Life After PowerPoint!

I think a rant is a great type of a speech, when done properly. It takes a strong point of view — in this case against two misuses of the English language (“I could care less” and “holding down the fort”) — and pounds it home with intelligence and wit.

Do you know any examples of rants worth sharing?

George Torok, an executive speech coach out of Ontario, has a great post on “Speaking Without Notes.” (His blog is always worth reading.)

He gives three suggestions for eliminating or cutting down on the notes you rely on while speaking:

1. Key Word Notes: After you’ve outlined your speech and rehearsed it, distill it down to a few — no more than six or seven — key words or short phrases. Write out the words on a single piece of paper (just one side) or on a note card.
2. Questions: Create your speech as if you’re answering a succession of questions. Imagine the audience asking the first question, which you’re then happy to answer. Your answer naturally leads them to ask another question, which you answer. And so on. (I love this technique.)
3. Props: Use a prop for each main point. The prop is your cue. As you pick it up or demonstrate it, you’ll remember what you want to say.

Here’s an example from a Toastmasters speech contest, which I found on Ian Griffin’s blog, of a great use of a prop:

I’ve already written here about the misinterpretation of a study done by Mehrabian, which would have you believe that the words you speak account for only 7% of what people understand. (The other 93% is conveyed, supposedly, by your tone of voice and body language.)

Olivia Mitchell has done a great job here examining the original research and how people have misinterpreted it.

The people at creativityworks.net have done a great little video doing much the same thing. Bravo. Its conclusion:

So let’s put words back where they belong: center stage. Words really matter. Let’s give them the respect they deserve.

What are we to think of Palin’s speech on Friday?

She announced she would not be seeking reelection as governor of Alaska in 2010. And then she announced that she was resigning in three weeks. (Read the text of her speech here.)

There are any number of ways of analyzing a speech. My three favorites (not in order of importance) are 1) delivery, 2) message, and 3) results.

1) Delivery

Delivery isn’t just a technique, a way of using your body and voice. It’s about projecting both your message (your ideas and your intentions) and your self (your character, personality, values, etc) as clearly, powerfully, and authentically as possible.

Diane DiResta is primarily addressing delivery when writes in a post “What Sarah Palin Can Teach Politicians”:

She didn’t read a teleprompter. She didn’t have a script. What she did do was speak from her heart. Whether you love her or hate her, the woman knows how to connect with an audience. She began by talking about her love for the people and state of Alaska. Her passion was genuine. She sustained eye contact as she spoke of both her accomplishments and challenges. Her language was straightforward and her message was clear as she shared her proud moments and her pain. There was no hesitation-just conviction. While some believe her premature resignation is career suicide, few doubt her ability to draw future crowds with her speaking ability. People find her candor and direct, folksy style a refreshing contrast to overly packaged politicians.

I think Diane is right when she comments on Palin’s ability to be herself and to connect with her audience. But I’d add a conditional phrase — as long as the audience likes her and shares her views.

I suspect that Palin will remain a polarizing figure. She is who she is. And you either like / love her or laugh at / belittle her. I don’t know what she could do to appeal to a wider audience and still be true to herself and what she believes.

2) Message

Most people who comment primarily on her message scratch their heads and say, “huh?” They generally describe her speech as incoherent.

I’ll confess that I have a hard time tracking her speech. What was her main point? Did she have a main point? What were her supporting, sub-points? Did she explain her ideas clearly? Did she offer evidence that substantiated her points? How did one point lead logically to another?

If coherent means marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts, I’d have to say her speech wasn’t coherent and was, therefore, incoherent.

But — stay with me here — incoherence isn’t always a bad thing. Or at least coherence isn’t always a good thing. A speech is more than a logically developed argument. It can be a medley: 1. a mixture, esp. of heterogeneous elements; 2. a piece of music combining tunes or passages from various sources.

A medley of, say, Broadway love songs or the Beatle’s hit tunes can be very appealing if you like the original tunes or passages.

I think Palin’s speech was a medley of her favorite themes, among which are: 1) small government is good; 2) the media is controlled by liberal elites; 3) “politics as usual” is a dirty word; 4) family, faith, and patriotism are good things. The themes aren’t particularly well integrated, but they hold together in their own way. If you like the themes — and how she plays/defines them — you probably liked her speech.

(I’m not, by the way, being patronizing when I call her speech a medley. I classify many motivational or inspiration speeches in the same way.)

3) Results

If you’ve been reading my blog (or if you’ve read my book), you know I’m a results-oriented person. I think a speech is effective (not necessarily good, but effective) if it achieves its goal.

By that standard I can’t judge Palin’s speech a success, because I have no idea what her goal was.

What did she want to accomplish?

1. Did she want people to pay attention to her and to discuss her speech, her motives, and her plans for the future? If so, she succeeded. (She even managed for one brief shining moment to draw the media’s attention away from all things Michael Jackson.)
2. Did she want to position herself as a Presidential candidate? I don’t know how her speech — this particular speech — would advance that objective. But I’ll leave that discussion to the political commentators.
3. Did she want to explain why she was resigning? That seems to have been her stated reason. But if so, she failed. No one knows for sure why she’s resigning at this time, which is one of the reasons so many people are speculating about her “real” reasons for resigning.

What do you think about her speech? Keep in mind that this isn’t a political blog, so please keep your comments focused as much as possible on her speech and how you evaluate it.

Simon Raybould of Curved Vision wrote a piece — “That’s Virgin’ on Being Bad Practice” – about the need to practice your speeches out loud. I wholeheartedly agree with what he writes. Here it is:

Virgin trains, in the UK, are having a big marketing kick on the TV at the moment. One of their adverts shows an apparently inept presenter writing his slides on the train and – at the same time – getting more and more ‘hyped’ so that by the time he arrives, he’s confident and ready to go.

Reasonable advert, I suppose….

…. but shockingly bad tactics as a presenter!

I’ve said it before and I’ll no doubt say it again – you need to rehearse your stuff out loud. There’s no way to know what’s going to work if you just ’say’ it in your head.

Firstly, there are combinations of words and sounds that it’s all too easy trip up over – though of course this will never happen in your head.

Secondly, it’s impossible to judge timing with things only happening in your head – and that makes it all too easy to miss-judge things.

Talking is a physical thing – you need physical practice. After all, you’d not practice playing tennis by just watching Wimbledon, would you…..?

I rehearse my talks as I walk through Balboa Park, a huge park near where I live in San Diego. (There are so many homeless people in the park that no one pays any attention to one more person talking to himself.) It’s not for everyone, mind you, but talking as I’m walking works for me. In addition to the reasons that Simon lists, I find that practicing out loud as I move around helps me commit my speech (mostly) to memory.

Do you practice out loud? What techniques do you use? Or what tips do you recommend?

Photo of Balboa Park courtesy of Payton Chung at Flickr.

You’ve undoubtedly heard it claimed that the meaning of your message is communicated by:

• Your words — 7%
• Your tone of voice — 38%
• Your body language — 55%.

Well, don’t believe it.

Olivia Mitchell at Speaking about Presenting always has interesting and insightful things to say about presenting. She’s done a masterful job this week describing the research (performed by Albert Mehrabian in the 1960′s) that gives rise to that claim.

She’s also examined how the research has been misinterpreted and misapplied ever since. I couldn’t do justice to what she has written by summing it up, so please read for yourself her original post (be sure to check out the comments) and her follow-up post.

Max Atkinson, whose blog is also always worth reading, addresses the same study and rebuts its most common misinterpretations. See his comments on “Body Language and Non-Verbal Communication.”

Bert Decker offers his analysis, which differs from what both Olivia and Max write (and from what I believe). But it’s well worth reading.

My previous post in which I questioned the effectiveness of videotaping people’s presentations drew quite a response — entirely from speech coaches and trainers.

To a person they all extolled the value of taping presentations on the condition that it was done properly. (Properly = the coach / trainer sets the right tone, creates a safe environment, and provides supportive criticism.)

They disagreed with my assertion that taping increases people’s nervousness. They said that, on the contrary, it boosts people’s confidence. People see (and hear) themselves and think “I’m not as bad as I thought.”

There’s no real agreement among them about whether taping people puts more emphasis on delivery than on content.

Most of them — okay, all of them — absolutely see value in videotaping.

Since so many of my peers think so highly of taping presentations — one of them can’t even imagine a speech coach not doing so — I decided to do some research.

I went on line in search of peer-reviewed articles, figuring that someone must have studied the questions I raised. And lo and behold I found — and read — quite a few pieces. (I’ve included the links to the articles and dissertations below, for your reading pleasure.)

All of the pieces come from academia. Academicians studied the use of videotaping in beginning-level college speech classes under a variety of conditions. (Those conditions did not, for the most part, match the conditions my peers consider essential.) The studies are dated. Some of them are at least 40 years old. And, as with most academic papers, the authors drew tentative conclusions and then immediately listed a number of qualifications.

All of the studies report that students who were videotaped increased their confidence, sometimes significantly — with two exceptions:

1. Beginning students who were taped at the start of the course tended not to become more confident, and
2. Students who were highly anxious about giving speeches tended not to become more confident. On the contrary, they tended to become more anxious and, as a result, to speak less well.

Most of the studies report that students who were videotaped improved their delivery.

The studies that examined other factors conclude that students who were videotaped did not significantly improve the content or intelligibility of their speeches.

Two studies report that students who were videotaped rated both their instructors and their classes more favorably than students who weren’t videotaped.

So I can understand why other coaches and trainers tape their clients. Doing so clearly helps most people become more confident and improve their delivery. With the right people and under the right conditions, videotaping is a valuable tool.

That’s not to say, mind you, that I’ll start videotaping my clients more frequently.

Over the years — decades, really — of teaching, professional speaking, and coaching, I’ve come up with a theoretical model, an approach, and a set of tools that I use. The entire package is idiosyncratic, mind you. It’s based on my experience, education, training, outlook, strengths, preferences, and personality. I’ve also developed a very specific client profile. My approach doesn’t enjoy universal acclaim, sadly, or work with everyone. But it helps the clients I attract achieve their goals.

Videotaping is one tool in my toolbox. It’s a tool I use only occasionally, but at times it is exactly the right tool.

Here are the links I promised:

Providing Feedback on Student Speeches: The Research on Effective Oral and Written Feedback Strategies

Effects of Videotape on Performance, Attendance, and Attitude in the Fundamentals of Speech Communication Course

Instructional and Extracurricular Use of Video-Tapes

The Effects of Videotaping on Student Performances in the Basic Communication Course

Communication Apprehension and the Use of Video-Tapes

Videotaping: Relationship between Communication Apprehension and Self-Concept

Effects of videotape on attendance and attitude in the fundamentals of speech communication course

A Comparative Study of Audio and Video Taping Techniques as Teaching Tools for Self Discovery in the Basic Speech Course

The impact of self-directed videotape feedback on students’ self-reported levels of communication competence and apprehension

An Experimental Study of the Relative Pedagogical Effectiveness of Videotape and Audiotape Playback of Student Speeches for Self-Analysis in a Basic Speech Course

Photo courtesy of deeners at Flickr.

2 Types of Clients Who Benefit from Being Taped

Sometimes I think I’m the only speech coach who has a bias against videoing clients. But there are two types of clients I do video and whom I think benefit from being taped.

First, there are the accomplished speakers who want to fine tune their delivery. They have already mastered skills and strategies that I consider more important than delivery. They are confidently and comfortably themselves in front of an audience. They connect with their audiences in a way that wins their trust. And they consistently have a powerful message — an idea that has the ability to change people’s lives, expressed in just the right words. Letting them see themselves in action — videoing them and reviewing it with them sometimes in slow motion or in fast forward –can help them get even better.

Second, there are speakers who think they don’t need to improve but do. You can’t watch a video of yourself giving a speech — even, or especially, if you think you’re a great speaker — without seeing your flaws. So when I work with clients who have been referred to me but who think they don’t need help, I video them and let them see themselves in action. (I’ve only had to do this twice in all my years of coaching, by the way.) On both occasions the person relented. I’d like to say they became willing clients, but all I can say is they became less resistant.

3 Reasons Not to Video a Presentation

1. Taping makes you more self-conscious / less confident.

Can you watch a video of yourself giving a speech and not cringe? I can’t. And neither can most of the people I work with. Listening to our own voice on tape is painful enough. (Our voices always sound higher and less resonant on a recording.) But seeing and hearing ourselves can be unnerving.

The most common response to watching ourselves on tape – the dominant takeaway – is a version of “I suck.” Am I really that fat? Look at the stupid expression on my face. What am I doing with my hands? Why am I rocking back and forth on my feet? I’ll never wear that outfit again. Can you believe how many times I say “You know”?

And this experience usually isn’t helped by the person or by the people reviewing the tape with you. Experienced coaches try their best to help you see what you’re doing well, not just the “things you might want to work on.” But if you’re like most people, you’ll only hear and remember – and brood over– the negative.

It only gets worse if you’re taped in a class or a training session and made to review the tape along with everyone else. Your fellow participants usually don’t focus (or comment) on your strengths. They tend to zero right in on what doesn’t work. They’re not trying to be critical or negative. They think they’re being helpful. But they’re confirming or intensifying your self-appraisal: You suck.

So here’s the problem. Becoming more self-conscious tends to make you less confident. And becoming less confident tends to make you a less effective speaker.

It’s my job as a speech coach to build your confidence – not to tear it down — by giving you the tools, skills, and mindset to make you a more effective speaker.

2. Taping emphasizes externals.

Looking at yourself on tape giving a presentation only lets you observe — and focus on — externals: How you look and move and sound. It doesn’t get to the heart of the matter: What you’re thinking and feeling and experiencing and wanting to accomplish.

But if you change what you’re doing on the outside without addressing what’s going on inside — what’s motivating or giving rise to your actions — any change you make is going to be, at best, temporary, and, at worst, artificial.

If you see yourself, for example, pinching your elbows to your sides while swinging your arms in and out (what I call “the flapping chicken”), you may work on not doing that. But doing so doesn’t address the deeper question. Why are you doing something in front of the audience that you don’t normally do? If you’re nervous, maybe you should focus on developing your confidence not on how you move your arms. Because when you’re at ease, you will tend to move more naturally. (Also, the more attention you give to a physical action, the less attention you’ll give to your audience or to your message.)

There’s usually a reason why you do what you’re doing. It may not be a great reason or a logical reason or a helpful reason, and you may not even be aware of what it is. But it’s your reason. And until you understand it and change it, you can’t change your actions. At least, not for the long haul.

3. Taping overvalues delivery.

OK, here’s where I part company with most speech coaches. I think delivery is one of the least important elements of a speech.

There are four elements of a great speech, according to Demosthenes: 1) the person of the speaker, 2) the event itself, 3) a compelling message, and 4) a masterful delivery.

Of course, delivery is important. Great ideas can wither and die because they’re poorly delivered. And stupid ideas get more attention than they deserve because they’re well delivered. So delivery is important. It’s just less important than other elements — elements that don’t get observed while reviewing a video.

Be authentically yourself and earn the right to speak through your experience, education, and character. Know and care about the audience — when and where and why they’re gathering and what they want from you. Craft and polish a message that is worthy of attention. If you do those things, I think your delivery will — for the most part — take care of itself.

Surely I’ve said enough to stir up some controversy. What do you think? I’m sure there are legitimate reasons to video a presentation and review it that I’ve overlooked. What are they? Are there other reasons not to video a presentation? Does delivery deserve more respect than I’m giving it?

Photo courtesy of thparkth at Flickr.

Olivia Mitchell always has something interesting, helpful, and insight to say in her blog — http://www.speakingaboutpresenting.com/blog/.

She often takes the same approach I do when it comes to coaching other speakers or, for that matter when it comes to my own speaking. Recently she wrote:

I believe in the inside-out method of presenting. Rather than thinking about what I’m doing on the outside eg: a specific gesture or movement, I choose what’s going on inside – my state of mind. My state of mind is the biggest influence on how I come across.

And then she offered “8 states of mind that will make you a more compelling presenter.” They are about overcoming nervousness and speaking with more enthusiasm and passion. The 8 states of mind are:

1. Speak as if you’re in your seat.
2. Throw yourself forward.
3. I’m here to help you.
4. Animated dinner conversation
5. Carefree
6. Your audience is eager for every word.
7. You’re the host/hostess at your party.
8. Be over the top.

Instead of summing up what she says about every point, I’ll suggest you go directly to her page and read it for yourself. I promise you you’ll find it helpful.

Business leaders have to communicate bad news all the time — these days more than ever. They have to tell people that their projects have been cancelled or their budgets slashed. That they didn’t get the promotion or bonus they were expecting. That their services aren’t needed any more or that their positions have been eliminated.  

Speaking to people face to face, one on one or in groups, about bad news can be so messy. Wouldn’t it just be easier to send an email?

Of course it would.

That’s exactly what a study published in a journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences found. Communicating bad news through email has two advantages:

1. It ensures that the bad news is communicated accurately.
   People tend to soften the bad news or to fudge when they’re forced to speak to another human being.
2. It is less painful for the person delivering the bad news.
   There’s no need to see the look on the other person’s face or to respond to the person’s questions, recriminations, or unpredictable expression of emotions.

And, to quote Hamlet, there’s the rub. Communicating bad news by email is less painful for the messenger. The study, it seems, did not look at how the person receiving the message was affected.

Frankly, I don’t see how you can consider yourself a leader if your main concern is shielding yourself from pain regardless of how your actions affect other people. But, hey, that’s just me.

Photo courtesy of Bobbie at Flickr.