Rethinking thinking

One of the high points of my recent trip to London was a compelling production of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar at the new Bridge Theatre, directed by Bridge's founder, the brilliant Nicholas Hytner. This play is startlingly relevant at the moment. And Hytner has underscored that relevance, streamlining the text and giving it momentum that does not stop for a nanosecond. I have never experienced staging like this: I had tickets to stand on the floor, where I joined others to became part of the story, literally standing in for the Roman mob whose shifting political allegiance drives the play. We surrounded the actors, whose playing space was constantly changing: large portions of the floor lifted up for various scenes, so action moved quickly, As eyewitnesses to unfolding events, we moved around them. Tension mounted and the threat of violence ratcheted up in the second half of the play. I have never before experienced a play so viscerally. 

It wasn't just the proximity to the action that drew me in. It was the complete authenticity of the actors. Standing practically next to them, I felt their intimate connection to the story. One moment in particular stands out: early in the evening I was about three feet away from Brutus (a thoughtful, almost nerdy Ben Whishaw). He was sitting at his desk, arguing with himself whether or not to join the plot to kill Caesar. As he was thinking out loud I saw him: completely, wholly, believably Brutus. And I was struck by the depth of emotion and thought that radiated from his very being. But I didn't see a brilliant actor, because it was not at all about him. It was about active engagement in the thought process. It was--as all acting is--about action, about doing. Even when what we are doing is "just thinking." 

Engaging in powerful thought is action, as I tell my acting students and my speaking clients. You don't have to push or make things happen in order to be interesting. But if you are fully committed to your thoughts you will be completely in the moment. Because when you are actively thinking about what you are saying and why you are saying it, you physically and mentally connect with the images that led to the thought. And because of this connection, you are immersed, engaged, as you speak. Your audience will sense it, whether they are "groundlings" at a theatre, or your leadership team in the board room. That is how you become authentic and project authenticity. That is how you pull your listener into your story, so they believe it, too. Don't second-guess yourself. Commit to your message. Commit to the thoughts behind what you are saying. You'll nail your performance. And you might even be asked for an encore!

It's more than just the notes!

I was lucky enough to see the incomparable Orpheus Chamber Orchestra rehearse and perform at Carnegie Hall this past Saturday. I was expecting a great concert, but what I got was a masterclass in communication! Orpheus is a "conductorless" classical music ensemble. Each piece is led--but not dictated or driven--by a different member of the ensemble. As that member is also playing their part. They are all highly skilled professionals, of course, so you would expect them to know their music inside-out.

But they go further. Each and every one of the 27 members of Orpheus internalizes the music, and communicates it physically. And while not unusual for pop musicians, this degree of movement is not that common in the classical world. Musical instruments fuse psychically and artistically with musicians to interpret the composer's vision. The music emanates from each artist's entire being. You can see the rhythm conveyed through their bodies. Some are more physically expressive than others, but each seems to be inside the music, not so much playing it as living it. They feel each other's movement, even as they hear each other's harmonies and musical lines. Being so attuned on so many levels is the only way any ensemble could ever succeed without a conductor.

This concert tackled some pretty intricate compositions by Brahms, Mozart, Hayden, and it was a wonder to behold. To have such a high degree of trust, to be open enough to communicate that freely, was this music-lover's and communications expert's idea of s perfect evening. We should all be so connected when participating in our various "ensembles"!

The hard truth about the easy way

Happy New Year!

As we turn the page and begin a new year, many of us seek guidance to achieve our New Year's goals. But all too often, the experts we consult-- especially in this quick-fix, instant gratification world--offer This One Thing  or One Big Tip that will change your life. If you've been on this planet for any length of time, you know, deep down, that nothing is that easy. And yet....

Recently, Expert Public Speaking Trainer offered One Easy Way to Become a Great Speaker: "Just think about your message." On the other hand, International Communications Coach cites "Never stop trying to read your audience" as The Key to Success! Now which one do we believe, since it is virtually impossible to do both of these simultaneously? Neither one.

The truth is, of course, somewhere in between. If you only focus on your message, you run the risk of disconnecting from your audience. And if you are constantly trying to read them (a fool's errand, at best; see my blog, here), you disconnect from yourself. Effective communication depends on maintaining the basic communications loop: Speaker sends Message to Listener who then sends feedback to Speaker. So you have to be mindful of your audience, but not to the point that it takes you out of your speech. And you have to focus on delivering your message, but not to the point of ignoring your audience. It's a balancing act that requires self-awareness, as well as preparation. And lots of practice.

If it were true that One Big Tip was all you needed, wouldn't there be more successful speakers in the world? Public speaking still ranks high up on the list of people's fears, so we know many find it a challenge. Fortunately, a good coach understands that every speaker has their own communications strengths and weaknesses. In my practice I help each of my clients find a path that leads to greater speaking success. It may not be the easiest path, but it will  be the one that helps them become the best speaker they can be. So they'll just have to come up with a new resolution for 2019!

Ann's Top Ten

This seems to be an appropriate month to share my Top Ten List of Tips You Can Use!

These are the tips I am tempted to share every month, and if you've been reading my newsletter over the years, you might have run across them a few times. They are evergreen: not a week goes by when I don't share most of them with clients.

(Of course, you know I have a thing about orgainization and too many main points. So I have "clustered" them for easier comprehension.)

For speaking events: Delivery

Breathe Every day I hear people who forget to do the most basic thing before they start to speak: Breathe! Even if you haven't had a chance to do your daily breathing/centering warm-ups, taking a good deep breath will help you speak with energy and focus. 

Take up your space! Standing tall when you speak makes you seem bigger and bolder--even if you're small of stature or an introvert! Use that knowledge and embrace your power--don't shrink from it. 

Practice may not make perfect, but. . . it sure helps you feel more present, more connected, more in the moment. But you know this. So do it!

For speaking events: Content

Prepare yourself Overpreparation is a myth. "Speaking from the heart" is overrated. You know this if you've sat through disappointing, confusing, boring speeches. But if you want my take you can read about it here, here and here. 

Simplify, simplify, simplify Your clarity of expression mirrors your clarity of thought. If listeners get lost in your dependent clauses or confusing vocabulary they'll stop listening. Simple sentences with active verbs will keep your audience with you. 

Less is more Use three main points, possibly four, per speech. Organize and practice so you will finish in less time than you are allotted. This allows time for Things To Go Wrong (which they do) as well as Q & A (which audiences love).

Kill the PowerPoint Or at least cut it down to size! Don't be lazy and just put your outline up. Find a thematic visual that reinforces your theme. Or just tell the story. Revisit my blog post to find out why.

In meetings/conversations:

Put on your neutral face Yes, RBF is a real thing, but you can minimize it by practicing your "zen face:" relaxed, not super-smiley, just a little less intense. Making a few muscular adjustments can make a huge difference in how others perceive you. 

Don't know? That's OK---You can't be expected to know everything, but you should know where to find the answers.  Don't make things up: chances are someone else in the room will have Googled the real answer by the time you've finished. 

Keep your eyes on the prize In high-stakes conversations it's easy to become distracted from your main goal. Stay focused: remember your objective. Phrase that in as few words as possible and repeat it internally like a mantra when you feel a derailment coming on. 

Put down the megaphone

I've had an interesting few weeks: my clients have spoken in a variety of situations at home and abroad. It's been fascinating learning about their topics as I help them prepare. But different as each of these experiences have been, we always start the same way: by framing their content in terms of a conversation. My speakers may have an hour to present their great ideas on a stage the size of a football field or twenty minutes in a conference room, yet they are all speaking with people, not talking at them. Why? Because communication implies, at the very least, a two-way street. The speaker is engaging the listener who is processing what the speaker is saying. If a formal feedback loop is not built into the event (i.e. a stand-alone speech without Q & A), the listeners will find a way to respond informally, if not directly to the speaker herself. 

Many seasoned as well as emerging leaders understand the concept of engaging in active listening. But understanding and actually doing it are two different things. And, to be honest, active listening isn't the easiest thing to do, but it can be taught (see my blogs about how here and here). Over time it can become relatively easy to listen that way when you're engaged in the less formal communication of conversation. The tricky part comes when you integrate that kind of listening into your formal speech events. But mindfulness of the other always must be present in your speaking, as you develop your content with the audience's need in mind, and as you work on communicating with and not at (see above).

My clients have had lots of success lately using this strategy for speaking. But I have seen and heard myriad egregious example of speakers who broadcast their message--those who just throw their words out and splatter them all over the audience. (Virginia is home to the perpetual political campaign, so I am exposed to far too many examples of What Not To Do a regular basis). That is not effective communication. And it is bad leadership strategy.  

If you want to read about listening as a good leadership strategy, take a look at this oldie but goodie from January 2014. 

These myths have got to go!

I spend a lot of my time debunking myths about public speaking. I can't believe that in 2017 some of these are still being passed off as "conventional wisdom" to unsuspecting clients, but I have had to undo their effects too many times! Those of you who have been reading me over the years know how I feel about this. But just in case you need a refresher, here are the two things you need to stop doing TODAY to be a better speaker:

Myth #1: Always start with a joke! I think this is the worst piece of advice anyone can give you. In fact, I would immediately be suspicious of whoever tells you to do this. Because if you start by telling a joke you will almost certainly fail. You can see my various takes on why this is such a bad idea here, here and most recently, here. Even professional comedians sometime bomb. And since all humor is culturally-specific, your joke will either offend or be misunderstood by a high percentage of the audience. Even back in the old days, when everyone guffawed at jokes told at Rotary luncheons, there were those who didn't really "get" them. They may have laughed along because it was expected, but the humorous misfires didn't lead to any bonding, or establish the speaker's credibility. Quite the opposite.    

Myth #2: Always try to read your audience. Really? There are too many "experts" out there who can help you "read" your audience. That is nonsense. And a waste of your valuable time. I have written about why in posts here and here. To give you the highlights, though: people are bundles of contradictions. The idea that you can delve into the innermost thoughts and feelings of a relative stranger while you are conveying your message in a meaningful way is ludicrous. Again, our example of professional stand-up comedians is instructive. They do need to be able to "read" their audiences, and so they spend considerable time honing this specific skill. Why? Because they are in the business of entertainment. You're not. You have a message to deliver, not jokes. You do need to engage your listeners, but if you focus on their moment-to-moment reactions you are not fully serving your message. And let's be honest: how many of us can accurately "read" our nearest and dearest, let alone a roomful of strangers?

Unjumble your language

Yesterday I dropped my daughter off at the airport, on her way to London for graduate school. Many thoughts were going through my head, as you can imagine. Amid the vortex of concerns and emotions I remembered George Bernard Shaw's clever reference to the United States and England as "two countries separated by a common language." Most of my readers probably can attest to the truth of this. Even J.K. Rowling had to change the title of her first Harry Potter book to reflect linguistic differences!

If hearing English-language words used incomprehensibly reminds you of overseas travel delights, you're in luck. You don't have to cross the Atlantic to get that special feeling! You can just walk down the street pretty much anywhere and trip over a big pile of jargon, or its odious cousin, business speak. You know what I mean: that gobbledygook that is constantly used inside your office, but has no actual meaning on the outside. A lovely list of the most annoying of these phrases was generated by Forbes in 2012; I am sure it could be much larger by now. 

My clients will tell you I am pretty demanding when it comes to eliminating jargon from their presentations. This is especially difficult with slide decks, where the jargon exacerbates the prevailing problem of too many words. Such slides say nothing to me, so I ask clients to explain them. Often they cannot. Jargon has muddled the meaning. Which is not so good when your goal is to communicate your ideas! Cut out the jargon and you accomplish TWO big things: you no longer alienate those not privy to the particularities of your usage; and your message is easier to understand. If your goal is to communicate clearly, you need to use language you and your listeners share.

Before you say "well, she doesn't know my industry; certain buzzwords are expected--and we all know what they mean," let me tell you what I have noticed. When I try to tease out definitions for these phrases, it becomes clear that this jargon is often understood quite differently by the many people who use it. That's because few of them ever really asked what was meant by those particular words. It was a badge of belonging to use them--so they just assumed a meaning (and you know what happens when you assume!)

It takes a while to break bad habits, but it's worth it! Unjumbling your language will clarify your meaning. And do your friends and family a favor right now--stop using business speak and jargon outside of the office. And start sounding like the authentic you again!

The expressive self

Summer is a busy time for me: I teach full time for a pre-college summer program at American University's School of Communications, meet with clients, and try to sandwich in some creative work as well. This year I am researching a play I hope to have drafted by December. I also wrote a one-act that will have its premiere reading on Labor Day (see info below).

And I have seen some amazing theatre in NYC and D.C.: A Doll's House, Part 2;  Natasha, Pierre and the Great Comet of 1812; and An Octoroon. I highly recommend them all!

All these activities got me thinking once again about the intersection of public speaking and acting. I keep coming back to the fact that acting is about action. To see Laurie Metcalfe physicalize the pain and frustration of Nora Helmer as she paces the stage like a caged animal, or to watch Jon Hudson Odom transform before our very eyes into three extremely different characters is to experience the essence of great acting. Because in acting, as in life, it's not just the words you say or how you say them that reveals your thoughts and feelings. It's how your body expresses them, clarifying--or contradicting--the words themselves.

Acting teachers and directors tell actors "show, don't tell," and as a playwright I follow that advice, too. The fact is, we are all so much more than our words. And that truth is fundamental to the art and craft of drama.

Just as acting is about acton, so is public speaking. My students will tell you I drum this into them: "speaking is a physical activity." And my clients hear me say "get out of your head and into your body!" But the truth is, to effectively communicate you need to do more than think about and organize your ideas. That's just the first step. To get those ideas in front of others (literally) you need to a way to get them there. And since we haven't evolved to using the Vulcan mind-meld, speaking is, by necessity, physical. So you must engage your body as a communications tool. Easy to understand, hard to do. Often students and clients tell me they have practiced when they have only "gone over" their presentations in their minds, not putting the words in their mouths and getting the speech into their bodies. And then they wonder why they stumble and fall!

Get physical. Use your body as an expressive instrument. I don't mean plot out your gestures or be overly concerned about "body language." I mean tap into the energy that is at the core of your being. That is the essential you. That makes your spin on any topic, any argument, any pitch uniquely, authentically yours. Give yourself permission to use your body when you speak. You'll feel liberated and free. And wouldn't that be a nice change?

The power of stillness

I recently had a couple of clients tell me they want to walk around the room "Oprah-style" while delivering speeches and presentations. I understand their temptation to move. Conventional wisdom on public speaking says walking and talking is preferable to standing frozen in one spot. As if there are only those two options! In fact, standing still—with presence—is a highly effective way to convey authority and leadership. This question of movement vs. stillness comes up often with clients. I blogged about it last in October, 2013. But since we now have shorter attention spans than goldfish, here is the updated and condensed version:

Have you ever wondered how some people can command the room when they speak, whether they are behind the podium, at an interview desk, or in front of a casual gathering? They have presence. They "own the room." There is a perception that such ability automatically descends upon those who attain positions of power. Au contraire;there are many who should have presence but don't (this is my current favorite example, so wonderfully awful I hope you will overlook the fact that it's not from a live event). 

The fact is that presence comes from being physically at ease, centered, still. No fidgets, no wiggles, no shifting. No pushing the message at people, but rather, drawing them in. Those who possess presence are not still as in "stiff;" they are still as in "grounded." It's a simple concept, but a hard one to master. 

As an actor, I rely on breathing and posture exercises—similar to yoga—to attain "centeredness." It takes some time to undo years of self-consciousness and self-criticism. And it takes trust that when you are put to the test, your body will remember how to keep the wiggles out and the stillness in. You are not aiming for statue-like immobility. Far from it! You are seeking to actively manage a potentially terrifying situation. Your body needs to have practiced this inner calm so it can kick in and mitigate your natural fight or flight instinct. 

The hardest part comes at the beginning of your speech. This is normal because speaking is, after all, a physical activity. But the activity of speaking has to do with breathing and vocal production, not shuffling feet, wiggling shoulders, shifting weight from one hip to the other or aimlessly gesticulating. These all signal the opposite of what you might think ("Look at how comfortable I am!"). They signal that you want to run, or hide, and are not at ease enough to stand still, to be open and vulnerable.

Master the presence of the leader's stance. Be still in a room full of noise and movement and you will command attention, even before you say a word.

photo: still waters at QianHai, Beijing

Respect the ice

How many times have you been in a group of people you kinda sorta know and you hear "ice-breaker!"? I am sure many of you, like me, feel a sinking feeling when you hear this phrase. "Great! Ten minutes wasted on glorified chit-chat. Why don't we all just take a break and gather 'round the coffee urn? It would be as productive." 

The fact is, ice-breakers can help people in a room coalesce into a team. That is, if the ice-breaker is well-thought out and properly designed. But too many meeting leaders just use it as a way to "creativity" start an otherwise boring, by-the-books meeting.

A good ice-breaker is aimed at a specific group, which is meeting for a specific purpose, with a specific goal in mind. Once the ice is broken, the meeting that follows purposefully leverages whatever connections have been made. But all too often the ice-breaker is a "check the box" exercise. And just as often, it fails.

Reccently I have experienced examples of ice-breakers that had the potential to horribly backfire. In the first instance the assumptions built into the ice-breaking questions came from a place of privilege. If you can be sure everyone in the room has an answer to the question "where will you summer this year?" it might be OK to ask. (BTW, this is only slightly more over-the-top than what I heard recently.) But an ice-breaker is used when you do not know people that well. And if even one person in the group doesn't understand, or does not have an answer, you are defeating the purpose: to foster connectivity, communication, and find things you have in common. Instead, you have made someone feel "other," quite possibly inferior, and definitely separate.

Gender, cultural and geographical differences can also play into the destructive potential of ice-breakers. Chatting with co-workers in the break room about sports can lead to informal bonding, but asking the assembled group to start by naming their favorite sports team can be disastrous--for any number of reasons: not all women (or men for that matter) follow sports; American sports are vastly different from sports worldwide; NFL fans will assert the superiority of their league; and God help you if you have Yankees fans and fans of any other team! You see how easily an ice-breaker can lead to a conference-room brawl? 

Of course I exaggerate. Most people, in these situations, will exercise proper professional decorum. And while you may never know that your senior manager feels like a poor relation because she doesn't "summer on the Vineyard," or that your new hire just had his feelings of being an outsider reinforced, you have cast a chill on their participation just the same. Which is the opposite of your intention when you try to break the ice. 

When funny isn't

It's an old story: "comedian misses target, shoots self in foot." We expect that when amateur comedians, and even professionals, are trying out new material in a comedy club. But when they are acting as MC for an awards luncheon, the job is somewhat different; they need to walk a finer line. I am sure they know this, intellectually. But they cannot resist. So it shouldn't surprise me when something like this happens. Vanessa Bayer was tasked with providing an opening monologue, so I guess we could cut her some slack for thinking she was the entertainment. But her real job was to honor six women at Variety's Power of Women luncheon. So even if she was going to throw in a joke, she should have made darn sure it wasn't going to be one that would denigrate a woman, especially the mother of one of the honorees. But her friends who saw her rehearse her monologue probably told Vanessa it was "edgy" and "cool," and so she went with it. And bombed. 

I understand this is an occupational hazard for comedians. Sometimes the jokes just don't work. Even for the pros! So why do non-professionals insist on sticking random jokes in their speeches? Just last week I had to lay out my argument for excising a joke from a client's speech. As you can tell from the date of this blog post I have been singing this tune for years now. But the problem seems to be getting worse, not better. These days, with increasing pressure to include "tweetable moments" in every public appearance, speakers are trying to up their game and social media profiles by including a few "zingers" and "one-liners." My advice: don't!  You can make straightforward statements of belief, share compelling snapshots of your vision, and/or dazzle us with the facts in ways that resonate well enough to be tweetable. But leave the comedy to the professionals! If even SNL stars can't get it right all the time, realistically, what hope do you have?

It starts with structure

I finally got to see Hamilton on Broadway late last month and it was as amazing as everyone says! Since I am both a history buff and a theatre person, I was pretty sure I was going to love it. The music and story are familiar to me by now, but what really impressed me was the staging, choreography, and very specific use of space. The choices a director makes regarding the set, and how the actors move through the space defined by that set, reveal volumes about his plan to bring words and notes to life.

I also marveled at how the show's creator, Lin-Manuel Miranda, shaped the script. I have read the Ron Chernow biography, and I have written a few plays myself based on history and biography. So I am always intrigued to see how other dramatists pick and choose which part of a true story to tell, how to minimize the need for "artistic license" while condensing a life or part of a life into two hours and change. I settled into my seat at the Richard Rogers Theatre that night with a few questions about the structure of Hamilton. But they were all answered when I saw the play. The choices Miranda made worked perfectly in the fully-realized production. Any holes I perceived were due to my partial experience of listening, not seeing.

I bring my playwrights' perspective of structure to my work with speaking clients. When crafting speeches we often run up against the same issues a playwright does: where to focus our story, which parts to tell, and how to structure the telling so the story is fully revealed. Often this means making decisions that are as painful for my clients as cutting a favorite character is for me. Or eliminating the third Cabinet Battle must have been for Lin-Manuel. But we have to be selective. We have to hold back some of the things we want to share, otherwise we confuse the audience. If we give them too much information or lead them down a mental side street we can lose them before we get to the main point. And then we have set ourselves up for failure, because audiences stop listening when their enthusiasm and interest evaporate.

Some of my clients realize this, but many don't think issues of structure and right-sizing pertain to their material or occasion. They think getting to the point is all that matters. So they do some sort of vague intro at the beginning, tick off their main points (often with far too great a level of detail) and conclude with "any questions?" And they wonder why their audiences are not engaged!  

Take a tip from those of us writing plays whose source material covers decades, miles, and casts of thousands: find the essential story you want to tell and make sure everything you utter is a part of that story. Cut anything that is not (speakers, unlike playwrights, can save those bits for the Q & A). Your audience will stick with you. Because everyone always wants to know how it ends!

Second bananas and comic relief

Last month I shared my current theatrical activities with you. This month I am up to my eyeballs editing the galley proof of Becoming Calvin--tedious, but necessary. On the opposite end of the creative spectrum, I was thrilled beyond words last Monday to share the magic as my incredibly gifted actors (pictured here) brought A Very Present Presence to life.

So I have been laser-focused on the details of language, immersed in what language reveals about character. The degree to which someone speaks in an organized fashion, for example, conveys much about their mental state. One way to show that a character is a bit addled, whether by habit or circumstance, is to depict him as engaging the mouth before engaging the brain. Or speaking in sentence fragments, or in a repetitive rhythm that alights again and again on certain words like a mantra or verbal talisman. As a writer, I use these characters sparingly, because they never actually say anything; they think the act of just making noise is enough. And so they don't further the plot, or generally underscore the theme. They provide comic relief, and are usually put onstage to interact with the protagonist, to reveal something about her character, something she, in turn, can act upon.

That is one reason I find listening to our current President so unsettling. I am not used to seeing the comic supporting characters take center stage! And there is good reason for that: they are not the ones who have anything of consequence to say or do. Putting these second bananas in the spotlight subverts the whole structure. Which can be the point, I suppose. If you are a brilliant playwright like Tom Stoppard, you can turn two minor characters into leads in Rozencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead and use that device as a springboard to meditate on truth, art, and reality.

Maybe that is what people love about Donald Trump. That subverting of existing structure. That vision of someone "just like me" up on a pedestal: "he's no leading man but he is our leader!" Regardless of how they feel about his policy, anyone who cares about professional standards agrees he does not sound like a leader. Even in last Tuesday's scripted speech, read off of a teleprompter, he could not let go of his need to extemporaneously improve the prepared text. As the odious reference to the length of the standing ovation for Carryn Owens proved, he cannot discipline his discourse.

I find fault with this, but wonder if that is part of his attraction--his lack of coherent communication. That much praised "telling it like it is" won over 28% of the nation's eligible voters in November. Even though he is now The Winner, he still speaks like someone put onstage for laughs. We doubt his intent, because his muddled communication style ensures we never really know what he is saying. Which suits him just fine! It also allows him considerable leeway. He can say, as he did while campaigning in Iowa, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," and most of the public thinks that is comic exaggeration. But is it? Many of his supporters say he doesn't really mean everything that comes out of his mouth ("you should take him seriously but not literally.") Others believe every word, and are now gleefully celebrating his actions by saying "he's doing just what he said he would!"

If you squint, you might be able to see this as a brilliant strategy. If a speaker does not look or sound like a leader, we will never expect thoughtful leadership from him. Playing the second banana gives him latitude to say and do whatever he wants. But unlike a play, where such a character's actions and words cannot do much to derail the plot, this is real life! So his mode of communication, far from being the useful smokescreen supporters want it to be, is actually extremely unethical. And highly dangerous. It also seems oddly familiar to me, like I have read this play before. Actually I think I have written this play before...in a very early draft! When a supporting character takes a detour that threatens to lose the entire cast in the wilderness, you see the red flag. That means cut, edit, rewrite. Get that character offstage if you have to, and by all means never give him the lead in a scene.

What is the real-life equivalent, I wonder?

Communing as community

Welcome sign at our launch partyThis month I've been busy helping launch Pipeline Playwrights, a new theatre company that three playwright friends and I have started. I am also getting my third-to-latest play, Becoming Calvin, ready for publication, and planning for a staged reading of my newest comedy, A Very Present Presence. Spending time in the theatre, with its practical problem-solving and newly-created imaginary worlds, has been a welcome respite from current events. And I wonder if we were somehow prescient in the summer when we crafted Pipeline Playwright's mission statement: "Our goal is to communicate individual truths that transcend the separate self and bind us together in community." This concept of community has since become, for many of us, a crucial component of moving forward and getting on with life.

Community is the essence of theatre. Yet writing a play, like writing a speech, is a solitary act. In both cases the what of the writing is your vision or message. But why, exactly are you writing? Because you need, on some level, to get thoughts out of your head and offer them up for others to see, hear, share. So far, so good. But once written, how does your message reach your audience? Working as a director I know that actors best convey the playwright's intention through action. And the same holds true when you speak: you need to find the action. That may sound a bit daunting, but it shouldn't be, because speaking is, by its very nature, a physical activity! Think about it: whenever you stand up (or sit down) to speak publicly, you engage your body in getting your message out there. You're like the actor who gets the playwright's message across by acting--not in the sense of "pretending," but "engaging in action."

Making these connections is why I love working as a Communications Artist! It allows me to help my clients put community into every communication.

Speaking privately in public

With some reluctance I listened to Donald Trump's inaugural address last week. His speaking style has been like fingernails-on-a-blackboard to me since he began campaigning. But as a speaking coach, I knew I had to. So I livestreamed the speech on PBS last Friday, hoping to gain some insight into why his communication style has resonated with so many people. This speech was a bit more formal than his usual, but it still had elements of his trademark manner. I was reminded why he is such a gift to comedians, with confusing syntax, simplistic vocabulary, and overall crassness. There is nothing at all leader-like about the way he presents himself.

And yet I know that is what his voters say they responded to during the campaign: his complete and utter upending of The Rules, which extends to grammar, it seems. But I still was not sure what exactly it was about his speaking style that won them over.

Then it dawned on me. He speaks publicly but does not engage in public speaking. He is very much in private speech mode. And he's not alone is using private speech in a public place; it's an easy trap to fall into. We all know, of course, that when you're speaking at a podium it's public speech, but so is the meeting in the board room. Even most of what you engage in at the worksplace, though it may be informal, is still public if you don't know your conversation partners extremely (I-can-trust-you-not-to-tell-anyone) well. Public speech tends to rely as much on transactional as relational speech. For example, you develop relationships with co-workers to get things done. In private speech, relationship is paramount; transactions are often absent. It is the act of connecting that gives the conversation meaning. Subtext is all in private speech. So when we know people well and have bonds of trust with them, we can be sloppy in our word choice, not finish sentences, say "you know what I mean"--and trust that they probably do! With intimacy we assume an understanding.

That is what Donald Trump's speech conveys. (John McWhorter shares a similar conculsion in his op-ed in the New York Times.) Though Trump is not personally close to his audience, his mode of speech implies intimacy to them. He uses pseudo-private speech (which his supporters call "authenticity") as his mode of delivery. It does nothing for me; I find the casual tone, lack of preparation and general thoughtless disrespectful in the extreme. BUT I can see how it might appeal to others who identify as the "forgotten people." Thinking the leader of our nation sees you as one of his buds must be very empowering.

When most of us use private speech, talking to those we know well, there is opportunity to clarify misunderstandings. And when friends say things we don't always agree with, we know them well enough to judge what they really believe and will act upon. If we're unsure, we ask. That will never be possible with Donald Trump. We will never know what he truly believes. His "just plain talk" approach worked to get him elected, yes. But one of these days those who voted for him will find out that his "honest authneticity" was just a trick conveyed by his undisciplined speaking style. When they realize they never really knew him, that he was the friend who got all the benefits, I would guess that many of them will see his "relatability" as a huge con.

Only connect

It's a new year and I am getting lots of calls from folks who have resolved to improve their public speaking. My callers have a variety of needs: conferences to present for, remarks to make, pitches to deliver. If you have any of these coming up you may be doing this right now: writing a draft, right-sizing it to give your audience just enough (but not too much) info. Then you'll shape it using the classic beginning-middle-end narrative structure. You'll remember to use story effectively both as a framing device and for specific examples. And when you finish you'll be all set, right?

Well, no. Mastering your content is only half of it. Communicating your message depends as much, if not more, on your delivery. Time and again I have seen people who fail because they can't connect with their listeners. It's not just picking the right words and arranging them the right way that makes such connection possible. After all, you're not submitting a memo or a report. You're communicating through speech so you and your listeners can connect directly. You need to own what you are saying. And feel compelled to communicate it. Only then can others feel your enthusiasm, disappointment, or whatever underlying human emotion has led you to engage in this inherently scary act of public speaking.

I know, I know. I've heard it, too: it's best to "speak from the heart" (i.e. without a prepared text). That way you naturally connect with your audience. WRONG! When speakers neglect preparation to avoid sounding "scripted" they end up with a mess of underdeveloped points and random anecdotes, just wasting the listeners' time.

The truth is, to be a great speaker you need clear, powerful content and emotionally resonant delivery. It takes time to work on both parts of effective messaging, but what's the alternative? Being "fine" (a.k.a. boring and instantly forgettable)? Not getting your message across clearly? Feeling terrified because you can't call up those reserves of "passion" you were depending on, and find yourself staring in horror at three bullet points as your only lifeline? That's what makes people fear public speaking more than death itself.

You can do better. Here's hoping 2017 will be the year you start making those crucial communications connections!

A holiday wish list

If I were able to give gifts to each of you, you'd find these under your tree (or wherever you find your holiday surprises): wishes to help you all become terrific speakers in 2017.

I wish for you:

• cooperative contacts (or research assistants) who will give you specific details about your audience: who are they? why do they want/need to hear from you? why do they want to hear it now?

• mental space to fully prepare what you are going to say prior to the day before you have to say it.

• an internal outlining and right-sizing alert system so you will sense when you are going on too long, getting off track, or giving more information than your audience can digest.

• the knowledge that classic story-telling models are best, because audiences can follow a narrative structure: Beginning (introduction and scene-setting); Middle (three to four--NO MORE--points); End (wrap up and conclusion).

• awareness of the physicality of the act of speaking to keep you from getting stuck in your mental cul-de-sac where that nagging negative voice lives.

• realization that it's about the message, not about you, freeing you from obsessing over your hair, shoes, or whatever your Achilles' heel is.

If you get even a couple of these in your stocking, your performance as a speaker will improve immensely . . . and soon, too. If you don't, you can always give me a call. I'll probably have something left in my gift closet!

Thanksgiving in the aftermath

Thanksgiving--a day of food, family and fellowship. It offers us, just before the Holiday Crazies begin, a glorious day to kick back, relax, and count our blessings. In the past, I have reflected in this space on what I am personally thankful for. My list covers a lot of ground, from supportive friends and family to the brilliant comic Sarah Silverman.

This year, however, I offer a different message to those of you venturing outside your comfort zone, taking that real (or metaphorical) journey over the river and through the woods. We have all been bruised by the grueling election season and its immediate aftermath. So as our national holiday approaches, we would do well to look around and ask how we can put ourselves, our families and our communities back together. Let's take a simple first step and listen, really listen, to one another. Now don't get me wrong--I am not advocating acquiescence or amnesia. But I am suggesting it might be best to wait until after the pie is served to point out Aunt Tammy's rhetoric of racism, Cousin Fred's sexism, or neighbor Abigail's elitism. Because we do need to root out language that excludes and divides. At the same time, it is important to find common ground with those who have different perspectives. We must do that if we want to continue The American Experiment we celebrate at Thanksgiving. So I propose that as we mash the potatoes, sit down to the turkey, watch the parade, or enjoy the game, we actually try to listen to each other with open ears and open hearts. Because like the route to Grandmother's house, the road to real communication may be a long one, but it is never a one-way street.

Boxed In

Picture this: you're facing a room full of strangers, telling them about something you understand inside out, when suddenly you see blank looks on too many faces, and wonder if you started speaking a foreign language. Or, just after you have confidently delivered your speech, you find out from the questions asked that people did not get what you were saying, not one bit. Sound familiar? It happens to most of us somewhere along the line.

When we really know our stuff we run that risk even more. Which is why being an expert in your field does not necessarily mean you're the best person to speak about your topic. Remember those speeches you've heard from esteemed experts or cutting-edge innovators who lost you after "good morning?" As listeners, such an experience represents a lost opportunity for learning at best, and a complete waste of time at worst. Yet when the tables are turned and we are the ones speaking, how do we regard these speech fails? All too often we blame our audience for not being smart or attentive enough to cherish the pearls of wisdom we are throwing before them. That is the completely wrong approach.

Wherever you are speaking--a classroom, an auditorium, or a meeting room-- your primary objective is to connect. Always. The verb may vary: share, teach, elucidate--even, perhaps, persuade. But remember you cannot convince anyone of anything until you have made a deep, real connection first! And that means taking a step back. Getting out of the weeds. You may be immersed in your topic and quite excited about what you have to share, but unless you are speaking a language your audience understands you won't connect.

We are facing some pretty huge problems these days, many of them compounded by the fact that not only do people not understand, they have given up trying to understand. The big, complicated concepts that drive science, economics, and politics shaping our daily lives will certainly affect the future of our communities, our country, and our planet. But many don't have the interest or desire to begin to understand them. There are many reasons for this, but one thing I have seen over and over is the inability of experts to effectively explain these concepts to non-experts. If people don't understand the larger relationships between various forms of energy usage and climate change, for example, maybe it's because no one has taken time to explain it in way they understand. Life moves pretty fast these days (thanks, Ferris!) and if you don't make an effort to connect, people feel disrespected. Then it's Bye Felicia.

And there you are, one step closer to having your great solution to the world's problems shot down by ignorant funders, defeated by a misinformed electorate, or otherwise sabotaged by people you might see as "just plain dumb." But you have to take responsibility as a speaker. No one can read your mind, and if you need to connect the dots for them, that is what you do. Step outside yourself and see what might be complicated or hard to comprehend. Ask someone to help. Someone who is not an expert in the way you are. Then break it down. And practice. Putting a reminder in the notes section of your PowerPoint is not enough. You need to make a plan and "bake it into" your presentation. If you wait for Q & A at the end to gauge audience understanding, you run the risk of sending too many listeners to their happy place along the way. And that's not a risk any of us can afford.

So step outside of the box you've put yourself in. The one where you're comfortable talking to people who already understand what you mean. And try to connect with others out there in the wide, wide world.

Toxic weeds

As someone whose whole professional life has to do with words and what we communicate through them, underneath them, and in between them, I have had many thoughts "communication" in the final weeks of this presidential election. I qualify the term because communication theory posits a loop: speaker-message-listener-feedback-speaker, etc. What we have seen from Donald Trump has been like broadcasting--in its original 18th century usage, "seeds sown by scattering." Accusations, overstatements and generalizations are thrown to the winds, and, with nothing to tie them down to reality, these seeds of half-baked ideas float about until they land in some sort of soil. If it is not hospitable they wither and die, but if they find fertile soil, they take root and grow into toxic weeds that threaten to overrun anything near them. I have a weed like that in my backyard. It winds through my neighbors' fence into our space. We call it the "evil weed" And, like Donald, it always comes back no matter how often we try to yank it out. Because the roots are not something we control.

I have been thinking a lot about the depths to which our political discourse has fallen this cycle. Bullying tactics have become more and more normalized as we slog on toward November. They have reached a fever pitch in the past ten days, and I fear that our sense of what constitutes bullying and why it is so bad for us may be permanently warped. When Donald stands in front of the press and public and says with a straight face "It was just words. It didn't mean anything," it makes my blood boil. Of course words have meaning! I have blogged before about this facile excuse for bad behavior. Every word has an intention behind it (unless your brain has become disengaged from your mouth--which almost seems to be Trump's defense. But that can't be right. Who would vote for a candidate who doesn't think before he speaks. Oh. Maybe that is what they mean by "authenticity"?!?) And, contrary to what his campaign tells us, the concept that bullying is wrong has not just been rolled out this October to thwart Donald. In January 2104 I wrote about the need to see language as a tool that can easily be weaponized; at that time, even the NYPD recognized that fact.

Like so many people, I am weary of this election charade. The daily posturing, name-calling, hate-filled language coming from the Trump camp is something many of us have been working to eradicate for years. It is invading our space, like my backyard's evil weed, which I will keep pulling out and cutting back. And someday I will either weaken it so much that it can no longer thrive, or I will have to do something I have resisted thus far, and go ask the neighbors to help. They may not want to eradicate it (they seem to find it attractive), so we will compromise and work toward a mutually beneficial solution. That's what grown-ups in a civil society do.