Life After PowerPoint!

I have two rules for technical presentations or, for that matter, for any speech. (Okay, I have many more than two rules, but they all serve to reinforce these two.)

1. Be clear. If you confuse your audience, they’ll stop listening and they won’t do what you want them to do.
2. Be interesting. If you bore your audience, they’ll stop caring and they won’t do what you want them to do.

The problem is, as an expert in your field, you know so much. How can you possibly talk about what you know without overwhelming — i.e. confusing  and boring — your audience?

Ian Griffin has a great post — Presenting Complex Information – 10 Simple Rules Every Subject Expert Needs to Know — that answers that question. I would summarize his 10 rules, but you’d be better off reading them in their entirety. (It’s such great advice, I wish I had written it myself.)

Thinking over what I wrote on Sunday, I would add a third goal of the emcee’s opening remarks.

On Sunday I listed two goals: 1) to focus the audience’s attention, and 2) to frame the event. The third goal — which I’d actually list in between those two goals — is to form the audience.

To form the audience means to unite a bunch of individuals and turn them into a group of people who share a common goal.

At the inauguration people came from all over the country. They came from different parts of the world. They represented all different segments of society. They had different expectations and hopes. They brought themselves to the mall (or as close as they could get). It was the emcee’s job to bring them together so that they were no longer a mass of individuals, but a group of people united in purpose: to celebrate the inauguration of a new president.

Senator Feinstein told the audience several times in her two and a half minutes why they were gathered, but nowhere more simply or directly than in her statement, “We come here every four years to bestow the power of the presidency upon our democratically elected leader.”

If you’re the emcee, you can’t accomplish all of this in your brief opening remarks. You can only begin the process of gaining people’s attention (focusing them), uniting them in purpose (forming them), and helping them understand the meaning of the event (framing it). And you can only hope that the other speakers and events take over and build from there.

An emcee performs many functions throughout the event — from its beginning to its end.

In some cases, such as this one, an off-stage announcer will introduce the emcee, but the emcee is really the first person to address the audience.

The emcee’s opening remarks need to accomplish two primary goals:

1. To focus the audience’s attention. Most audiences haven’t been waiting as long as this one on inaugural day, but they have been waiting for some time. They may be distracted, checking out other people in the audience, reading the program, chatting on their cell phones, or texting someone. Someone other than the main speakers needs to get their attention, quiet them down, and draw their attention to the stage.
2. To frame the event. The emcee’s opening remarks set the stage for what is to follow, preparing the audience mentally and emotionally. In as few words as possible the emcee gives the audience a foretaste of what is going to happen and an undestanding of what it means.

The emcee’s opening remarks may address many issues, such as acknowledging dignitaries, listing the agenda, and making announcements (changes to the program, location of restrooms, etc.). But all of those other issues are subservient to the two main functions: focusing and framing.

The emcee’s remarks should be short. They should never call attention to the emcee. They should shine the spotlight on the main speakers.

I think Dianne Feinstein struck just the right note in her speech at Tuesday’s inauguration. In under two and half minutes, she stood up, demanded people’s attention without any fuss or bother, and gave a brief reflection on the meaning of the event.

She acknowedgled Bush and Cheney, Obama and Biden (by title, not by name), and launched right into her remarks. She situated the event both in time (“we come here every four years”) and in place (“here on the national mall”). She then briefly touched on a few themes — democracy, peaceful transition of power, change, and the fulfillment of the dream Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of from the Lincoln monument — that others would develop later. (Emcees have to be careful not to steal the thunder from what the main speakers will say later in the program.)

Here’s the core of what she said:

The freedom of a people to choose its leaders is the root of liberty. In a world where political strife is too often settled with violence, we come here every four years to bestow the power of the presidency upon our democratically elected leader. Those who doubt the supremacy of the ballot over the bullet can never diminish the power engendered by nonviolent struggles for justice and equality, like the one that made this day possible. No triumph tainted by brutality could ever match the sweet victory of this hour and what it means to those who marched and died to make it a reality. Our work is not yet finished, but future generations will mark this morning as the turning point for real and necessary change in our nation. They will look back and remember that this was the moment when the dream that once echoed across history, from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial finally reached the walls of the White House.

And then she got on with the matter at hand, introducing the next item on the agenda — the invocation.

All the analysis this past week of the inauguration has focused on Obama’s speech.

OK, not all of the analysis. Some was devoted to the Chief Justice’s flubbing of the oath. Wouldn’t it burn you? Millions of people are watching you. All you have to do is say 35 words — 35 measly words! — and let another person repeat them after you. And you blow it!

And there was a lot of analysis — way too much for me — of what Michelle Obama wore.

But I’ve seen very few comments about Senator Dianne Feinstein’s role as emcee. (An emcee is a “a person who acts as host at formal occasions [makes an introductory speech and introduces other speakers].) Have I missed something?

I think she did a superb job. If you want to see a great example of what an emcee does and how to do it well, watch her in action. In future posts I’ll describe what she did that worked so well.

My editor at Crown Business just told me that they’ve sold the foreign rights to my book, Real Leaders Don’t Do PowerPoint, to a publishing house in China. It’s already been sold to publishers in Brazil, Holland, and the UK. And it hasn’t even appeared in print in the U.S. (Its release date is February 3.)

I’m excited and scared.

Every time the foreign rights get sold, I ask my editor if they’ve actually read the book. And my editor assures me they have. It’s my insecurities that make me ask, because — I hate to admit — I’m looking for validation. I think I’ve written a damn fine book. I’m proud of it. I can’t wait to see it in bookstores. And I’m worried about how it will be received.

The funny thing is, in the book and in my work as an executive speech coach, I’m always urging leaders to take a stand. To say what they know to be true and worthy. And then to stand by what they’ve said, no matter how popular or unpopular it is. So once again I’m having to take my own advice.

(Images Copyrighted by Historylink101.com & found at China Picture Gallery.)

Brian Jenner, a UK-based speechwriter, has a great posting titled Ten Things to Look Our For in Barack Obama’s Inauguration Address. Check it out.

He believes that Obama will keep it under 12 minutes. I think, on that point, he’s being rather optimistic.

In 1841 William Henry Harrison gave the longest inaugural address on record. He spoke for almost two hours. He caught a cold as a result and died of pneunomia a month later.  (Let that be a lesson.) No other president has come close to speaking that long.

George Washington’s second inaugural was the briefest at a mere 135 words. FDR’s fourth and final was relatively brief at 559 words, but by then he was close to death. (Figure that most speakers talk between 120 and 150 words per minute.)

Lincoln’s second may serve as a model for Obama, who has a fixation on our 16th president. Lincoln’s speech, which is considered one of the most powerful and poetic of all inaugural speeches, was 698 words. Lincoln was known for speaking slowly — between 110 and 120 words per minute — so his speech would have clocked in at five and a half to six minutes long. Or short, as the case may be.

So maybe Obama will keep it under 12 minutes. I think no speech should go longer than 20 minutes. If I were to put my money on it, I’d bet Obama will speak around 15 minutes, give or take two minutes. (These things are hard to time, once you take into account the applause.)

Anyone else willing to place a bet?

I don’t envy Obama or his speech writers. Expectations for his inaugural address are high.  As many as two million people are expected to show up. People all across the country – and around the world – will be watching on TV, video casts, and the like.

And everyone is expecting a remarkable speech. I wish him luck. He’s got a daunting task before him — both in speaking and in serving as president.

I have no idea what he will say, but here are some of the issues or themes that he might touch on.

Identity
One of the main tasks for any leader while speaking – and certainly for a president during his inaugural address – is to establish the identity of the audience. I expect Obama to have a lot to say about what it means to be Americans: what binds us together (our values, ideals, history), makes us special, and equips us for the task at hand. Look for him to speak about what unites us.

Challenges
The state of the economy alone is enough to rattle people’s confidence. To say nothing about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, terrorism, international hotspots (the Middle East, India and Pakistan, Iran, North Korea), global warming, etc. People are worried, and Obama can’t ignore what’s on everyone’s mind. The question is, how will he realistically acknowledge the challenges we face without making them seem overwhelming or insurmountable?

Vision
Leaders have a vision of the future that gives people hope, direction, and a sense of purpose. Obama may not use the word vision. He may speak of his dream, alluding to Martin Luther King’s famous speech, but it amounts to much the same thing. He will, of course, name it as America’s dream or vision, not as his alone.

Change
Throughout his campaign Obama spoke of change and appealed to people’s desire for a change not just in Washington, but throughout the country. He will, undoubtedly, speak about change. But he has to do so without condemning the past or vilifying the previous administration. One way he can do that is to use the word new. A new mission. A new outlook. A new civic involvement. Or he could use the word renewed. A renewed dedication to the rule of law. A renewed commitment to international cooperation.

Call to action
Watch how Obama ends his speech. I suspect that he’ll close with a call to action. On election night, he concluded by asking, “…if our children should live to see the next century…what change will they see? What progress will we have made? This is our chance to answer that call.” I think he’s got to do better than that in this speech. He has to issue a challenge and ask us to rise to the occasion.

What do you think he will address?

In a post on Slow Leadership titled “The Difference between Complicated and Complex,” John Fletcher reflects on what he calls the current “economic carnage.” He points out — rightly, I think — that much of the problem comes from the fact that “the world economic system, always complex, has now become almost terminally complicated.”

Fletcher primarily addresses systems: languages, weather patterns, and organizations.

Complex systems – even extremely complex ones — have an internal coherence and logic. They can be understood. Their rules can be articulated. Although their outcomes may not always be predictable, they are not random.

Complicated systems are confusing at best, unintelligible at worst.

Complication in organizations is almost always a sign that something is going wrong. Complicated organizations tend to fall apart sooner or later. Indeed, whether complications are designed deliberately to deceive, or are the products of incompetence and stupidity, they are still no basis on which to run a successful organization.

The Difference Between Complicated and Complex | Slow Leadership.

As a speech coach / writer I would say exactly the same thing about any presentation: complication in presentations is always a sign that something is going wrong.

A speech can develop a complex idea, but it always has to be clear.

If your audience can’t understand how the parts fit together, if they find it confusing or unintelligible, your speech is at the very least useless.

Here’s one test: Can you write the outline of your speech on one side of one piece of paper? If you can, you may have a clear, though complex message. If you can’t do that, you have a complicated, confusing message.

When I told people at the Inventors Forum that they needed an elevator speech for their idea or invention, someone asked me what an elevator speech is.

That was my fault. I’m so familiar with the concept that I didn’t think to define it. (I’m always telling people to explain their jargon unless they’re 100% sure that everyone in the audience knows it. I’m still learning…)

The image is this. You get on an elevator and someone breaks the unwritten law against speaking to strangers in an elevator. Instead of staring in silence at the numbers as they light up (which is what normal people do), the person asks what you do. You have only a few floors — and a few seconds — to explain.

An elevator speech is a short — very short — answer to the question “what do you do?”

Google elevator speech and you’ll find a gazillion explanations and tips. Two places to start are at Entrepreneur.com and BusinessWeek.com.

People generally advise keeping your pitch to somewhere between 15 and 30 seconds. I try to keep mine to 5 to 6 seconds. I think the speech should only give a general idea of what you do so people can follow up with a question, if they’re interested.

Do you have an elevator speech you’d be willing to share?