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.

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 most 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 Dickinsons poem "I'm Nobody"

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!

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!

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

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 impromptu 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

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!

Talk less, smile more

If you, like me, have been captivated by the music of Hamilton, Lin-Manuel Miranda's Broadway hit that is breaking all kinds of records, I am sure you have been struck by the genius of Miranda's lyrics--the wit and social commentary he injects into the historic story. When I first heard self-described "trust-fund baby" Aaron Burr tell the scrappy immigrant Hamilton to "talk less, smile more," I had to laugh. Probably any woman hearing this lyric did as well. We have all heard it so many times, usually directed toward us, as it was to Hamilton, by a member of a privileged class who is objectifying us while trying to silence us. Burr claims he is giving this advice as a friendly warning to Hamilton; in Revolutionary America, saying the wrong thing at the wrong time could get you killed. But I am guessing Miranda uses this phrase at the beginning of their relationship to set up the somewhat ambivalent, ultimately fatal nature (spoiler alert!) of their long association.

Burr later uses this same phrase to describe his political strategy for wining people over without offering them much in the way of substance (and he succeeds: voters sing that he is the guy they would rather "have a beer with"). But when Hamilton's surrogate father George Washington tells him to "talk less," it is sound advice. The impetuous Hamilton has gotten himself into trouble by refusing to slow down and listen to others. Washington sees the need for Hamilton to master another skill: listening.

As a leader, Washington knew the truth about communication. It's always (at least) a two-way street. No matter how brilliant your ideas are, you cannot get your message across if you aren't willing to reach out and entertain a different viewpoint. You can't connect with people if they feel you are "talking at" them, rather than "speaking to" them.

I am not entirely sure that Alexander Hamilton learned this lesson. But as a communications coach, I believe there are many situations where talking less truly helps us make essential connections of community and communication. So, to honor our forefathers and the great American tradition of musical theatre, try it for your next big holiday gathering. You might learn more, enjoy more, connect more. And that will make you smile.


Alexander Hamilton by John Trumbull. Courtesy National Portrait Gallery

Venturing into the unknown

Recently I have been prepping clients for town hall-style meetings and live Q & A sessions--the type of event listed as "A conversation with the expert. . ." or "Talking to . . ." in conference programs. One of my clients said, "I want to control the conversation, even if I am being asked the questions." But he didn't want to pull that old politicians' trick of dodging the question and answering a different one instead. Right. That is never a good idea. It may seem, at the time, like an effective way to get your talking points out, but if someone is recording the exchange you will look like an idiot repeatedly, maybe even virally, ever after.

So how do you venture out into this uncharted territory? How can you ensure successful communication of your message when you are not in charge of the agenda, but responding to questions asked? It is preferable to discuss possible lines of inquiry with your moderator or interlocutor beforehand, but it's not always possible. Is there any way, short of practicing a Vulcan mind meld, to make sure your time in the spotlight offers you an opportunity to say what you need to say?

Yes. If you have done your preparation. Many people (thankfully not my clients) seem to think this is an unnecessary step. After all, you've been asked because you are the expert, so what's to prepare? You know your stuff, so you can just wing it, right? Wrong. Respect your audience. They want a little piece of your expertise, so put yourself in their shoes. Plan ahead. Plan to tell them what you find most exciting about your subject. Or discuss its timelier elements. If you can connect your subject to recent news events, so much the better. And be sure to have your best stories and examples polished and ready to be inserted into an answer early in the hour. It's not good to walk offstage and think "I really wanted to tell them about X--but it never came up." If you need to convey a particular point think of at least three ways you can weave it into answers for other likely questions.

And don't make the mistake of assuming every event of this nature will be your own personal love-fest. The moderator may think you are the best, but you could get push back from the audience. Be sure not to over-react. It is possible that the question you hear as a clear challenge to your authority may not have been meant that way at all. Since you are sitting in the speaker's "hot seat" your defensive ears could detect a menacing tone that simply isn't there. So prepare for the skeptics and always have an answer handy for the question you dread most. A real one, not a snarky aside.

Speakers often anticipate these sorts of town halls with apprehension, fearing an hour-long voyage into terra incognita. But if you take time beforehand, you can make sure you answer their questions while introducing some of your favorite talking points. And a good time will be had by all!

It's like talking to a mirror!

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

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

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

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

**************************************
Artwork:

Trees that Bring Wealth and Prosperity: Beauty 

Utagawa Hiroshige Utagawa Hiroshige

courtesy Arthur M. Sackler Gallery 

Playwrights' wisdom

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

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

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

Back into the frying-pan

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

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

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

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

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

What was that you said?

I saw a link to a funny story that I missed on NPR today about "eggcorns."  An "eggcorn", according to Merriam-Webster, is "a word or phrase that sounds like and is mistakenly used in a seemingly logical or plausible way for another word or phrase." The print version of the story lists some very funny "eggcorns." Look it over if you want a chuckle. If you live in North America I can guarantee you have heard many of these. My favorite was missing, though: window seal for window sill. I heard a friend say that a few years ago but I thought it just a regional vowel substitution. Then I saw it written in lesson plans when I was substitute teaching later that spring. One of the assignments could be found, the teacher wrote, in a book on the window seal. Since this was a 6th grade English classroom with a few stuffed animals as well as books on the window sill, I hunted for a stuffed seal, hoping to find the book in question there! No seal, but I found the book--on the sill.

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

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

Batter up!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rules? What rules?

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, making people present without the notes they need is just cruel. And counter-productive. I know of few surer ways to undermine a colleague's confidence than to imply she does not "know her stuff" if she needs more than a few bullet points. We each build our speeches in different ways. Some of us rely on specific word choices more than others. So if you are a bullet-point person, do not assume that your way is the only way. Most formal, high visibility speeches are delivered as written because every word counts. Many speakers feel that way about even casual public speaking occasions. Reading a speech without making eye contact, of course, should never be encouraged. But I, for one, would rather hear a well-thought-out speech read than watch someone hunt for phrases and fill the air with jargon and non sequiturs. 

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

Why TSA can't "read"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When the clock is ticking

"Time Totem" by Peter Pierobon

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

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

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

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