Ginger vs. Sheryl

As regular readers of this blog know, clients comes to me to develop their own authentic leadership presence. They come from various management and executive positions, and I have several who are running for elected office. Since these particular clients have all been women so far, I am always on the lookout for information that deals with how women win elections. Some terrific new research from the Barbara Lee Family Foundation shows that when women run, the perceptions of "qualification" and "likeability" are inextricably linked.

She's qualified. But is she likeable?

Interesting, when you think about it. We'll vote for a man if we think he is qualified, even if we don't really like him. But a woman . . . ? Voters want the reassurance that she will be approachable and "like us." Because she needs to be even better than the man to win our vote. Like Ginger Rogers, who did everything Fred Astaire did, backwards -- and in heels!

It is difficult, however, to project the authority, expertise, vision, and character needed to be a leader, while keeping a foot in the "likeability" camp. Some people just seem more "likeable" than others, due to accidents of physiognomy or physical stature. Hillary Clinton, who has the traditional round cheeks associated with a "friendly" face, had to work so hard to prove her qualifications when she ran for President in 2008 that she was deemed only  "likeable enough" by then-Senator Obama in a debate!

There is lots of good commentary out there about Sheryl Sandberg's Lean In, so I won't add my two cents. I haven't read it yet (though that has not stopped others from passing judgement), but I have read many other books on women's leadership. And it seems that in arenas other than elected office, experts are telling women that they need to seize more authority. Act more like leaders, less like peers. Run the risk of being "not liked" to get to the top. Very different advice.

So--what's a woman to do? There are general trends, but no hard and fast rules. Because when it comes to leadership there are many variables, aside from what you see on a resume: position sought (elected vs. corporate), gender (it will be fascinating to see what transgender leaders will bring to the mix), physical package (tall women have a whole different set of issues than short men). 

It is good to read the books and look at the research; they give you the knowledge to formulate some ideas of how you will climb the leadership mountain. Then look for someone to help you: a professional guide for your particular journey toward authentic leadership. It's a jungle out there. Don't go it alone!

Extro-intro-ambi, or the truth about 'verts

The talented and self-effacing Ang Lee

Most of the really good actors I know do not have large egos, nor are they super-outgoing or showy. In other words, they are not full-blown extroverts. They are more likely to be introverts, or "situational" extroverts. But they are not motivated by shyness or fear; they do not dedicate themselves to acting so they can "lose themselves" or "hide" behind their roles. Rather, they are gifted people whom life has taught to be good listeners, as well as close observers who can follow others' social cues. These actors combine heightened awareness of the world around them with courage, fearlessness, and a rejection of "playing it safe." So they probably fall somewhere in between extroversion and introversion. They are ambiverts.

Great directors are this way, too. I was in grad school with Ang Lee, who is famous for making tremendously ambitious films (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon; Brokeback Mountain; Life of Pi, to name a few). He is also known for relying upon a strong work ethic to execute his keen artistic vision, all while being quietly, yet unfailingly, generous to his cast and crew. He remains, as he was at the University of Illinois, the guiding light who is willing to let others star in his show.

Writer and thought-leader Daniel Pink wrote a column for the Washington Post in late January about these best-of-both world people, these ambiverts. He wasn't talking about actors, or directors, but leaders. I found his logic for upending the conventional wisdom (the best leader is a people-person, is larger-than-life, etc.) compelling, so I thought I would share it with you:

"When we choose leaders. . . we're understandably drawn to the gregarious, friendly types with their comfortable patter and ready smiles. But are they really the best? We'd be far better off with those who take a more calibrated approach - who can talk smoothly but also listen keenly, who know when to turn on the charm but also when to turn it off, who combine the extrovert's assertiveness with the introvert's quiet confidence."

Something to think about next time we select new leaders, or set our  sights on new leadership positions for ourselves!

We can be the way we were

Kevin Winter/Getty Images

It was thrilling to hear Shirley Bassey and Barbra Streisand sing at last night's Oscar ceremony! Those brilliant performances contrasted sharply with the rest of the show,  which often lapsed into sophomoric tastelessness (see this review at The New Yorker online).

And it was pretty exciting to see someone I actually knew (way back when) take home an Oscar. Ang Lee and I overlapped in the Theatre Department at the University of Illinois where he was dong an M.A. in theatre and I was a first year M.F.A. student. It was good to see such a talented, genuinely nice guy win!

But the highpoint for me was the wonderful singing by those two veterans who obviously did it for love of their community -- because neither of them needs to self-promote. Shirley Bassey is Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire, and Barbra Streisand is, well... Barbra Streisand!

And they sounded so good. Two more examples of how the voice can stay healthy and strong for a lifetime. As I tell my clients, your voice does not have to age if you take care of it. And experts back me up on this. What we often perceive as the inevitable "sounding old" may be a reflection of other poor health habits or overall illness. Voices can stay strong if we do not abuse them and continue to exercise them to maintain strength and flexibility.

Now I can't promise that when you turn 70 you will croon like Babs, or be able to belt like Shirley at 74. But if you support your voice now, exercise it and keep it "in shape" you should sound "mahvelous" for a lifetime! (And can we please have Billy Crystal back to host the Oscars?)

Can you hear me now?

I had to laugh when I heard the title of Katherine Bouton's new book, Shouting Won't Help: Why I -- and 50 Million Other Americans-- Can't Hear You.  It reminded me of that classic joke: Q: How do you sell a deaf guy a duck? A: (Yelling) WANNA BUY A DUCK?  But joking aside, it sounds like Bouton's book gives lots of information we will need as more and more of us develop auditory deficits. These days hearing loss occurs early and often, due to factors ranging from extreme environmental noise to personal sound systems that live in our ears.

So how do we communicate when we can't hear -- or understand -- one another? Many of us do not regularly interact with members of the deaf community. But we do try (and often fail) to communicate with people who cannot "hear" us. Volume isn't the only problem. Some people try the ineffective shouting technique with those who don't speak their language as well as those whose ability to hear is limited. Or speakers just repeat what they have said, thinking that eventually they will be understood. I can see why you might do this once -- if there's a chance your listener did not understand because you were mumbling, or the phone connection deteriorated, etc. But repeating the same phrases over and over again (especially in response to an "I don't understand" from your listener) does not further communications.

I had a week of such dead-ended exchanges with "customer service" representatives of my insurance company, as well as "support" departmenets of various companies I have been dealing with regarding all things internet. Some of these folks were responding to me via the ironically named "chat" line where the repetition of written instructions, in response to specific questions of mine, was maddening. Did they just press "copy+paste" each time I posed a new query? My current webhost, on the other hand, is very good at reading my questions and responding. They seem to have been taught the "tricks of the trade." They respond as if they consulted a communications professional.  They engage in best practices to ensure clear communication with their less techno-savvy clients: listen to the question, think about it in your terms, do a quick mental translation, then rephrase the question in language you think the questioner will understand, and ask "is that is what you mean?"

Let's face it, we all interact with people who use words and phrases differently. Each profession has its code, jargon, or just a way of describing things that is particular to that group. Families have buzz-words that non-family members do not understand. Different generations certainly speak different languages. And yet, how often do we assume that just because members of a certain group all grew up speaking English they "naturally" understand each another.

So don't be like the man selling the duck! Put on your thinking cap and make yourself understood.

The "boredom" trap

I was teaching my beginning acting class last week and I was surprised by an answer of "boredom" to the question: in your daily life, what most gets in the way of your concentration and focus? Usually when I ask students this the first answer offered is "distraction." When we tease that out, we discover that the listener can find ways to block out distractions, or put them on the back-burner in order to focus on the matter at hand. But naming "boredom" as a reason is shifting the burden from us ("I need to try to make some connections so I can concentrate") to others ("if the speaker is boring I lose interest.")

It is true that as an acting teacher and a speaker-trainer, I tell my students and clients they must Never Be Boring. Giving listeners even half a chance to be bored can block effective communication. And so it is up to actors and speakers to make sure it never happens. But I also know that the excuse of being bored is one that comes too easily to many folks who expect to be constantly entertained and stimulated. As I used to say to my kids (and as my mother said to me), "You can't be bored; find something to do." Or as I told my acting students. "if you're bored, that's on you." And I am in good company: I heard legendary jazz musician Wayne Shorter say this in an NPR interview over the  weekend: "When you say something's boring, that means you haven't even scratched the surface of something. And boring is a trademark of being arrogant and complacent."

Onstage, you can never be bored! To successfully portray a character you need to think like that character. Get inside her skin. And go even further - be aware of even his subconscious thoughts. You do this by surrendering your immediate (actor) needs to the character's needs. And for that, you need to be able to identify the character's objective (what she wants) and how she fulfills it (what she does to get what she wants). It's not about you, you see. You are embodying the character, and playwrights never create bored characters (boredom may be a secondary emotional state but it's never a primary one).

But we know sometimes we lose sight even of our own objectives, so isn't it that much more challenging to stay on track with the objectives of a fictional construct? Yes. That is why you need to constantly find something to engage in: a memory, a smell, a reaction to another character.

Mothers are right. Don't fall into the trap of lazy excuses; find something to do (and mentally exercising definitely qualifies).  That's a lesson for anyone who wants to be an effective communicator - onstage at a theatre or on the stage of Life! 

Life lessons from the swim meet

Our new Aquatics Center, opening fall 2013. WKArchitect sketch, www.apsva.com

 

I was timing for my son's high school District Swim meet on Saturday. Day One had been cancelled due to "inclement weather" on Friday and so everything was rolled into a super-sized meet on Day Two. Unlike regular season meets, swimmers for all eight teams were competing; there were hundreds! The scene inside the pool could have been described as controlled chaos. Certainly anyone susceptible to sensory overload would not have lasted very long. The space was filled with humid heat and glaring light, echoing with voices, music, loud whistles, cheers. I was timing, and as evening turned into night, I really needed to concentrate on what I was doing. I needed to prompt myself to be "in the moment" on more than one occasion (especially during eight heats of the 500-yard race!) But the young athletes competing displayed an extraordinary amount of focus. I know some of my son's teammates well, and they all surprised me with their ability to shut out all distractions and  

I am sure if you culled my blogs over these many months you would find a few on the importance of focus. We all know focus is something we should have pretty much any time we try to accomplish anything. Certainly it is a tool we should pull out of our toolkit whenever we need to communicate effectively, or otherwise get someone to "go along" with our thought processes. For how can we expect anyone to follow our logic or listen to our message if we ourselves are unfocused, unclear?

We know this, but often put ourselves in situations where -- in spite of the fact that focus is very much what we need -- we excuse ourselves because we "just can't." There are so many reasons: it is too late in the day, I haven't prepared, my glucose level is low, I didn't sleep well, this room isn't right, I don't really like the person I'm talking to, I do really like the person I'm talking to, and on and on...

In acting we need to focus, too. When I ask my beginning students why, they most often answer: you need focus so you remember the lines. That is not it at all. The goal of acting is to create onstage the reality the playwright has given you. You can only do that by focusing: on the character, on her needs, and on the actions she takes to satisfy those needs. And perhaps this is where acting, like swimming, differs from what we spend the rest of our time doing, in what we think of as real life. In acting, in musical performance, in dance, as in sports, the actions themselves are what you are doing. In life we forget. Actions do speak louder than words, but most of us get caught up in the talking and thinking and forget the doing.

A good tip for effective communications: next time you need to get an idea across, or connect with someone on a deeper level, ask yourself "what am I doing?" before you speak. Make an action plan. And then breathe, dive in, and do it.

Inaugurally speaking: "to us" vs. "at us"

Waiting for the Inaugural Parade

There's nothing like being in the Nation's Capital during Inauguration Weekend! Though the excitement was not as palpable as it was four years ago, there was enough of a buzz in the air to put us in a holiday mood. I attended the Virginia Inaugural Ball on Sunday, and celebrated Inauguration Day at the Canadian Embassy's "tailgate" and parade-viewing party. I thoroughly enjoyed myself. However, as your faithful blogger on all things communications-related, I could not let my professional hat slip off for too long. And so, here are some observations from this weekend:

Practice really does make perfect. Or nearly so. You know the Inauguration Ceremony itself was scripted down to the minutest detail. There was a run-through a week before with stand-ins for all the principals. In 2009 my children & I watched the sound and light check two days before The Big Day. We heard Yo-Yo Ma and Itzhak Perlman play, making the recording they later used during the frigid Inauguration. And this year, I would bet the singers and other participants "worked in the space" prior to yesterday's celebration, even if they did most of their rehearsal elsewhere. The singers came with knowledge of how to best use their microphones, but the speakers were also coached. The President, who has spoken here before, did a masterful job with his delivery. He hit just the right tones. His speech exhorted, encouraged, celebrated. He was speaking "to us" but he was also "of us." Myrlie Evers-Williams delivered a stirring Invocation that was a fantastic example of delivering a text that is more delicate, at once more personal and universal. Watch her. She is strong in her prayerfulness. She includes us in her circle of communication, and that is hard to do with such a huge live audience. Her focus draws us all in. We are communing with her. Even at the Embassy, there was a collectively breathed "amen" when she finished.

By contrast, most of the featured speakers at Sunday's Ball pushed the audience away with their aggressive energy. They were speaking "at us."  I felt I was at a late-stage outdoor campaign rally with people who didn't know/didn't trust how microphones work. I know it is hard to resist the temptation to shout over the crowd when you feel they should be listening to you. But the ones who wanted to listen listened while others partied. Shouting into a microphone does not make you louder; it does not command attention. It actually makes your tone more strident, harder to listen to, and thus, turns people off. Your sound engineer will try to compensate to help you. Really, if you had trusted that expert to do her/his job, you would have sounded better and found a more receptive audience. Practicing in the space would have helped. But I know these speakers have been in spaces like this before and they still don't seem to get that no one likes to be shouted at. Even your fans don't like it! (did you learn nothing from Howard Dean?)

The exception was my friend Charniele Herring, who was gracious and classy and most certainly was heard.  The guys need to take a page from her playbook. Maybe they will, now that she is Chair of the Democratic Party of Virginia!