Life After PowerPoint!

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.

In an earlier posting I wrote about the erroneous assumption that “the facts speak for themselves.” Many people — especially technical experts — operate out of a somewhat related erroneous assumption: “Knowledge is power.”

Knowledge is certainly superior to the alternatives — ignorance, prejudice, and error. But in and by itself, knowledge isn’t power, because power is all about action and the ability to accomplish something. (The New American Heritage Dictionary defines power as the “ability or capacity to perform or act effectively.”)

If you don’t do anything with what you know, what good is it?

Knowledge isn’t power. Using knowledge to do something worthwhile is.

And there’s even something more powerful than using knowledge: it’s communicating knowledge so that others can use it.

Here’s my hierarchy of the power of knowledge:

1. Knowing something without acting on it is like having a candle without lighting it.
2. Acting on what you know is like lighting the candle.
3. Communicating what you know so others can use it is like using your lit candle to light other people’s candles.

That’s why “presentation and communication” skills are so highly rated, even for technical experts. The better able you are to share what you know so that other people can understand and use it, the more valuable you are.

Photo courtesy of PeWu at Flickr.

Publishers Weekly, “an American weekly trade news magazine targeted at publishers, librarians, booksellers and literary agents,” ran this review of my book, Real Leaders Don’t Do PowerPoint:

In Witt’s succinct and humorous assessment of leadership strategies and the art of the public presentation, the business consultant focuses on the basics and the particulars that often go by the wayside when speakers rely on crutches like PowerPoint. A good speaker and leader knows that the individual is inseparable from his or her message, that ideas must be conveyed simply and powerfully, and that conviction is paramount to get others on board. Witt, founder and president of his own Witt Communications company, goes into great detail illustrating exactly what a successful speaker does and how those skills translate to good leadership. While Witt’s primer doesn’t say anything particularly new, it’s a fine demonstration of his principles at work: well-organized and straightforward, with plenty of concrete take-away techniques. Geared toward those looking to get a leg up at work, shape their ideas and overcome the public speaking jitters, Witt’s quick, witty instructional makes a fine addition to the office arsenal.

I like the review not just because it’s positive, but because it captures the main point of the book.

I wish, of course, that it had substituted the phrase “is brilliantly original” for “doesn’t say anything particularly new.” But since public speaking has been so well studied for more than 2,500 years, it’s next to impossible to come up with something new to say about it. I like to think that I’ve selected and distilled some of the best insights that have been generated over the years, added my own take on them, and given practical tips for making them relevant today.

I’ve printed up the review so I can post it next to my computer. (See photo.) I don’t know if you can make it out, but I’ve highlighted certain phrases that warm my heart and stroke my ego:

• “succinct and humorous”
• “well-organized and straightforward“
• “quick, witty”

Normally, I bristle at being described as witty, because with a last name like Witt I’ve heard just about every pun that can possibly be made on the word. But I’ll make an exception in this case.

Thanks for bearing with me. I’m still enjoying seeing my book in print and hearing nice things said about it.

Dale Carnegie started out teaching people how to give speeches. As a result of his teaching, he wrote How to Win Friends and Influence People, which may be the first self-help book ever published. (It’s still selling big time.) I just read a blog by Chris Brogan that made me think of Carnegie’s “Six Ways to Make People Like You.” They are:

1. Become genuinely interested in other people.
2. Smile.
3. Remember that a man’s name is to him the sweetest and most important sound in any language.
4. Be a good listener. Encourage others to talk about themselves.
5. Talk in the terms of the other person’s interest.
6. Make the other person feel important and do it sincerely.

I always like Carnegie’s advice, and I highly recommend his book to many of my clients. I just wish it didn’t sound so manipulative to me. “I’ll make you feel important,” it seems to say, “and I’ll do it sincerely so you’ll like me.”

Brogan’s posting echoes Carnegie’s rules 1, 4, and 5. Like Carnegie Brogan makes a point about focusing more on the other person in a conversation than on yourself. But he does it without sounding calculating, which I like.

In situations where you’re talking with others, do your best to talk more about them. Learn about them. Ask questions. The smartest people are those who plumb the depths of the other person, and come away knowing them deeply. We seem to fear, as humans, that the other person in a situation won’t hear us. We get worried that we’ll leave a conversation somehow unequally.

Strangely, the most “important” people (in at least the public business sense) I have ever met in my life have all asked me more about myself, and even with me trying hard to turn it around, they were gracious and interesting and still worked hard to know more about me than themselves.

chrisbrogan.com

The same advice applies to giving a speech. Which sounds strange I know, because a speech seems to be more like a monologue than a conversation.

But here’s what’s important to remember about giving a speech: It isn’t about you. It isn’t even about your expertise. It’s about your audience and how they can benefit from what you say.

As you prepare you speech, you have to listen to your audience, doing as much research as possible about them. Who are they? What do they already know and feel about your topic? What are their problems, concerns, interests, goals? What do they have in common? What makes them different? Why are they gathering? What do they want? It’s hard, in my opinion to find out too much about your audience.

Before your speech begins, talk with individuals in the audience. Don’t just stand off to the side of the room or sit quietly somewhere. Shake people’s hands as they come in. Introduce yourself. Ask them about themselves.

And as you’re speaking, listen to their body language. Invite their questions and really listen to them. (Don’t simply use their questions as a jumping off point for what you what you wanted to say anyway.)

Make your speech as much like a conversation as possible, listening as deeply and authentically as you can to the people you’re addressing, and I guarantee you’ll give a better speech.

The goal of a speech isn’t — or shouldn’t be — to make your audience marvel at what a great speaker you are. The goal of a great speech is to make them marvel at what they’re capable of.

Who are the speakers you admire most? Why?

Here I am showing off my book, Real Leaders Don’t Do PowerPoint: How to Sell Yourself and Your Ideas (Crown Business, 2009). I also sum it up in one sentence and describe some of the features of the book.

By the way, here’s my one sentence summation of the book: Leaders, aspiring leaders, and people who want their words to have more impact speak not to communicate information, but to influence and inspire their audiences, to shape the way they think and feel and act.

A friend of mine, Gertrud Nelson, hosted a book signing party at her place on Saturday. (She’s published several books herself. One of them — To Dance with God – has been in continuous print for more than 20 years.)

Gertrud supplied the place. I bought chocolate — See’s Candy, chocolate chip cookies, and the most decadent brownies I’ve ever tasted — and white wine. (It was Valentine’s Day, after all.) She asked me to “say a few words,” which I hadn’t planned on doing. But I took a lesson from the chapter in my book titled, “Speaking Spontaneously Takes Some Planning,” and did my best.

Here’s what I said:

Leaders — and people who want to have impact when they’re speaking — speak not to communicate information, but to influence and inspire their audiences.

A great speech is made up of four main elements — the person who’s speaking, the event, the message, and the delivery. (The book is divided into four sections, which elaborate on those four elements.)

And, of course, I told a story because I can’t imagine giving a speech without telling at least one story.

If you’ve had the chance to read my book, Real Leaders Don’t Do PowerPoint, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

I often hear people who should know better – communications experts or speech coaches — reduce body language to a simplistic x-equals-y equation. Crossing your arms, they say, means you’re defensive or closed. Tapping your feet means you’re bored or impatient. Tucking your chin down means you’re submissive. Etc. Etc. Etc.

As I wrote in last week’s posting, body language is a gestalt. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. You can’t isolate one element — crossed arms, tapping feet, or tucked-in chin, for example — and determine with any certainty what it means.

The same people who are quick to say what a particular and isolated gesture or expression means are equally quick to suggest an alternate gesture or expression.

They may say, for example, “Crossing your arms is a sign of defensiveness. Keep your arms by your side with your palms facing forward.”

This approach gives rise, in my opinion, to three problems. Maybe more.

1. It denies you the kind of insight that can lead to lasting change.

When someone tells you that a certain gesture or movement you’re using means something very specific and then tells you to use some other gesture or movement instead, they’re not addressing (or allowing you to address) the deeper issues. Let’s assume that they’re right, for a moment. Let’s assume that in this instance crossing your arms in front of your chest does indeed mean that you’re defensive. Telling you not to cross your arms is like telling you not to feel defensive. What good does that do?

The question you might want to consider is, “What about this situation is causing me to feel defensive?” Maybe your boss is in the audience, and he has a track record of verbally abusing his direct reports in public. Maybe you get tongue-tied whenever you have to address an authority figure. Maybe lots of things. And that’s the point. Simply telling you not to do something — “Don’t cross your arms” — doesn’t allow you to reflect on what it is you are doing and why you’re doing it.

And if you don’t understand your behavior — its impetus and impact — how are you ever going to make any substantive change? Insight allows you to consider other options. You might, for example, want to talk to your boss before your presentation. You might want to rework your assumptions about authority figures and your own sense of power. You might want to do any number of things, and that’s a good thing.

2. It encourages you to lie.

If someone — even a well meaning communications expert or speech coach — simply tells you not to cross your arms when you’re feeling defensive, they’re telling you in effect not to communicate outwardly (throught your body language) what you’re feeling internally.

There are times, of course, when it may be wise to look one way when you feel another way. You may want to use confident body language even when you’re not feeling confident in order to build up your confidence. You may want to keep your personal and private feelings (about a tragedy, say) to yourself while giving a public presentation. And you may want to mislead people. It is not unethical, for example, to make your verbally abusive, unscrupulous boss think that you’re open to his “feedback” by keeping your arms uncrossed while you are internally protecting your feelings and sense of self-worth.

Most of the time, however, you want your outsides — your body language, as well as the words you speak – to reflect or to be in alignment with you insides — your thoughts and feelings.

3. It makes you look unnatural.

As Olivier Mitchell noted in her comments about my last posting, “the consequence of this reductionist approach is that people then add in artificial gestures that just look weird to me.” (Check out her blog, Speaking about Presenting.) When someone else tells you how to move, you almost always end up looking odd. You look staged or rehearsed. You rarely look like yourself.

The goal, for better or for worse, is to be yourself — your best self — when you’re speaking. To be as fully, unself-consciously, who you are. You do have to pay attention to your body language when you’re speaking. And you can even practice using gestures you don’t normally use. But whatever you do has to be something you, at your best, would do. Not something someone else tells you to do.

Do people tell you what your body language is saying? If so, how do they do so? Is it helpful? Do they then tell you how you should be using your body language? Is that helpful?

My book, Real Leaders Don’t Do PowerPoint, is available from bookstores and on line beginning today! And I’m stoked.

I approached Dale Fetherling, an experienced co-author, almost three years ago this month with the idea for the book. And we began writing the book proposal shortly afterwards. I sent the proposal — it was about 90 pages long — to a number of agents in January 2007. I was delighted when Betsy Amster said she wanted to represent the book. She helped me polish the proposal, before sending it off to a number of publishers. She got me a great deal with Crown Business, the business imprint of Random House. I signed the contract with them in February 2007. Then I had one year to actually write the manuscript. (That brought it to February 2008.) Believe it or not, it takes a year to turn a manuscript into a book. (They’re not just sitting on the manuscript for all that time. There’s just an amazing amount of work that needs to be done behind the scenes.)

That’s more information than any sane person wants to know about bringing a book to birth, but I’m feeling like a new father. And new fathers have to be indulged once in a while.

So now I have the book in my hands, and I’m delighted. For a couple of reasons.

First, it says what I want to say in the way I want to say it. I always urge my clients to take a stand — not just to say what everyone else is saying, but to say what they believe to be good and true and right. And I think I did that.

Second, it’s timely. I began writing the book before Obama made such a name for himself through his speaking. (True, his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention brought him a lot of attention, but I doubt anyone then imagined that he would be our next president.) Obama almost single-handedly reminded the nation — and the world — of the power of the spoken word. People aren’t saying, “I want to speak like Obama,” but because of his speeches they are realizing how much impact a leader’s speech can have. And they’re willing to step away from their slides and to try something different.

I wrote the book because I believe that speaking is a leader’s most powerful tool, a tool that is too often ignored or poorly used.

A speech isn’t about communicating information. It is — or it should be — about changing the way people think and feel and act. Even if you’re not a leader, you can have more impact when you speak if you learn from how leaders speak.

I hope the book is well received. But for now I’m just delighted — and proud — it’s made its way into the world.