Life After PowerPoint!

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.)

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?

“But do you have to like them?” That was the question the executive director of a social advocacy agency asked me. He often had to address audiences that were, in his words, “non-receptive, at best, actively hostile, at times” to his proposals.

He asked the question in response to something I had said earlier about love and the need to love your audiences.

In the corporate environment, which is where I do most of my work, I’m reluctant to use the word love. (In my dealings with engineers I can’t remember the word ever coming up in conversation.) That’s because people usually think of love as having something to do with romance or warm, fuzzy feelings. (Hence the teddy bear and hearts.)

But when I say you have to love your audience, it’s because I think love means, in part, seeking the welfare of the other person (or persons).

If you don’t want what’s good for your audience, you shouldn’t speak to them.

It’s always easier, of course, to speak to people you like. But that’s not always possible.

The people in your audience may not be the sort of people you’d want to hang out with. You may disagree strongly with their values, beliefs, opinions, or actions. You may need to confront them and challenge them to change what they’re thinking or doing. But you need to love them — to seek what’s good for them — and you need to let them know it.

Steve Farber, author of The Radical Leap: A Personal Lesson in Extreme Leadership, wrote a piece that caught my eye. As you read this passage substitute “listener” or “audience member” for “customer, “speaking” for “business,” and “speaker” for “extreme leader,” and you’ll see what I’m getting at.

I use the word, “love,” in the broadest sense. I’m not saying that you should fall in love with everyone you work with. That could get a bit complicated, to say the least. I am saying that you have to find something to care deeply about in your business and in each individual that touches your business. And it has to be real. And they have to know it.

The key, then, is to find a way to genuinely and sincerely love the customer and then act from that level of motivation. Great business relationships are won in ways analogous to romantic relationships: by paying nearly obsessive attention to the needs, desires, hopes and aspirations of the other person. By knowing not only when to stand firm on your own principles but also when to sacrifice your short-term needs for the long-term relationship. And by proving through your own actions that you really mean it, and that you’re not simply following the advice that you gleaned from the latest training program. The Extreme Leader — in other words — actually does love the customer and strives, therefore, to enhance the customer’s life.

Steve Farber: Read.

You may not always like the people in your audience, but until you figure out how your speech will do them some good, you shouldn’t speak to them.

To paraphrase Farber, the masterful speaker actually does love the audience and strives, therefore, to enhance the audience’s life.

Do you agree or disagree?

The most important part of a speech is its conclusion. (The intro is the second most important part.) And yet in my experience the conclusion is also the most difficult section to create.

For years I had the hardest time brining my speeches to a good conclusion. Most of the time, the only way I knew how to finish was to sit down. I could tell from the looks on the faces of my audience that they were caught by surprise — and not in a good way. They felt something was lacking. Which it was. A speech without a satisfying conclusion is like a novel with last several pages missing.

Someone finally convinced me that stopping talking is not the same thing as concluding a speech.

Diane DiResta has a great piece on finishing a speech. Here’s a bit of it:

I am now in a Subway shop ordering a tuna hero. I watch the server as he fills the sandwich. He takes my money and walks to the cash register.

He never comes back. I kept waiting for him to bring me the sandwich. I didn’t see it. Finally I told someone else that I was waiting for my sandwich. They told me it was on the counter. I walked over to the end of the counter and there it was sitting by the register where the server left it. He never PRESENTED IT to me. He made the sandwich, put it down and went into the kitchen. What is going on here? While this may seem like a customer service issue there are lessons here for business presenters.

1.Always have a clear, strong conclusion.

2.Don’t assume your audience understands your business.

3.Never disrespect your audience or leave them confused.

4.End your presentation with a smile and a thank you.

Your presentation IS your business.

Business Presentations: Even Pizzarias Make Presentations.

I would amend her fourth rule:
4. End your presentation on time (or earlier) with a smile.

I don’t know about you, but I hate it when speakers go over their allotted time. Would you add something to the list?

A leader talks about things that matter.

By leader I mean — broadly — anyone, regardless of title or position, who influences or directs others to accomplish something worthwhile.

In troubling times, such as the ones we are in now, there’s all the more need for leaders to speak in a way that provides a sense of hope, of belonging, and of direction.

And yet in times like these there’s always the temptation to cop out. To deny reality. To confirm everyone’s worst fears. Or to offer false hope.

During the depression in Italy, when people were even more shaken by the economy that we are today, movie studios produced a slew of escapist films. They got titled telefono bianco or white-telephone movies. (White telephones were status symbols, something that only the rich could afford.) A white-telephone movie is a film about shallow rich people who have plenty of leisure time, doing trivial things in swank settings.

I learned about white-telephone movies in a film-appreciation class in college years ago. But I hadn’t thought of the term for decades, until it came back to me while I was watching the CEOs from automotive companies asking congress for money.

For an insightful analysis of the CEOs’ performance, see…

An open letter to GM, Ford and Chrysler (Mostly GM!)

Speechwriting and Professional Speaking.

If I can coin a term, I would say that a white-telephone speech is a presentation by people who are leaders in name only, talking about trivial matters in an inflated or pompous manner. White-telephone movies obviously served some need in the 1930s — for diversion, if nothing else — or there wouldn’t have been a market for them. But there is no need or justification for white-telephone speeches. Not now. Not ever.

Leaders speak — or should speak — to make a difference in the lives of the people they are addressing.

If you have an example of a white-telephone speech or of its opposite — a speech that matters — let me know.

Mark Sanborn, author and noted authority on leadership, offers a great little reflection on leaders and their obligation to provide hope. It’s especially pertinent in these days of economic gloom and doom:

John W. Gardner was Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Lyndon Johnson. He was a great American, advocate for education and wise thinker. Gardner said, “The first task of a leader is to keep hope alive.” His words couldn’t be timelier…

Our leaders today have the opportunity to tell us what they believe is happening and at the same time uncover reasons to be hopeful. Focusing only on what’s broke requires no insight or skill; presenting possible solutions is both an art and science.

I never advocate happy talk, denial or rationalization. I am, however, completely fed up with rampant negativity masquerading as factual reporting.

We need leaders, as John Garndner advocated, that will help keep hope alive.

2008 December | Sanborn and Associates

I believe that leaders speak — or should speak — primarily to influence and to inspire their audiences. To influence = to shape the way audiences think and feel. To inspire = to give them hope, confidence that their actions can change things for the better.

In an earlier post, I reflected on how Abraham Lincoln — in speaking to the alarmist bankers who thought he wasn’t taking the country’s economic crisis seriously enough – did exactly what Sanborn is talking about.

Be real. Acknowledge people’s fear and pain. Show then a different way of viewing the situation. (Telling stories and using images are the best ways to show people what you want them to see.) And give them reason to hope.