects! Now, I am sure there may be some people who have such severe anxiety they do need drugs to help with this, but my hope is they are seeing a mental health professional and getting the support they need that way.
I am not a doctor (thought I did play a nurse on TV!), but I do know that if a particular use of a drug is not approved by the FDA there is usually a reason. This article in The Washington Post summarizes the arguments more succinctly than I can. But the bottom line is, feeling nervous when standing before strangers is not a medical "condition." It is a human condition, one that we all feel. Don't fall into the trap of medicalizing something you can train yourself to deal with. People who tell me about their performance anxiety seem to think this is some terrible affliction peculiar to them, when what they describe to me is what any actor feels on preview night.That adrenaline jolt is normal, and useful to an extent. If you have anxiety it means your body is doing what it is supposed to do: reacting to stress. If you want to control the effects of that anxiety, there are plenty of non-pharmaceutical ways to do so--that even allow you to take a celebratory drink after the curtain falls!
Shortchanged by shortcuts
I know my habits are often out of fashion. I am not instant-this or quick-that. And I have never striven to "fail fast." No, my approach to getting things done is more along the lines of "If something is worth doing, it's worth doing well," and "Slow and steady wins the race." So I applauded a story on NPR this weekend giving students a tip for better learning: take your notes by hand rather than typing on a tablet or laptop. The story had a familiar ring to it; I looked it up and recalled reading the article two years ago when it was published in the journal Psychological Science. But the conclusions still stand, and in the period since the science has been done, I am sure thousands of students have migrated from pen-and-paper note-taking to typing. The students who still engage in the former, however, are learning more. Pamela Mueller, one of the researchers, explained it this way in the NPR story, "When people type their notes, they have this tendency to try to take verbatim notes and write down as much of the lecture as they can. The students who were taking longhand notes in our studies were forced to be more selective — because you can't write as fast as you can type. And that extra processing of the material that they were doing benefited them."
Another article that vindicated my old-school way of doing things appeared in Sunday's New York Times, "Sorry, You Can't Speed Read." I have always been a fairly fast reader, but never for a second desired to become a lightening-fast one, even though many people have said it has increased their productivity. In this article Jeffrey M. Zacks and Rebecca Treiman conclude that in mastering the technique used in speed-reading (gathering lots of visual information quickly), language comprehension suffers. I relish losing myself in a good story, or teasing out the strands of an author's argument, so I don't like to rush. But if I do speed through the last two pages of a chapter--if I am keeping someone waiting, for example--I have to go back and reread them. Why do I even bother? As Zacks and Treiman note in their op-ed, "If you want to improve your reading speed, your best bet — as old-fashioned as it sounds — is to read a wide variety of written material and to expand your vocabulary."
Old-fashioned. Yep. That's why I also insist my clients practice their speeches for best results. More than once or twice. In an insta-world where easy gratification all too often comes at the speed of light (or pressing of a button), there are some processes where short cuts just don't cut it. Like fast fashion or disposable decor, shortcuts to effective communication result in messaging that is "here today, gone tomorrow." If you want anything to stick--lessons learned, books read, or speeches delivered--you just have to put in the time.
Illustration: "Sea Tortoises Coming Ashore by Night" by Charles Livingston Bull,
courtesy Library of Congress
Seriously not a circus
For many of us who live in metro Washington, politics is a theme that runs through our daily lives. As a communications professional, I have coached people seeking elected office and those who lobby them when they win. And I know that the folks who "run Washington" are not a unique breed of power-crazed maniacs. They are pretty normal people, as variable as the rest of us. Perhaps a few let their lust for power interfere with their better judgement, but the vast majority are not Frank Underwood.
But when I look at the current presidential race, I am dumbstruck by the enormous exhibition of ego that is Donald Trump. When I lived in New York in the '80's, I enjoyed following his exploits in Spy magazine. I thought he was yesterday's news. How wrong I was! He has proven to be a celebrity master of reinvention to rival the Material Girl herself.
When people ask my professional opinion, I tell them Trump is a terrible communicator. That's usually no surprise. But if they want details I point out how he deviates from accepted guidelines for good speaking: he is not prepared; he does not engage in active listening; he does provoke for the sake of provocation; he has little respect for his audience. He fails completely at connecting with objective reporters and unsycophantic interviewers. But—I hate to admit it—Trump is highly successful at one thing: when it comes to his supporters, he knows his audience! He has a showman's instinct for giving them what they want, and he throws them red meat with wild abandon. He has built a successful campaign by "playing to the cheap seats," as we say in show-biz. He was the joke of summer who turned into the Great American Reality Star, and his campaign has filled a unique niche in this season's entertainment schedule.
In a couple of months I will be teaching "Speaking for Impact" to high school students as part of Discover the World of Communication at American University. I know as soon as I mention the 2016 election, Trump's name will come up. I will point out the numerous ways Trump fell short of looking and sounding like a leader. But I also will welcome the opportunity to segue from discussing the ethics of public speaking to a larger examination of civic responsibility. Though the specter of Trump in the White House is diminishing daily, he leaves us with a powerful, teachable moment. And a warning of what can happen when people stop paying attention and sit back to enjoy the show.
illustration from "The Circus Procession," published by McLoughlin Brothers, Inc., 1888
courtesy Library of Congress
Metering your thoughts
I have such wonderful clients: they are smart, self-aware people. They know what they know—many are experts in their field—but they are also clear-eyed enough to know what they don't know. And when they know they are not speaking or presenting as well as they should, they come to me. I help them improve their communications skills so they can clearly convey their (sometimes complicated, often paradigm-shifting) ideas to others.
Lately it seems a lot of my clients have the same problem: they get stuck in their heads. I don't mean they listen to negative self-talk that holds them back. That is true of every single person I have ever coached, and I always address it by giving my clients strategies for putting that self-talk "out of mind." No, the "stuckness" I am focusing on happens when you are called upon to speak in a meeting and your thoughts come so fast it's hard to get them out coherently. All the right ideas are in there, in your mind, but there is a traffic jam as they try to take the exit ramp.
It is frustrating, yes, to know you actually have the answers, but cannot express them with the dynamic confidence you want. It would be nice if you could just flip a switch and slow your thoughts down so they come to you in a manner that is easier to process. If you were actually in traffic, you'd find the exit ramp meter most helpful. Sadly, our minds are not that automated.
So here's the next best thing: slow down. Breathe before you begin to speak. Put a period at the end of each sentence. Complete each thought. Give yourself a little space between the idea you just verbalized and the next one. Space to breathe. Space to think. Try this until the run-on-tumbling-out-of-words becomes a series of sentences, and you will find you have slowed down your pace to a tempo you can control. Then you'll be able to shape your responses in a way that reflects your expertise and knowledge. And an added bonus: you will have time to gauge the level of audience comprehension, so what you say will land with maximum impact and effectiveness.
It's like your Driver's Ed teacher said: Obey the traffic signals, take your time, and you'll not only have a safer trip, you'll enjoy it more, too.
Midnight musings of grammar fans
I spent this past weekend with a couple of my favorite journalists. We stayed up late discussing politics and other current events, as well as the state of print and online journalism. Then, as Friday night became Saturday morning, our thoughts naturally turned to a topic near and dear to our hearts. . . grammar!
Yes, I know. We are geeks. It is true. And, as long as I am coming clean here, we think proper sentence structure and correct word usage are both necessary components of clear communication.
People need to understand what they are reading, especially if they read quickly. In the case of newspaper or newsletter writing, incorrect grammar slows the reader down, muddles the message, and undermines the credibility of the writer and/or news outlet. Good editors read stories with an eagle eye, a grammar handbook, their chosen stylebook, and a dictionary close at hand. If they do not (or if you do not use the same tools when self editing), your readers are forced to make sense of poor or fuzzy grammar, or guess which word you actually intended. And you may not really be saying what you mean, because even the best editor is not a mind reader. The resulting story or headline needs corrections, retractions, or some other form of cleaning up. We all have our favorite examples of this. With baseball's spring training upon us, I chuckle to recall my favorite sports headline from last season (see photo above).
I urge my speakers to be careful about their grammar as well. Even if a speech has more latitude—say, structuring it with a few em dashes or ellipses, or using a more relaxed, even colloquial vocabulary—it still needs to adhere closely to the recognized standards. Too much "artistic license" and you lose your audience. When speaking, a listener can't flip back to find the antecedent of a given pronoun, or tease out a sentence to unearth the main clause. Sentences that are complete, short, and clear are best, whether you are at the podium or conference table. Speakers generally lack proofreaders and editors, so do the job yourself. Let your ears be that extra set of eyes as you read your speech out loud. If you find you need to read a sentence a few times to make sense of it, you probably should go back and check your grammar. And for goodness' sake, if you have any question about a word, look it up! The world certainly does not need any more amphibious pitchers.
Climb ev'ry mountain
Last week I was on vacation on the Caribbean island of Nevis. If you have heard of this island at all it is likely that you know it as the birthplace of Alexander Hamilton. But Nevis is a tropical paradise, with vast beaches and their attendant beach bars, sugar mill ruins, many fine examples of Georgian Caribbean architecture. And a volcano.
My dear husband talked me into climbing Nevis Peak, all 3,232 feet of it! It was not an easy hike. For one thing, tropical rain forest terrain can get extremely muddy, which is definitely a hindrance to what amounts to a vertical climb. For another thing, though I consider myself in good shape, I have never really climbed a mountain. Hiked through mountains, sure. Climbed the really steep, un-restored bits of the Great Wall east of Mutianyu. But even on the Wall there was a path of some sort, and inclines of less than 50 degrees. This was something else altogether. Very shortly into the climb, I realized three things:
1) I lacked the skills needed to do this.
2) I had to trust my guide.
3) I had to stay focused, in the moment at all times.
When it was all over my quadriceps were killing me, I was encased in mud, and my feet refused to obey. I did not say "It was fun!" like some of my fellow hikers. What I did feel was a great sense of accomplishment. I learned something new, and in the four-plus hours it took us to climb to the top (where we were in a cloud forest), then back down, I improved skills I did not even possess at the beginning. It was good to push myself outside of my comfort zone. And of course, I would have never been able to do it without my excellent guide, Reggie.
Back at our vacation villa, I took a long hot shower and tried to scrub off the bruises that I mistook for dirt--the only injuries from a slight tumble down the mountain. I realized, as the steam curled around me, easing my aching muscles, that there were many parallels to what I had just experienced and what I help my clients with on a fairly regular basis.
Many people come to me with a self-assessment that they "are in pretty good shape" speaking-wise, but lack the requisite skill and knowledge to be an expert public speaker. Or they have done pretty well so far, but are now faced with opportunities to reach far outside their comfort zones. So I, like Reggie, need to guide them through the process, instructing them to develop skills they need along the way. They need to trust me and stay focused on what we are doing. Stop judging and stay in the moment. I offer suggestions of better ways to do things, and make corrections when necessary. That is the way we all learn new techniques and improve our skills.
It can be hard to grow in this way if you are used to having easy success, or if you have reached a pinnacle of achievement. But just because you can hike for hours and do yoga like a twenty-year-old does not mean you know how to climb a mountain! You need to embrace new ways of seeing how a thing can be done and then do it. It is no coincidence that my most successful clients are those who keep moving forward. They don't stop their progress to get defensive, or offer rationalizations as to why they cling to bad speaking habits. They are in the moment, they have momentum, and continue to climb, reaching for the top!
Supreme communicators
I believe clear communication can solve many of life's problems. I applaud those who employ effective communications, even if I do not always agree with them. Disagreements are inevitable in life, but misunderstandings rooted in sloppy or lazy word choice can and should be avoided. This year's campaign season is providing us with many examples of unclear message transmittal. Sometimes this verges on the comic. But too often it makes us uneasy, eroding our confidence in the speakers. As the races tighten, I hope candidates will become more precise in what they are saying and how they are saying it.
I was sharing this view at a gathering of fellow consultants this past weekend, emphasizing the importance of preparing and practicing your message before you attempt to deliver it. This would eliminate many of the problems we are seeing on the campaign trail and debate stages. If you are ever in a comparable high-stakes situation, I hope you will take my advice: write out your talking points, then say them out loud. See if they make sense, if they actually say what you want them to, and if they flow. How comfortable are you with these words? If you are not 120% at ease with them, change 'em. Speaking in these circumstances is risky enough without the fear of lack-of-rehearsal stumble. I do not mean every utterance can be rehearsed--certainly in a debate you will be asked questions you have not anticipated (or at least we, the people, hope you are!). But your main points, the planks of your platform, should roll off your tongue eloquently and easily.
And if you are communicating largely through the written word, you still need to practice your text as if you are going to say it. Tell the story. Read your words and check them as you would if you were preparing to speak (see above). This weekend saw the untimely death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. As the media covered various aspects of his life, his legacy, each story mentioned what a brilliant writer he was. Even those who disagreed with his opinions read them with relish. Quite simply, he caught our attention and kept us engaged, which distinguishes his writing from most legal documents. Scalia's former law clerk Brian Fitzpatrick explained his secret it in an interview on NPR: "he was such a powerful writer, and I watched him write his opinions, and I figured out one of the ways that he did it was he wrote his opinions like they were speeches. He would read them aloud as he wrote them because he wanted them to be punchy like his speech was."
Precisely.
Illustration: Jurors Listening to Counsel, Supreme Court, New City Hall, New York, after Winslow Homer, 1869
courtesy National Gallery of Art
Critical communcations
Recently I witnessed some top notch communicators at work in an unexpected place while visiting a family member in the Intensive Care Unit at Medina Hospital, a member of the Cleveland Clinic health system.
You might think this an unlikely scenario for triggering professional observations about communication. But I was seriously impressed. I found myself marveling at how clearly all the hospital personnel managed to convey detailed, complex information. Often experts have difficulty with that, striking the right "tone." Explanations are either patronizingly over-simplified or pitched at too high a level for the listener. But every piece of information we were given was followed by a query regarding our comprehension, and an offer to explain again, using different words! Unlike old-school docs who would simply restate what they had said in a louder voice, trusting all would become clear if they just shouted a bit!
Our patient had some pretty scary stuff going on, and at one point the specialist needed to bring us up to speed. But before he told us what was going to happen next, he asked us to tell him what we understood her condition to be. Then he mirrored our language, finding the right level to communicate critical information. I have not spent much time in ICUs, thank goodness, but I gather from the stories of friends and from my own research that this is not the norm.
Cleveland Clinic's Center for Excellence in Healthcare Communication trains its physicians and staff to focus on relationship centered communication, rather than the old linear model still used by many healthcare providers. And the Clinic's focus on clinician-patient communications works! As family members, we had some anxiety surrounding the medical issues we were seeing, but we never felt in the dark about them. A family that understands what is going on medically is sure to provide better support.
We all know that it is critical to deliver your message clearly in times of crisis. In words that your listeners will understand. But many people still don't take the time to step up their game. I will refrain from making the blanket statement "if critical care doctors and nurses can find the time, surely you can," but I am very glad the medical professionals who staff Medina Hospital's ICU did!
Strike the pose!
I read an article today in Slate that raised some questions about the actual science behind one of the most widely viewed TED talks ever, Amy Cuddy's "Your Body Language Shapes Who You Are." I read the article with interest because I am not a huge fan of Cuddy's. When I first viewed the talk online, I did think she had interesting observations, but her argument had some holes. And then it went viral. It started being taken as Gospel Truth, and now millions of people "understand" all about body language. As with every area of expertise, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. I hear people say, "Oh I know all about body language. I can strike a power pose." And then they do. They reach for the skies like a superhero! I point out the impracticality of attending meetings in such a position.
When I coach my clients on presenting and public speaking, I always discuss body language. I ask: What does your stance, your posture, even the tilt of your chin say about you? Or how does it get in the way of your message or the image you want to project? It is a complicated issue, because you are using several body parts, not to mention your breathing apparatus, as well as eye contact. (And that's just the non-verbals!) This degree of complexity just disappears in Cuddy's talk. She simplifies the whole process, which of course makes listeners want to believe it is true. I have to give her credit for being an excellent story teller. She has been held up as a model of someone who put together a superior TED talk. Her highly personal story provides emotional stickiness, and some scientific findings back up her thesis, for good measure.
But now the science backing up her claims has been shown to be. . .well. . . not very conclusive. And so I hope we can begin to stop swallowing her central tenet whole. A mere two minutes of engaging in an expansive pose does not, by itself, make you feel more powerful. This is too facile. Believe me, having spent the better part of my adult life around actors, it is an absolute falsehood to claim that just mimicking a posture can transform you to that degree. Not even taking on a character's posture for two hours can make you "become" the character. Actors spend weeks of rehearsal figuring out all the things we need to do before we can even come close to any sort of transformation. Not to oversimplify my objection to Cuddy's over-simplification, but the fact is each speaking situation has a different context, and the role you play varies within each context. You need to know what to do, physically, vocally and mentally, to convey strength, focus, decisiveness, collegiality, and any number of positive "leadership qualities."
If only it were as simple as striking a pose!
Misplaced passion
Now that it officially (finally) a Presidential Election Year, it's time to address the overdone, overheated rhetoric candidates are using in their primary races. So much shouting, exaggerating, trying to outdo each other while burnishing their party credentials. Making sure they have the boldest words and phrases to express their ideas and ideals. The result is a lot of hot air and posturing! It would be funny if it were not so worrisome. We can expect this sort of fervid oratory until the conventions at least. And if the most outrageous speaker of the bunch was not already getting so much media attention, I would dissect his bombastic style. But others have already done this, quite well, so I need not add to the discussion.
Instead, I look forward to the time after the nominations, when the great swath of "undecided" or unaffiliated voters will be wooed by the remaining candidates. The nominees will need to switch out their "passionate" language for a more reasoned, reasonable one. After all, you can't get people to listen to you, let alone support you, if they feel you are attacking them. I was happy to hear Shankar Vendatum on NPR discuss this very topic last month: "The problem is that the arguments that we make are the arguments that usually convince people who are like us. They don't speak the language of our opponents, and when you think about it, the only people you need to persuade are the ones who don't agree with you." Bottom line: if you are using language that does not mirror that of the people you are trying to convince, you won't connect with them. And you can't sway their opinion if there is no connection.
Politicians who try to correct their previous over-statements by reaching out to those with different views are derided as "flip-floppers." I suppose such distortion of intent is bound to happen in a 24/7 news cycle. Fortunately, the rest of us aren't under such scrutiny. We can--and should--always try to make our case using words and examples that can be understood by those we are speaking with. Shift your perspective a bit to reflect theirs. Avoid using words or images that set off alarm bells in their heads. This is not to say that you need to "play along" and "placate" those who oppose you, but going into a discussion with the intention of smacking down your opponent rarely ends well in any sort of grown-up, real-world interaction.
The display of passion can be effective, but only if judiciously employed. According to Google, "wise," "prudent," and "sensible" are all synonyms for "politic." That's good to remember in this year of 2016.
artwork: Political Drama (1914) by Robert Delaunay, courtesy National Gallery of Art
A little holiday toast
We are now in the midst of that unique time of year known as The Holiday Season. For many of us, there is a religious basis for these seasonal rituals. Others participate in the yearly festival of lights as a way to brighten dreary (and long) winter nights! But there is one thing pretty much everyone does this time of year: celebrate! And with celebrations, along with food, drink, and general merriment, come the toasts.
I wrote a longer guide to toast-making in 2011, and you can read it here if you'd like. But if you're pressed for time (and who isn't this time of year?) here are quick and easy pointers for toast-making:
1) Honor your host.
2) Toast the occasion you are celebrating (gathering of friends, workplace success, completion of another year, etc.).
3) Wish everyone the best for The New Year!
4) Raise your glass and say: "a toast to ----- " and fill in the blank with #1, #2 or #3, whichever is most important to you.
5) That's it; you're finished. Stop talking and enjoy the party.
Short and to the point. Notice that you do not talk about yourself here! Because it is not about you, and everyone seems to know this until they enter "the zone" of toast-making speechifying. You've seen it happen. So be a good friend this year and lead by example.
Happy Holidays to you and yours.
See you in 2016!
