Nick Morgan - Public Speaking Advice and Commentary

Who's the most powerful person in the room?

Sociologists Stanford Gregory and Stephen Webster of Kent State University conducted some fascinating research into the question of leadership at a very simple level.  They studied interviews on the Larry King Live show and tapes of British politicians and former U.S. presidents. Why this particular grouping of people? Because the issue of power and deference is bound to come up when high-status individuals are involved.

What they studied were the low-frequency sounds (below 500 hertz) that we all utter as we speak. The existence of the sounds themselves was well known to researchers but had been dismissed as irrelevant. Gregory and Webster found that in conversations and meetings, people rapidly match each other’s low -frequency sounds. In short, to have a productive conversation or meeting, we need to literally be on the same wavelength!

It gets more interesting: the researchers found that lower-status people match the higher-status people in the room.  You might expect that everyone would meet in the middle, but that was not the case. When Larry King was interviewing someone of very high status, he matched the high-status individual’s tones. When the interviewee was low status, he or she would match Larry King. The quickest to match Larry was Dan Quayle, presumably someone who had good reason to be deferential.

What’s going on here? Sorting out who is the most powerful person in the room is a game that humans have used for time out of memory because relative status is important to us. This need to defer and assert probably goes back to more primitive times when our lives depended on it. Now it’s more likely to be important when picking up sides for a sports team, jockeying for power in a business meeting, negotiating, or perhaps picking a new pope.

The point is that there is an unconscious element to it that is literally beyond our ken. Which happens first? And what are the criteria? Gregory and Webster’s research suggests that the process happens quickly, in the first few minutes of the conversation. So it’s hardly the case that much conscious thought has gone into determining who should be top dog. Rather, we see that an important part of our relationships to others is determined, at least in part, unconsciously. We are not the rational beings we like to think we are.

Conscious awareness of this unconscious process will arm you to resist the powerful and enable you increase your own personal power. 

Announcing the winners of the 'Worst Conference' contest

Thanks to all who participated in the “Worst Conference Experience Ever” contest.  We have a winner – a standout – and that could only be the entry from Mike, regarding the speaker who read from the tax code for “several hours with minimal commentary.”  I’m sure everyone will join in and offer their sympathy to the poor CFO who attended that presentation. 

Mike, you win an hour’s free (telephone) coaching for help in preparing any speech or presentation you have coming up.  Let me know via nick@publicwords.com how you’d like to schedule. 

Second place goes to Chris, who attended a Chamber of Commerce meeting (already, he’s got my sympathies) to hear from a judge who set an alarm clock up to keep himself to 20 minutes – only to hit the snooze button repeatedly, going on and on until the room was virtually deserted.  I wonder if the judge’s pronouncements from the bench are as long-winded!

Chris, you win a copy of my latest book, Trust Me:  Four Steps to Authenticity and Charisma.  Please send your snail mail address to nick@publicwords.com to receive your prize.

Third place goes to Piet, whose heart-rending description of the conference where the speaker was a no-show, but delivered the speech via texting to his assistant in real time does deserve mention for the most surreal and stupid solution to a vexing problem. 

Piet, send me your snail mail address and you also get a copy of the latest book.

Again, thanks to everyone who participated, and congratulations to the winners.

What is the most important rule for success in public speaking?

I'm often asked what is the single most essential thing to remember in order to give a good speech.  My first instinct is to respond, "it's a complex process, an art form, and it involves lots of moving parts.  So there's no one single thing."  But if I'm pressed for one rule only, it would be this:  have fun. 

That's right -- have fun. 

Could it possibly be that simple? 

Audiences have provisionally given up their authority and bestowed it on the speaker.  They want the speaker to succeed.  Otherwise, they've wasted their time, and who can afford to do that these days?  The best thing the speaker can do is to signal to the audience that he or she is having a good time.  It will let the audience know that it is in good hands.  It can relax and enjoy the experience. 

That creates a virtuous circle -- happy audience, happy speaker -- and those good vibes go a long way toward creating a positive experience for all. 

Of course, the hard part about having fun is that most people are nervous when they speak, at least at the start.  So how do you relax and have fun when your heart is hammering away, your palms are clammy, and you're thinking to yourself, I will never, never agree to do this again?

Focus on the audience.  If you can stop thinking about yourself, and start thinking about the audience, you've got a chance to begin to enjoy yourself.  Remember, a speech is not primarily about you, the speaker.  It's about whether or not the audience is moved to action. 

So relax, forget about you, and have fun.   

I'm often asked what is the single most essential thing to remember in order to give a good speech.  My first instinct is to respond, "it's a complex process, an art form, and it involves lots of moving parts.  So there's no one single thing."  But if I'm pressed for one rule only, it would be this:  have fun. 

That's right -- have fun. 

Could it possibly be that simple? 

Audiences have provisionally given up their authority and bestowed it on the speaker.  They want the speaker to succeed.  Otherwise, they've wasted their time, and who can afford to do that these days?  The best thing the speaker can do is to signal to the audience that he or she is having a good time.  It will let the audience know that it is in good hands.  It can relax and enjoy the experience. 

That creates a virtuous circle -- happy audience, happy speaker -- and those good vibes go a long way toward creating a positive experience for all. 

Of course, the hard part about having fun is that most people are nervous when they speak, at least at the start.  So how do you relax and have fun when your heart is hammering away, your palms are clammy, and you're thinking to yourself, I will never, never agree to do this again?

Focus on the audience.  If you can stop thinking about yourself, and start thinking about the audience, you've got a chance to begin to enjoy yourself.  Remember, a speech is not primarily about you, the speaker.  It's about whether or not the audience is moved to action. 

So relax, forget about you, and have fun.   

What can you get an audience to do?

A speaker asks a lot of an audience.  Understanding, enthusiasm, support -- and inactivity.  Audiences are expected to be passive by most speakers most of the time.  That's after all what speakers are paid for -- to inform and entertain the audience.  Not the other way around.  And the higher the price, the more entertaining the speaker better be.  But that means that most speakers figure that they should be doing the majority of the work. 

That's unfortunate, because if a speaker does a good job, pouring out lots of energy into an appreciative crowd, the audience is soon ready to give that energy back.  And it wants to give that energy back in the form of -- action.

Happy audiences want to do something, to show their involvement, their appreciation, their connection to the speaker.  (Unhappy audiences want to do something else:  leave.)  A wise speaker gives the audience an opportunity to express that collective energy in the form of action. 

So think of something that you can get audiences to do, and they will thank you with higher ratings, better response, and more lasting connection with you.  Look for some sort of action step for the audience to take that is relevant to your talk and closes your speech with dynamism. 

I'll give you one example.  We helped a speaker design a talk to a large audience on a religious and charitable theme.  For the action step at the end, we had the speaker ask everyone in the audience to reach into their pockets and purses, grab all the loose change they could, and, on the count of 3, throw it on the floor of the meeting hall. 

We then sent 'runners' around to pick it all up.  The speech raised $12,000 for AIDS relief in 5 minutes.  That's an action step. 

A speaker asks a lot of an audience.  Understanding, enthusiasm, support -- and inactivity.  Audiences are expected to be passive by most speakers most of the time.  That's after all what speakers are paid for -- to inform and entertain the audience.  Not the other way around.  And the higher the price, the more entertaining the speaker better be.  But that means that most speakers figure that they should be doing the majority of the work. 

That's unfortunate, because if a speaker does a good job, pouring out lots of energy into an appreciative crowd, the audience is soon ready to give that energy back.  And it wants to give that energy back in the form of -- action.

Happy audiences want to do something, to show their involvement, their appreciation, their connection to the speaker.  (Unhappy audiences want to do something else:  leave.)  A wise speaker gives the audience an opportunity to express that collective energy in the form of action. 

So think of something that you can get audiences to do, and they will thank you with higher ratings, better response, and more lasting connection with you.  Look for some sort of action step for the audience to take that is relevant to your talk and closes your speech with dynamism. 

I'll give you one example.  We helped a speaker design a talk to a large audience on a religious and charitable theme.  For the action step at the end, we had the speaker ask everyone in the audience to reach into their pockets and purses, grab all the loose change they could, and, on the count of 3, throw it on the floor of the meeting hall. 

We then sent 'runners' around to pick it all up.  The speech raised $12,000 for AIDS relief in 5 minutes.  That's an action step. 

Can you present sitting down?

Many clients ask me if they can present sitting down. It's a natural question -- it feels more collegial, and less exposed, to sit down around the table like everyone else. And isn't it a good thing to be collegial? Doesn't it send out a nice message about what kind of person you are?

The answer is, unfortunately, not always.

Standing up while others are sitting automatically bestows some authority on the standee. And there are times when it's important to claim that authority, just as there are times when it's OK to be collegial. Just be aware that when you sit down, you are first and foremost saying, 'I'm one of you.' Don't 'say' it unless you mean it.

Of course we don't like arrogant, pushy people who claim authority that's not their own. But we also don't like people who pretend to be humble folks when in fact they're running the show. Both are annoying, and poor leadership.

Stand when you are leading a charge. If you are addressing the troops in order to present a new plan or direction, the decision has already been made, and you want to bring the people along with you, then stand. Sitting in that sort of situation is a form of non-verbal lying. Sitting is for discussion.

Stand when you are announcing a decision (after hearing a variety of opinions). Let's say you've listened to your team discuss some options and you've arrived at a decision. That's a good time to stand, to show that discussion is over and action is at hand.

Stand when your expertise is called upon. If you're the expert in the room, then you should stand to deliver your expertise. Sit down when you're done, and the others can have their day too.

Know when to sit, and when to stand. It does make a difference. We all give provisional respect to those stand up to make their points; after that it's up to you to earn continuing respect with the quality of the decision, the announcement, or the expertise.

Authenticity - 4: 5 ways to listen to your audience

This is the last in a series of blogs on achieving authenticity in public communications.  Authenticity is the sine qua non of our age. We all want it, and when it’s lacking in a public figure, we turn off to that person.  I talk more about authenticity in my book, Trust Me:  Four Steps to Authenticity and Charisma, but these blogs cover a condensed discussion of the topic. 

The final step in achieving authenticity is to listen to your audience. 

Communication is always a two-way activity.  If you think of a persuasive communication as a journey you take your audience (one or one thousand) on to change minds, then you’ll see that listening is a vital part of that process. Changing one’s mind occurs in a series of steps, and you need to know what step the other person is on in order to be effective in leading the process.

At its most basic, good listening offers feedback.  Feedback, which is often critical, is simply a response, usually involving evaluation of some kind.  Here’s how to do it without destroying the ego of the receiver and ultimately the relationship. Begin by describing the actions of the person to whom you’re giving feedback.  Then describe the consequences of the behavior, and the reasons for them.  Finally, check for comprehension and agreement.  Avoid criticism and emotional words.  Just the facts. 

To go a little further as a good listener, try paraphrasing what your audience is saying.  Paraphrasing means simply saying something like, “So let me be sure I’ve understood. What you’re saying is that the green ones are tastier than the brown ones?”  The point is to play back, like a recorder, what the person has said to you. That’s all. Resist the temptation to embroider (“But that’s ridiculous! That can’t be true!”) because that undoes all the good work of the paraphrase.

A subtle improvement on paraphrasing is clarifying what the speaker has said while essentially repeating it back to him.  The point is to translate and clarify what the other person is saying and play it back in order to check understanding. This is much harder work than merely paraphrasing, because you have to think about what you’ve heard and offer a fair summary or restatement.

So far, we’ve been dealing with the surface level of communication: the ostensible meaning of the words that are said.  To really begin to listen, you need to hear, see, and reflect the deeper, emotional meanings of the dialogue. This level might be called empathic listening.

Here, you identify the emotion underneath the words and respond in kind:  “I understand how painful this is for you, Joseph. I too had a project go bad early in my career. It really hurts.”  Note that this response first identifies, and accurately, the pain that the other person is feeling and then takes it on, sharing a similar experience or emotion from your own life story to identify with the other.  That’s empathy.

Finally, the most powerful form of listening — the one that people most strongly react to, feeling that they are both heard and understood — is a form of empathic listening where you identify the emotion and state its underlying causes without trying to solve the problem.  This form of active listening is the hardest to undertake. In a contentious situation, it can feel as if you’re giving in to openly express how the other is feeling. But you’re not; you’re just stating the other’s position as fully and honestly as you can. Agreement, compromise, or resolution will come later. For the moment, active listening is a powerful first step toward solving any serious problem in a communication.  And forming a strong, authentic bond with an audience. 

Authenticity - 3: 5 ways to show your passion through your words

This is the third in a series of blogs on achieving authenticity in public communications.  Authenticity is the sine qua non of our age. We all want it, and when it’s lacking in a public figure, we turn off to that person.  I talk more about authenticity in my book, Trust Me:  Four Steps to Authenticity and Charisma, but these blogs will cover a condensed discussion of the topic. 

The third step in achieving authenticity is to be passionate.  How do you effectively communicate passion through your content? Recognize that all the verbal expressions of emotion are not as strong as the nonverbal ones, and if the two are at odds, the person you’re communicating with will believe the nonverbal always.  That said, there are some ways to express passion through content.

The first, and simplest, technique is to label the emotion.  And yet this technique is one that people deny themselves all the time, because of our reluctance to talk about negative or strong emotions. Is it easy to look at a loved one and say, “I’m angry with you?” How about going into your boss’s office and saying, “Boss, I’m really frustrated because you have systematically under-funded and understaffed this initiative, and you know my career depends on its success?” And what about telling an old friend that he’s let you down by not showing up at a performance that really mattered to you?

A second equally simple yet profound technique to show passion in your verbal expression is to tell an uncomfortable truth.  It’s important to distinguish telling the truth from labeling the emotion. Certainly there can be overlap, but to tell an uncomfortable truth can often mean keeping your emotions in check. The passion that shows up in these instances is courage.

A third technique is to focus on the physical details of a situation without labeling the emotions. This technique works when everyone knows that the situation is emotionally charged.  Think Hemingway.  The idea is to let the audience inject the emotion precisely because you hold back.  Let them do the work. 

What other verbal techniques convey emotion?  Two main techniques, the rhetorical rule of threes and (appropriate) repetition, are the most powerful ways to convey emotion through rhetoric.

I’ve blogged about the Rule of Three’s before.  Basically, we like things – they sound complete and stronger – grouped in threes.  If the phrases or ideas are of unequal length, put the longest one last. 

There’s a real art to repetition. How do you manage it so that it doesn’t sound simple-minded but rather creates a crescendo of emotion that builds with each repetition?  The key is the phrase that’s repeated. It has to be able to bear the weight, and the words have to be affirmative, simple, and evocative. It’s not easy to find the right ones. The political world is full of repetitive phrasing and chanting of key phrases that the speaker begins and the audience takes over, but most of them are quickly forgotten.  An exception, of course, is Martin Luther King, Jr’s famous “I have a dream.”

Each of these devices heightens the emotional content of the words for effect; these are ways of conveying your passion with the words themselves.

Authenticity - 2: 8 ways to connect with audiences

This is the second of a series of blogs on achieving authenticity in public communications.  Authenticity is the sine qua non of our age. We all want it, and when it’s lacking in a public figure, we turn off to that person.  I talk more about authenticity in my book, Trust Me:  Four Steps to Authenticity and Charisma, but these blogs will cover a condensed discussion of the topic. 

The second step in achieving authenticity is to be connected.  Connected communication deals with the audience’s concerns.  Following are eight ways to connect with an audience through your content. 

Connected communication is phrased in the audience’s own language. This is a simple point, but one that many forget.  Insider language, jargon, identification with those you’re communicating with: all of these can strengthen the connection if they are used to highlight the bond between you.  Of course, if the jargon gets in the way of communication or sounds forced or fake, it won’t work. But used as a gesture of solidarity, it can have great impact.

Connected communication is direct and simple. Communication that cuts through the usual clutter, euphemisms, and verbiage can be powerfully effective. When you start with a truth that hasn’t been uttered out loud before, you get people’s attention. We’re so used to being sold in today’s marketing-saturated world that simple language about real concerns can cut through the noise.

Connected communication uses you and we more than I.  People like to hear about themselves, and, with rare exceptions, they like having the focus on them. Your language is a tip-off as to how well you’re accomplishing that. If you’re using the word I a great deal, you’re not communicating; you’re soliloquizing.

Connected communication is reciprocal. For the most part, people feel obligated to listen if you’ve listened to them.  Some self-absorbed people never reciprocate, but most of us do because the golden rule is deeply baked into our psyches.  So a good way to begin a communication is to find out what the other person (or group) has on its mind.

Connected communication is consistent. We don’t like to experience ourselves as inconsistent, so if I can snare your attention once, I’m likely to be able to get it again unless I’ve abused the privilege.  People prefer the familiar to the strange in most things. It’s why clichés are clichés, after all. Why go to all the work of developing a new source or finding a new expert if the old one will do?  So find ways to reinforce the consistency of your message. 

Connected communication is social. If everyone’s doing it, we’re more likely to join in unless we have an oppositional streak. Communications success breeds communications success.  This explains fads and the popularity of otherwise inexplicable things (like Barry Manilow).  Here, it helps to have someone introduce you stressing your social success.

We connect better with people who are like us.   Again, this is a simple rule that is often forgotten. In a world awash with information, especially if we feel threatened or disoriented by that overload of new data, we tend to go tribal and safe and cluster with people most like ourselves. Similarly, we are likely to recognize first the things that are most familiar to us: ourselves and the habits and activities we always engage in.  So find ways to tell your audience you are like them. 

Finally, and paradoxically, we also connect better with ideas, communications, and people whom we perceive to be unusual, scarce, or rare.  We are perverse creatures and can one day ignore and the next day embrace an idea, a communication, or a person who is unusual to us. Indeed, an opposing and equally powerful human urge, in contrast to the tribal instinct, is to take the stranger in and make him or her familiar.  So take your audience on a journey into the unknown.

Achieving Authenticity - 1 - Openness

I’m going to do a series of blogs on achieving authenticity in public communications.  Authenticity is the sine qua non of our age. We all want it, and when it’s lacking in a public figure, we turn off to that person.  I talk more about authenticity in my book, Trust Me:  Four Steps to Authenticity and Charisma, but these blogs will cover a condensed discussion of the topic. 

The first step in achieving authenticity is to be open – transparent – in your communications.  Why is openness so important?  Fundamentally, openness is a willingness to acknowledge all facets of your persona—to own everything without defensiveness and with honesty about intent.  Without openness as a first step, authenticity is not possible. 

One of the many ironies of public life today is that the secrets you try hardest to keep will almost certainly be revealed sooner or later. Furthermore, the public will be interested in them only to the extent that you continue to conceal your intent behind your actions. As soon as the human context is clear and we understand fully, we begin to move on.

So let’s take openness apart.  How do you achieve it?  Three main ways….

1. Openness begins with clarity of intent.   As humans, we believe that actions, especially ones directed toward us, are meaningful, and we want to know their meanings. Children learn early to ask, “ Why? ” until their parents run out of answers. They are trying to delve into and broaden their understanding of intent.

Because intent is so important to us as humans, clarity of intent lies at the very heart of being open. If I know what you intend, I can understand you, and my willingness to be open to you increases. The simplest way to be clear about your intent is to tell me early in our communications together.

2. Your language should take responsibility rather than evade it.  “ Mistakes were made” is a classic way politicians use to apologize or admit errors without actually doing so. That’s a passive construction that leaves the crucial actor, the politician, out of it.  Unfortunately, we all know what he really means, so once again the politician reveals more than he intends by attempting to conceal. And we assume the worst. Open language therefore favors active verbs.

3. Frame the context of a communication early.  The first questions on everyone’s minds when people communicate are about the whys of the meeting or event or conversation:  Why are we here? Why is this important? Why is this relevant to me?  We are trying to frame the encounter, whether it’s a negotiation, a keynote speech, or an ordinary business meeting.  Our first need is to be oriented, and we can’t begin to pay attention to anything else until that’s taken care of.  So answer your audience’s need to know why, and do it quickly, simply, and directly. Clear, honest framing is essential for open communication.

If you fail to create the context, that question will dog the proceedings from then on. And if you’re duplicitous about the context, then when the betrayal comes, it will be fatal to trust and the possibility of further open communications.

In casual communications, this step is accomplished quickly and effortlessly because of understandings that already exist. When two friends meet, for example, one will say, “Wassup?” to the other, and the conversation will pick up where it left off. Indeed, it will take a conscious effort in reframing to move the conversation off its usual tracks if one of the conversationalists wants to talk about something serious or different from the normal course of affairs.  In more formal settings, a good communicator knows that openness requires agreement on the agenda in order to avoid problems and recriminations later.  The phrase, “You never told me that. . .”  is a listener’s way of registering that an agenda item was not agreed on. The danger is that when the other person says that, he is letting himself off the moral hook, at least to some extent. You may be stuck with the problem and the blame.

When an issue has been announced, briefly discussed, and added to the agenda, it becomes everyone’s issue. If it is sprung as a surprise later, it will be your problem and your fault. The more intimate the relationship is, the more like a betrayal it will seem. Everyone (until they learn better) has had the experience of neglecting to tell a spouse or significant other some vital bit of information.  For example, you go to a party where the host is about to move to Bora-Bora. You forget to tell your spouse that vital detail, who finds out what everyone else knows at the shindig.  Brace yourself for an indignant, “Why didn’t you tell me! ”  on the car ride home.

Announcing the Worst Conference Experience Ever Contest

Recently, I called for an improvement in the way conferences are run and pointed out that the current downturn is an opportunity to make some long-overdue changes in conference behavior.  Conferences should involve their audiences more, and in more significant ways.  Conferences should tell coherent stories, not fill endless time slots. And conferences should use MCs as audience representatives.  Among other changes. 

To further promote these ends, I’m announcing a contest for the best story about the worst conference experience you’ve ever had.  First prize is an hour’s free telephone coaching either for a speech or a conference design.  Second and third prizes are copies of my new book, Trust Me:  Four Steps to Authenticity and Charisma. 

The contest begins with this posting and will run through the end of next week.  Entries must be 200 words or less, and my decision is final.

So bring it on.  Was it a memorably bad speaker?  A particularly stupid theme or breakout session?  A location?  An audience?  What made the experience awful?  Dish it out, and we’ll compare notes as they come in.  It’s time to raise the game by punishing the evil-doers.

How to begin a speech

How do you begin a speech?  There are still human beings who wander this earth recommending starting with a joke -- and even attempting it themselves.  The problem with that is, for the majority of us who aren't professional comedians, it's hard to deliver jokes successfully.  As any professional will tell you, most jokes fall flat.  That's why they have so many comebacks up their sleeves.

It's even harder to deliver a joke when you're beginning a speech, because that's when you're most nervous.  So don't try it.  Just don't.

Begin instead with something that will capture the audience's attention in a way that's relevant to what you're talking about.  Frame the discussion in some way.  You might have a startling statistic.  You might have a factoid that puts things in perspective.  You might have a question to ask the audience that gets its attention.  You might have a personal anecdote -- a relevant one, well told -- that shows your interest in the subject matter.  "I first became aware of the plight of Asian yak herders when I was trekking up the North Face of Everest, looked down, and saw three yaks dangling off a cliff a thousand feet below me with three herders desperately trying to get them back on the thin ribbon of trail...."

OK, so there probably aren't yaks that high up on Everest, but you get the idea.

Another great way to open is to involve the audience directly in some way.  Challenge them to do something, ask them questions about the topic, get their input in some fashion.  Try not to ask "guess what's in my head" questions, or difficult questions with right and wrong answers secretly designed to show off your expertise.  Instead, ask open-ended questions about the audience's experience with the topic.  The point is to involve the audience and make them feel important and smart, not to make you feel important and smart.

Finally, you can begin with a story.  Again, make it relevant to the topic.  Have it frame the discussion in some way that opens up new ideas for the audience rather than closes them down.  Have it make an emotional as well as intellectual point.  And tell it well.  Cut out the extraneous stuff.  Get clear on why the story is relevant and only include details that make the story comprehensible and refer directly to the frame.

Fundamentally, your job is to include the audience and let them know, in the first 1-3 minutes, why they're there, and why you're there, why the topic is important, and what your theme and emotional attitude is toward that topic.  If you can do that you're off and running.

Did Obama's body language match his rhetoric?

Every communication is two conversations, the content and the body language.  When the two are aligned, a speaker can be powerful – even charismatic.  When they are not aligned, the audience believes the non-verbal every time.  How well did President Obama’s Cairo University speech yesterday measure up in this regard?

Obama’s elegant and sweeping rhetoric talked about openness, listening, and peace.  What did his second conversation talk about?  Caution, restraint, and an unwillingness to risk very much.  This was not an emotional performance.  It was a careful, measured one. 

Let’s take the second conversation apart.  President Obama has the posture of a leader.  He strode out to the podium with the confident and upright posture of someone in command.  His wave to the audience was that of a leader acknowledging the many. 

As he began to speak, Obama folded and unfolded his hands in a constrained, protective manner on the podium.  It’s one of the few ways he betrays a little nervousness, typically at the beginnings of his speeches. 

To set against that, his posture continued to be upright and confident, and as he started the speech, he nodded repeatedly, acknowledging the crowd and building agreement with them. 

The President has great stillness in his body; this is charismatic and signals confidence, because it’s at once poised and yet relaxed enough to show that his nerves haven’t got the better of him.  (Contrast this with all the lesser public speakers you've seen who repeatedly shift their weight from one foot to the other.)  He is a practiced and expert public speaker.  It’s just that he can’t quite figure out what to do with his hands. 

While he occasionally got the gesture right -- as for example when he talked about the overlap in views between Muslim and Christian he overlapped his hands quite naturally – most of the time, he used his characteristic and prissy thumb-and-forefinger gesture.  This gesture is less admonishing than the raised forefinger, but it retains something of that off-putting feeling, and it is not one in the natural human retinue.  It looks calculated and fake.  For example, when he called for people around the world to “say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts,” he used the thumb and forefinger instead of a more natural, open gesture that would have matched the words. 

The President repeated this pattern throughout the speech.  His non-verbal conversation was careful and half-closed even when his words were open.  Later, when he spoke of the “interests we all share as human beings” being “far more powerful than those that drive us apart,” he gestured as if he was holding something about the size of a loaf of bread in his hands.  Apparently, those shared interests are not very big.   

Similarly, when he talked about “equal justice” for everyone, his hands came back to the ‘parade rest’ folded position on the podium.  The hand gesture in that way spoke of a very carefully parsed out justice rather than a broad vision. 

The conversation of his hands was most natural when he said, “America doesn’t presume to know what is best for everyone.”  His open hand swept out across his chest in a gesture that unequivocally dismissed the presumption. 

At the close of the speech, when Obama said that “America respects all voices,” he used again the admonishing forefinger, suggesting that he was looking for a quid pro quo of respect back. 

President Obama is an extraordinarily polished, powerful, and persuasive speaker.  His posture, confident voice, and command of pacing together mean a highly accomplished delivery.  But he has still not figured out a natural set of gestures to go with his soaring rhetoric.  Overall, he radiates confidence and dignity.  Now he needs to figure out a set of gestures for his hands that is equally effective.

What did President Obama's Cairo speech achieve?

The reactions to President Obama's Cairo University speech are falling along predictable fault lines in the Middle East: http://bit.ly/pETKy.  But for more dispassionate observers, how did the speech go?  You can check out the text and video here: http://tinyurl.com/oz48ly. 

Opening with a greeting of peace, assalaamu alaykum, President Obama told the assembled Cairo audience that he had come to seek a new beginning:

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

The speech went on to follow the classic problem-solution format of a persuasive speech.  Obama stated the problem in honest and forthright terms:

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world - tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

His solution for this tension is the new beginning he calls for, as well as specific progress on 7 issues that contribute to the tension:  extremism, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, nuclear weapons, democracy, religious freedom, women’s rights, and economic development. 

This is elegant rhetoric indeed, and to the extent that good speech-making can open a door, or start a new dialogue, or re-set expectations, President Obama’s talk today should accomplish all those worthy goals.  

A note on his body language.  President Obama still has not figured out a natural set of gestures to go with his sweeping, well-delivered words.  His posture radiates confidence and dignity.  Now he needs to figure out a gestural rhetoric that is equally effective. 

Obama closed with a broad call for peace, repeating his theme of a new beginning: 

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us, "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you.

Peace-loving people around the world can only agree.  Now the hard work of practical steps, real commitments, and compromise needs to begin. 

Can a weak speaker with a great message hold an audience?

Can a weak speaker with a great message hold an audience?  That’s the question that a speaker like Ray Anderson poses.  And can he improve?  I’ll answer that question at the end.  But first, who is Ray Anderson?  You can watch him speak at TED.com: http://tinyurl.com/ndkn5w

Ray Anderson likes to call himself someone who’s made a journey from “plunderer” to “reformed plunderer” to “the greenest CEO in America.”  It’s quite a journey.  Ray is the CEO of Interface, a maker of carpet tile and broadloom carpets.  Some 15 years ago, Ray read Paul Hawken’s book, The Ecology of Commerce (http://tinyurl.com/ra4z4d) and decided that he had to turn his carpet company from a typical “take-make-waste” company to sustainability. 

The results have been – and continue to be – extraordinary.  Ray’s company makes Flor carpet tiles, which are sustainable and eco-friendly and also just plain cool (http://www.flor.com/).  The company has reduced its carbon footprint 82 % while growing by 2/3rds.  Ray estimates that the company is half-way to its goal of zero emissions by 2020.  More than that, costs are down, the products are better, the workers are more inspired, and the free advertising is incalculable. 

Now, Ray’s goal is to transform all of business.  As he says, ‘more happiness with less stuff’ is the big idea. 

So he’s got a great message.  The full story is told, by the way, in Tim Sanders’ excellent book, Saving the World at Work (http://tinyurl.com/r9t3qe). 

Unfortunately, Ray’s not an inspiring speaker.  His voice needs work; it’s pitched too high and his sibilants are too pronounced.  Worse, he doesn’t connect with his audience.  He reads his speech with his nose in the paper, and the result is a sing-song, solipsistic delivery that doesn’t inspire. 

But the audience at TED did get on their feet, slowly, and in sections, to applaud him when he was done.  Why?  The message is great, the man is a hero.  And the speech was short.

The solution?  Rehearse him in brief segments, getting him to get his head up from the page.  By looking down too much of the time, Ray appears to the audience to be closed off from them.  He needs to practice talking to a close friend, or a grandchild, and then he’d get the idea.  I talk more about how to do this here: http://tinyurl.com/qrv3yk.  Ray needs to learn to be as open with an audience as he obviously is to a great idea. 

A Conference (and Meeting) Manifesto - How They Can Be Better

The meetings and conference business has taken hits from the economy and Joe Biden telling everyone he wants his family to stay off airplanes.  But, much like the overall economy, the business is slowly turning around, or at least slowing its decline.  So this is a good time to take a moment to consider the conference business in general.  What could it do better when it comes roaring back in 2010?  Following are my three radical suggestions for improving meetings and conferences. 

1.  Conferences and meetings should tell unique stories.   Think about how conferences and meetings are typically planned.  A committee picks a theme.  Then someone finds a keynote speaker to open, and maybe one to close.  Then the committee divides the rest of the time up into 60-minute slots and fills them with ‘breakouts’, panels, workshop leaders, and so on.  The result?  From the conference-goer’s point of view, it’s like a regular workday, only worse.  You’ve got back-to-back meetings to attend, a day or days you don’t get to schedule, and uncomfortable seating.  The only choice you get to exercise is not to take part in some or all of the sessions.  Then you feel guilty for sneaking off to the gym, or your hotel room, or the bar. 

It’s a dreary prospect, because it could be so much better.  A conference should tell a story, one that unfolds and builds from the initial moments to the close.  Like any good story, there should be moments of high excitement, followed by moments of relative calm.  That’s different from panic and boredom in ceaseless alternation - a typical experience of a meeting now.  A good meeting should make linear sense from start to finish, in a way that allows attendees to retain what they see and hear rather than just feeling overwhelmed by the information. 

2.  Conferences should be for, by, and about the attendees.  A meeting or conference should feel participative, and you, the meeting attendee, should have some significant part in it beyond being a warm body.  Attendees should react, critique, judge, schedule, and vote for what they like and don’t like.  And that’s just for starters. There are many ways to give attendees a larger role in meetings and conferences, from making them part of panel discussions to creating discussion groups to having them manage Q and A. 

Every meeting should have an MC, or MCs, and they should do more than just point out the bathrooms and introduce the next speaker.  They should integrate, challenge, pull together, combine, disrupt, and generally function as the representative of the attendees, making sense of it all and demanding more from the speakers and other leaders.

3.  Conferences should be about more than just eating and sitting.   We live more and more of our lives in the splendid isolation of the Internet, with all the faux connectors like Facebook, Twitter, email, and the rest.  Getting together is an increasingly rare and important privilege.  Meetings and conferences should be constructed to take advantage of the gathered group.  Every meeting or conference should use the power of the group to give something back to the community in which the meeting is held.  Help a local charity, fix a local problem, champion a local hero, start a new movement.  There are many ways one could imagine making use of the combined energies of the people assembled.  It’s a crime to waste that gathered power. 

To be sure, some meetings and conferences do some of these things now, but not enough, and few, if any, get them all done.  Meetings take their toll on the environment, the workplace, and the families of the attendees.  It’s time to raise the conference stakes and make them serve us better. 

Six Ways to Put Together a Persuasive Speech:

How do you put together a persuasive speech?  The classic way, first noted by the ancient Greeks, is to begin with a problem the audience has, and then put forward a solution.  That’s particularly suited to the presentation format, because it makes sense to us; it’s easily graspable in a speech.  We get the problem, we naturally turn to thinking, ‘OK, how can we solve it’.  Then a solution shows up in the speech at just the right moment.  I talk more about speech structure here: http://tinyurl.com/6sdl5v and here: http://tinyurl.com/n5e2yv but below is a quick run-down. 

But if problem-solution doesn’t fit your need, what are the other options?

If the problem is well understood by the audience, but the way forward is unclear, try the statement of reasons.   Here, you show how to get to your conclusion by listing and explaining all the important reasons for your point of view.  Start with the most important, and work your way down. 

Another way is the comparative advantages structure.  Here, you brainstorm all the ways in which your point of view, if it prevails, will advantage the audience.  List them, once again in order of importance. 

Yet another approach, good for when you have a keen understanding of the needs you are trying to address, is criteria – satisfaction.   Begin with a discussion of all the issues that need to be covered, then explain how your position will cover them. 

A fifth method, one that works well when you’re an authority who commands a lot of respect with the audience in question, is the general to specific method.  Here, you begin with the general rule that covers the particular issue under debate.  Then you show how the particular fits in, and you’re done. 

A final method is the negative method.  Here, you eliminate other options, until yours is the only one left standing.  This method is particularly good for highly contentious issues, like political debates.  Take care to give each of the other options a fair hearing, though; don’t caricature them.  That will only alienate the portions of your audience that holds those points of view.