Life After PowerPoint!

Why Does Obama Use a Teleprompter?

As the president, Obama’s every word is studied and parsed. If he makes a mistake or “misspeaks himself,” he can get himself and the nation into trouble.

President Ford, for example, caused an international uproar that contributed to his own defeat when in a debate with Jimmy Carter he stated that Poland and Eastern Europe were not under the domination of the Soviet Union. And there are entire books and websites devoted to George W. Bush’s malapropisms.

Obama speaks so frequently on so many topics that he has to rely on other people to write his speeches.

As a result he cannot simply speak extemporaneously or from notes. Using a teleprompter allows him to read his speeches without looking down at his text on the podium.

You may want to fault Obama for how he uses the teleprompter or for what he says or for how often he speaks, but it’s unfair to blame him (or any president) for relying on a teleprompter.

What’s the Problem with Using a Teleprompter?

There is nothing wrong with a President (or anyone else) using a teleprompter, as long as it is used well. And the sign that a teleprompter is used well is that no one notices it is being used.

For all of his rhetorical expertise, Obama uses the teleprompter poorly.

• He has made mistakes using the teleprompter, including the time he and the Irish prime minister ended up reading from each other’s speeches.
• He has drawn attention to the fact that he is using a teleprompter, motioning for the operator to speed things up or speaking directly to the operator.
• But the worst thing he does – and he does it consistently — is to switch from one screen and to the other every four to five seconds, looking first left and then right. It looks like he’s watching a slow-motion tennis game.

People — and the media — have recently noticed how much Obama relies on a teleprompter. (It’s not a new occurrence. He’s been using a teleprompter poorly for a long time.) But it’s never a good thing when people call attention to a leader’s speaking deficiencies.

Obama, like any leader, wants people discussing his ideas and acting on his initiatives, not commenting on his delivery style and certainly not on his delivery problems.

What Can Obama Do?

Obama can learn to use the teleprompter more effectively. He needs to look not only at and through the two screens (which are slightly to the right and to the left), but also straight ahead and to the far right and far left. And he needs to shift his focus from one spot to another in relationship to what he is saying, holding his gaze steady for an entire phrase of maybe even a sentence. By doing so, he’ll make his audience feel more engaged, he’ll look and feel more authentic, and he’ll look and sound more commanding.

What’s the Takeaway for the Rest of Us?

We’re not the President of the United States. (And, at least in my case, that’s a good thing for everyone involved.) Most of us are responsible for preparing our own speeches. Most of the time audiences are not hanging on our every word. And few of us ever have to use a teleprompter. (If you do, you might want to buy The Teleprompter Manual by Laurie Brown.) So here are some suggestions:

• Avoid reading your speech word for word. Instead, create a simple and clear outline and speak from your notes.
• Speak only when you’re looking someone in the eye. It’s okay to look at your notes. Just don’t speak while you’re looking at them.
• Keep the focus on your audience and on your idea, not on you and your performance style.
• Rehearse what you’re going to say. Don’t say it word for word over and over again. Simply stand up and move around as you talk through your main ideas out loud.
• Let as few things — a podium, a teleprompter, your text — get between you and your audience.

Is there anything you’d add?

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.

One of the first questions you have to ask yourself when you’re preparing a speech of any sort is this: What do you want to accomplish? What do you want the audience to do as a result of listening to you? What is your goal or intention?

What differentiates a motivational speech from an inspirational speech is the speaker’s goal or intention.

The goal of a motivational speech is success. Synonyms for success in this context are winning, achievement, accomplishment, or victory.

Coaches before the big game and military leaders before a battle give motivational speeches. They want their followers to win the game or the battle. Most other motivational speakers look and sound a lot like coaches and military leaders. They rouse their audiences, spurring them on to win a major contract or a big sale, to achieve a goal (like losing weight or surpassing a sales quota), or to accomplish a task (like finishing a project on time.)

The underlying mantra of most motivational speeches is “You (or we) can do it.”

The goal of an inspirational speech is transformation. Synonyms for transformation in this context are change, renewal, revolution, or conversion.

Many people think that inspirational speeches can only be given by religious figures or by believers, but faith isn’t a prerequisite. Revolutionary figures, for example, some of them militantly atheistic and hostile to religion, gave quite rousing inspirational speeches. Some inspirational speakers believe in God or a spiritual force, and some don’t. What they all have in common is this: They have a vision of something — a way of being, a society, a world, a future – that is better than what already exists.

The underlying mantra of most inspirational speeches is “We can be better than we are.”

Who is your favorite motivational or inspirational speaker? Does what I say apply to them?

Photo of coach courtesy of TCollins and of the Lincoln monument courtesy of Seamus Murray of Flickr.

DrProcter wrote in response to my question last week about motivational speeches and their (limited) purpose:

A motivational speech wants to get a certain number of people fired up to realize a definable goal in a reasonable amount of time.

An inspirational speech wants to fire up humanity to achieve what society considers a pipe dream.

Obama’s campaign speeches (and most speeches by politicians) are motivational speeches. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech is inspirational.

I couldn’t agree more.

Motivational speeches are specific and short-term. They aim to rouse a particular audience — the people who are being addressed — to do some clearly defined action at that moment or in the very near future.

When bosses want their people to work through the weekend to complete a project, when coaches want their teams to win the big game, or when field commanders want their warriors to charge into battle, they should give a motivational speech. They should appeal to their audience’s — to their specific audience’s — feelings, values, and sense of belonging. They should tell their audiences exactly what they want to them to do. And they should focus on a specific goal that can be achieved in the short-term. “Get this project done by Monday morning.” “Win this game.” “Take that hill and hold it until reinforcements come.”

Motivational speeches depend on — for lack of a better phrase — a transfer of emotion. Most motivational speakers are or become increasingly emotional. Their intent is to make their audiences feel the same way they do or to feel their same intensity.  Check out Al Pacino’s speech is Any Given Sunday, to see what I mean.

Inspirational speeches are universal and enduring. They may be addressed to a specific audience, but their thoughts and sentiments have the power to move people in other times and in far different circumstances. They tap into what is good and worthy in their audiences, not with a specific, short-term goal in mind but with the hope of contributing to something grand in scope.

Inspirational speakers may or may not be overtly emotional. (In my experience, they are not cheerleader material.) They don’t try to transfer their emotions to their audiences. They trust their audiences to tap into their own emotions. What they do is this: they create an image of a future worth believing in and working toward. That image may be of the kind of individuals we want to become, or of a society or nation we want to fashion, or of a world we want to hand on to following generations.

Motivational and inspirational speeches both have their times and their purposes. But their times and their purposes are different. In a future post I’ll explain why I believe leaders should speak more to inspire than to motivate.

What do you think?

In response to my posting two days ago, DrProcter offered an example of another motivational speech. (It’s from Animal House.) When you tire of all the feel-good speeches that boil down to some variation of you (we) can do it, you might want to check it out.

And while we’re poking fun at motivational speeches, you may enjoy this collection of “40 Motivational Speeches in 2 Minutes.”

In future posts I’ll look at why motivational speeches 1) serve a limited, but useful purpose, and 2) can easily become laughable. I’m also interested in the difference, if there is one, between motivational and inspirational speeches.

Any ideas to get me started?

I’ve been asked lately in radio and print interviews how leaders should rally their troops in these difficult days.

Here are some of the ideas I’ve come up with, in no particular order:

1. Acknowledge people’s feelings without going into detail. Be sympathetic and compassionate without turning the event into a therapy session or a sob-fest.
2. Lead with the facts. Be as open and forthcoming as possible. Tell the truth and be able to back it up.
3. Interpret the facts. Facts, by themselves, don’t mean anything. They need to be placed in context and tied together into a coherent story. That’s your job as a leader.
4. Make hope sensible. The bad news is all around us and it’s sensible (i.e. “perceptible by the senses”) — people losing jobs, businesses going under, benefits being cut. You can’t counter those sensible losses with insubstantial reassurances. And the best way to make hope sensible is to tell stories.
5. Be action oriented. Tell the audience what you want them to do, and then show them how they will benefit from doing it.
6. Be the change you wish to see. Don’t ask people to do what you won’t do yourself.
7. Tell the truth. Don’t make promises that you may not be able to keep. Don’t give assurances about the future that may not play out.

There are lots of speeches in movies given by leaders rallying their troops before battle. Here’s a brief one from The Lord of the Rings. It’s known as Aragorn’s speech at the Black Gate:

By the way, rallying the troops is a metaphor. And metaphors are evocative approximations of the truth, not absolutes. Every time you say “something is or is like something else,” you also have to realize that there are ways in which it is not that other thing and it is not like that other thing. Business leaders, politicians, and preachers in these hard times may be like military leaders unifying and emboldening their troops before battle. But they are not military leaders, their followers are not troops marching to war, and the situation is not armed combat.

What do you think? If you’re a leader or you’re advising a leader who needs to inspire others, what do you recommend?

Here’s the common wisdom:

1. There are three basic learning styles – visual, auditory, and kinesthetic.
2. People learn best when they’re able to access and process information according to their preferred learning style.
3. Speakers should, therefore, present information in a way that appeals to the preferred learning style or styles of their audience.

But what if the common wisdom is wrong?

What if there’s little or no evidence that those styles have anything to do with how people actually learn?

I’m not arguing that people don’t have preferences and highly developed skills when it comes to sensing the world. (Preferences and skills don’t always go together, by the way. You can love music, for example, and be tone deaf.)

I just don’t know of any credible evidence that supports the claim that those preferences determine much, if anything, about how people learn.

(If you want to see for yourself some of the evidence I’ve been reading, you can view this video of a cognitive psychologist’s critique from my previous post. Or you can read “Different Strokes for Different Folks?” published in The American Educator. Or you can read “The Trouble with VAK” published in the British Education Studies Association Journal.)

I started this line of inquiry for one simple reason. People cite this theory of learning styles to justify using PowerPoint. And as you might guess from the fact that I’ve published a book titled Real Leaders Don’t Do PowerPoint (Crown, 2009), I’m not its biggest fan.

When used well (which it rarely is), PowerPoint is one way — not the only way — of helping presenters communicate information effectively. Don’t use PowerPoint simply because you want to address people’s different learning styles. Use PowerPoint only when and if it will help you explain or illustrate your ideas.

Let me give you an example. If you ask me for directions, I may draw or show you a map. (That’s visual.) I may give you spoken or written directions or both. (That’s auditory and visual.) And I may point you in certain directions. (That’s kinesthetic.) But I would do so not to appeal to the three learning styles, but to make my intention clearer. Even if you were a kinesthetic person, I would still show you a map and I would still give you verbal directions.

When I’m explaining a theory (as I’m doing now), I rely mostly on words. (That’s either visual or auditory.) I could add a picture, I suppose, like the one I’ve attached to this post. But pictures only occasionally make theoretical explanations clearer. And I have no idea how I could add a kinesthetic aspect to such an explanation.

Here’s my point. Use whatever techniques and strategies explain, illustrate, and reinforce your ideas. Come at it from as many different angles as possible. Don’t try to address the three different learning styles. Ask only how you can make your message as clear, engaging, and memorable as possible.

What do you think?

Photo courtesy of Hamed Masoumi at Flickr.

Yesterday I wrote that I had questions about something that I’ve always heard presented as fact: that there are three (or four) basic learning styles: 1) visual, 2) auditory, and 3) kinesthetic.

My concern came from the fact that I’ve never seen any evidence presented to back up the claim. So I’ve done a lot more research, and I’ve come to the conclusion that I haven’t seen any such evidence because there isn’t any.

I came across a lot of research that actually disputed the claim. Here’s a great summary on YouTube. (Yes, I did check the guy’s credentials and they’re legit. He is what he claims to be: a cognitive psychologist, neuroscientist, and professor at the University of Virginia.)

�

 

So what do you think?

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard trainers and coaches state as a matter of fact that people have a preferred learning style. And they usually list three styles:

1. visual
2. auditory
3. kinesthetic

Sometimes they add a fourth learning style: tactile.

The “model” is sometimes called either VAK (visual / auditory / kinesthetic) or VAKT (you can figure it out). And often as not, people list percentages next to each style. As in, 40% of people are visual learners, etc.

Here’s the problem I have. I can’t track down any reliable sources for these “facts.”

Are there three styles or four? It makes a difference. What percentages of the population use each style? I’ve seen and heard wildly different numbers for each style. And where’s the evidence? Have any studies been done by reputable sources? Have they been published in any peer-reviewed journals?

Maybe I’ve missed it. Maybe you know where to find what I’m looking for. If so, please let me know.

As far as I’m able to determine, it seems based in Neuro-Linguistic Programming. Now, I don’t want to go kicking anyone’s sacred cow, but I must confess that I have some of the same questions / reservations about NLP that I have about VAK.

I raise these questions because 1) this model is so widely taught and believed, and 2) it is used to justify speech techniques that I find questionable.

What are your thoughts? Am I off the wall? (It happens.) Am I missing something?

My book is being published in Australia today.

When my publisher at Hachette Australia told me the book’s release date, I asked her if April 1 was April Fools’ Day in Australia. Yes, she said, even in Australia it’s April Fools’ Day. So then I asked if the release date was some sort of commentary on the book. No, she assured me, the release date has nothing to do with their judgment of book’s worth. (Authors — at least this one — are an insecure lot and need reassurance every so often.)

If you’re Australian, you can get the book through Dymocks or at your local booksellers. I’d love to hear your comments. The principles, techniques, and strategies I set forth in it are, I think, pretty universal. But you never know. Tell me if you come across something that sounds un-Australian.

I feel proud and lucky to be published in the Lucky Country.

Map of Australia courtesy of Color Line at Flickr.