Nick Morgan, Public Words

How You Can Profit from the Massachusetts Gubernatorial Race

Here in Massachusetts, we have a gubernatorial race that is an object lesson for students of public speaking everywhere.  The two top candidates (out of 4), Deval Patrick and Charlie Baker, both suffer from a common – but curable – malady of public speakers:  nasal voices.  Research over the years indicates that people dislike nasal voices more than any other kind of voice, so I can’t wait to see how will voters respond to this double-barreled insult to their ears on voting day.   

You can hear (and see) them here:

(You get a contrast with a less nasal voice, because Tim Cahill, who is a distant third in the polls, speaks second in the clip and is quite resonant.) 

If you do any public speaking as part of your job, the two frontrunners are wonderful examples of how not to do it – at least in terms of voices.  You can learn from their (bad) example. 

What causes a nasal voice and what can be done about it?  There are two issues:  timbre and pitch. 

When you create sound with your voice, you’re basically pushing air through your vocal chords, causing them to vibrate.  If you draw in and out only a little air through your nose, your voice will sound nasal.   If you draw in more air through your lungs, by expanding your belly and supporting the inrush of air with your abdominal muscles, expanding your diaphragm, then you get a much more resonant sound on your out breath, and one that is more pleasing to your fellow human beings. 

In the case of both Patrick and Baker, barring some sort of physical problem they haven’t revealed, they’re drawing too much air in through their noses and not supporting enough with their abdominals.  The result is that annoying nasal sound that has made this campaign seem inordinately long to voters in Massachusetts. 

It’s a problem many of us have to fight against, because so much of our days is spent sitting at desks hunched over computers.  That posture makes it hard to breathe deeply with the abdominals and diaphragm, and leads to nasal-sounding voices.  Patrick and Baker are typical of the era. 

Historically, politics favored nasal voices because the one good thing about them is that they carry.  They can be heard.  So in the era before amplification, nasal voices could carry a political message to the far corners of the outside gatherings (where the term “stump speech” came from) that were the norm. 

Today, we have radio, TV, and amplification, and the era prefers the more resonant. 

Which of the two candidates is worse?  It’s a close call, but Baker’s voice is a little worse than Patrick’s, and for the second issue that can bedevil voices:  pitch. 

Every voice has a natural resonance point.  Here’s how to determine yours.  Go to a keyboard.  Find the highest note you can comfortably hum, and the lowest.  For most people, those notes are about 2 octaves apart, or about 16 notes.  Your natural resonance point is ¼ of the way up from the bottom of this range, or 4 white notes if your range is indeed 2 octaves (16 divided by 4 = 4). 

In Patrick’s case, he seems to be speaking at roughly his natural resonance point.  This mitigates the nasal quality of his voice somewhat.  But Baker’s voice is clearly pitched too high.  So his voice combines a nasal tone with high pitch and the result is a whine.  Again, this high, nasal voice would have been an asset running against Calvin Coolidge or Abraham Lincoln, but in the 21st Century, it’s a distinct disadvantage. 

Unless Baker is tone deaf, there’s no reason why he can’t test himself to find his vocal range and maximum resonance point.  He can then slowly lower his usual speaking pitch to that note.  And both candidates can learn to support their voices with good breathing technique.  A side benefit to the candidates is that they would find that their voices wouldn’t tire as quickly.   More importantly, perhaps, the voters of Massachusetts would be far happier listening to them speak. 

You can benefit from these two examples of how not to do it by testing to find your own natural resonance point, and ensuring that your voice is pitched most of the time on or around that note.  You’re going to go higher in pitch to indicate excitement, passion, or anger, and lower to increase your authority and conviction.  But when you’re conversing comfortably, you should be at or near your resonance point most of the time.  That gives your voice a pleasing, confident quality – and it also protects your vocal chords from damage. 

How to read other people's body language

This podcast excerpt is the third in the series.  It's all about how to read other people's body language.  It lasts about 3 minutes.  Enjoy!

 

 

Nick Morgan Interview-3- Oct 2010

 

How Your Brain Really Communicates

Second in a series of podcasts on communication subjects.  This one is all about the latest brain research and what it tells us about how people communicate.  The segment lasts about 5 minutes.  Enjoy!

 

Nick Morgan Interview -2-Oct 2010

 

Why is authenticity so important?

I'm going to post a series of short podcasts from a longer interview I did recently.  This first is all about authenticity and why it is both essential today and in short supply.  The segment lasts just under 7 minutes and includes some introductory material.  Enjoy!

Nick Morgan Interview - 1 - Oct 2010

 

7 Steps to a Great Speech

For my blog today, I'm very pleased to announce the 'publication' of a new eBook, "7 Steps to a Great Speech."   The eBook is published by a new venture, New Word City, that has partnered with Starbucks and iTunes to bring new ideas to you in a very convenient digital format.  The book details how to both write and deliver a great speech, in 7 short chapters.  New Word City is charging a small amount for the book.  The venture was started by some really smart refugees from the print world, and I wish them well as they try to figure out new ways of publishing in digital formats.  Let me know what you think!

What Is Charisma? - and Other Mysteries of Communications

For my blog today, I'm posting an interview I did for a superlative marketer (and Internet radio show host), Mary van de Weil.  I talk about how to create your own charisma, how to align the two conversations, what's going on when politicians look and sound fake, why the unconscious brain is so much more powerful than the conscious brain -- and what to do about that when giving a speech or running a meeting.  The interview lasts about 20 minutes.  Enjoy!

Download Show_1328066

Getting Inside V. S. Ramachandran's Head

Once again, I'm focusing on an extraordinary thinker and scientist, V. S. Ramachandran.  His work in neurology has helped patients with phantom limb pain, a particularly cruel affliction for people who have lost an arm or a leg.  What's more, his ingenious solution for phantom limb pain cost all of three dollars.

He has also brought clarity and insight to a number of other curious brain diseases, including the very rare syndrome where a patient believes his or her mother to be an imposter.  V. S. is one of those rare thinkers that sees old problems in new ways, thereby transforming a field of inquiry.  Further, he has the extraordinary ability to explain his insights clearly and memorably to the average person. 

Here he is on people who can't recognize their mothers, phantom limb pain, and other mental mysteries like synesthesia:

 

 

As a speaker, Ramachandran' s humor and passion carry conviction and make him memorable.  It's interesting to note that his posture is a pronounced "head" posture -- meaning that, seen from the side, he leads with his head.  That's typical of intellectuals and others who have a lot on their minds.  And, it's a posture that more and more people adopt these days because of hours of work in front of a computer.  But, unfortunately, it's not a posture that people instinctively trust.  We read it unconsciously as timid, downcast, subservient, or self-effacing.  In V. S.'s case, it comes partly from the relative position of the audience (below him, off the stage) and partly from all the thinking going on.  But regardless of where it comes from, it has a negative effect on the audience. 

Instead, when you're giving a speech, or simply trying to make a good impression, keep your chin up and your shoulders back a little, like a soldier without the tension.  Standing up straight will create unconscious feelings of trust in your audience.  We instinctively lower our heads and pitch them forward when we know ourselves to be in the presence of someone we consider our superior.  It's that unconscious self-abasement that you want to avoid. 

In Ramachandran's case, the effect is mitigated for his immediate audience by the raised stage.  And his extraordinary rhetorical skills further engage his audience rather than putting it off.  But imagine how powerful his speaking would be if he could get himself out of that head posture! 

Tour your Brain with V. S. Ramachandran

I'm going to devote a couple of blogs to a genius and an expert on neurology:  V. S. Ramachandran.  He's a compellingly clear speaker on difficult scientific topics.  Anyone who has to present dense material -- science or engineering, say -- can take  a lesson or two from this masterful storyteller.  Here, he talks about mirror neurons, the neurons in our brain that make it possible for us to be empathetic. 

 

 

 

What makes V. S. so effective?  Following are a few rules to keep in mind:

1.  Focus on the passion.  Ramachandran's passion for the subject shines through his presentation, in his emphasis, his vigorous gestures, and his intensity.  Charisma is focused emotion, and V. S. focuses admirably.  As such, we can't take our eyes off him.

2.  Keep the language simple.  V. S. largely avoids jargon of any kind.  The most difficult word he uses in this piece is "neuron," and most people know the meaning of the word well enough to get by, even if we don't know the full scientific properties involved.  V. S. further keeps providing clear examples to keep us grounded in the real rather than the esoteric. 

3.  Remind us what the larger point of it all is.  Ramachandran's talk is really about empathy, evolution, and what connects us as human beings.  The science is merely a way to understand these big issues.  By keeping us always focused on the larger picture, V. S. keeps our heads in the game. 

I've worked with many a presenter of difficult material, including scientists, medical people, engineers, IT folks, and so forth.  Each of them has believed that her topic presents unique challenges in making the subject comprehensible to the layperson.  And yet, the basic issues always come down to passion, simplicity, and focus.  If you can keep these in mind, you can present the most difficult material with clarity and power. 

A final note on Ramachandran's presenting style.  As you'll see more clearly in the video in my next blog, he has a bad case of "head posture."  I've blogged on this before; it's a sign that the speaker is focused on, well, thinking.  No surprise here; V. S. has a lot to think about, and it's all about the brain itself.  But the effect is to distance the speaker from the audience.  All the more reason, then, to admire V. S. Ramachandran's extraordinary ability to communicate persuasively despite his less than accomodating body language. 

The Secret To Public Speaking Success: Focus

Consider the standard, garden-variety, dull-as-ditchwater business presentation.  A business person wanders to the front of the room, nervous as an auditor in a gambling den.  People look up briefly from their Blackberries, and, seeing nothing of extraordinary interest yet, return to their email and to-do lists.  After fumbling apologetically for a while with the technology, head down, fingers flying, the presenter finally achieves Power Point, and starts by saying, “Here's my agenda slide.  What I’m going to talk to you today about is…..” 

The speaker still hasn’t gotten the attention of the audience.  Why should the audience pay attention?  Several minutes have gone by and all that’s happened is prologue.  The audience is still waiting to hear something new. 

The speaker has wasted a lot of energy on the technology,  and begun to spend the goodwill that audiences have for all speakers at the start, because they want their time to be used well. 

This is not effective communication.  Everyone’s time is being misspent.  Why do it?

Instead, imagine the speaker striding briskly to the front of the room, launching into a story about the perils facing the industry, a story which has the audience nodding in agreement and eager to hear more.  The speaker then asks a couple of key questions of her listeners to involve them and ensure that the presentation remains relevant and focused on the audience’s needs.

The difference between these two scenarios is focus.  The speaker should always be focused on the audience, while creating the speech, rehearsing it, and delivering it.  Then, if the speaker has done her job well, the audience will be able to focus where it should:  on the content.  Right from the start. 

Rehearsal is of course key in this regard, because no speaker can focus effectively on the audience if she is worried about the managing the content in real time.  It's in rehearsal that a speaker will find the ease necessary to take her focus off of herself, or the content, and free it up for the audience. 

So your duty as a speaker in preparing a speech is to get the content and delivery down so well that you can focus on what you should during the performance itself:  the audience.   Which will allow the audience to get the content. 

That’s effective communication. 

What to do when the missiles are incoming

One of the hazards of speaking in public is that some percentage of the audience will not agree with you.  And some small percentage of that group will express itself physically.  Political figures most often run this risk, but anyone who represents an organization or cause faces a similar risk. 

The most famous of such incidents, at least measured by YouTube views, was former President Bush’s encounter with an Iraqi shoe. 

 

 

President Bush beautifully illustrated the power of the unconscious mind in this incident.  He ducked right on cue, because his unconscious mind was scanning the surroundings looking for danger and trying to keep him safe.  We are capable of monitoring something like 11 million bits of information per second unconsciously.  By contrast, our conscious minds can only handle something like 40 bits per second.  That’s probably why the record of public officials throwing out the first pitch is so dismal:  they’re thinking consciously about what they’re doing. 

 

 

 

 

President Obama recently dodged a book hurled at him by a disgruntled citizen:

 

 

 

Here, it appears that the book was out of his peripheral vision so that he never even saw it. 

Other politicians have not been so lucky:

 

 

 

So, given that there is little your conscious mind can or should do about incoming missiles, is there anything the alert public speaker can do to prepare for this kind of mishap? 

Turn the problem over to your unconscious mind.  If you really think that there’s a risk of brickbats, or rotting vegetables, or shoes coming at you, then as you mount the stage, say to yourself something like, “I am alert and ready to dodge anything thrown at me.”  That’s all you can do.  The alternative, cowering behind a very tall podium, is really not preferable. 

There are two other options to consider.  The first is to create speeches that seriously take in the opposing points of view.  One reason why the populace is so angry and inclined to hurl things at its leaders is that there is precious little dialogue and way too much monologue – and sheer distortion – in the political world today. 

The ancient Greeks derived a structure for a speech for precisely this occasion.  In rhetorical circles, it’s known as the “residues method.”  What you do is set out the issue first, in relatively brief terms, but including the relevant data.  Then, you discuss the alternate points of view – seriously, with respect – without mocking or distorting them.  Take them seriously.  Then, politely point out what you think are the flaws in that reasoning.  Once you’ve discussed the several possible points of view, and rejected them for cogent reasons, what’s left is your point of view – the residue of the argument.  Then you can say why that argument is, in your opinion, the best. 

That method will disarm your opponents because they will feel that at least they’ve been heard.  And disarmed opponents will be less likely to throw things. 

Former President Bush gave a great example of a residues speech that had the intended effect back in 2001 when he discussed the issue of using stem cells in scientific research.  It’s worth studying the speech because it offers a serious discussion of the various sides of the issue – something that seems almost quaint today.  But it had the desired effect, and largely put to rest the political debate about the issue for several years. 

And the other option? 

Hire really great security. 

What’s the difference between an anecdote and a story?

Most people tell each other anecdotes, thinking that they’re telling stories.  An anecdote is something that happens.  A story has a structure that makes it memorable.  To be an effective communicator, you should stop telling anecdotes and start telling stories. 

Let’s take an example: 

I met a beautiful woman at a party the other day.  I shouldn’t have been at the party because it was at the house of someone who doesn’t like me.  But the woman was beautiful.  

That’s an anecdote.  Here’s how you turn it into a story:

I met a beautiful woman at a party the other day.  I fell in love at first sight – and she with me.  But when I learned her name, she turned out to be from the family of my sworn enemies.  Nonetheless, we married in secret.  Meeting a group of my enemies in the market the next day, I got into a fight with one of them and killed him.  Now I’m banished from the city, and my wife is being pressured to marry someone else.

That’s a story, or the first part of one, and you probably recognize it:  Romeo and Juliet.   You probably know the rest of the story, too:  Juliet takes a drug to make it look like she’s dead in order to escape having to marry the other guy.  Romeo doesn’t get the word in time, finds her apparently dead, and kills himself.  Juliet wakes up and, finding Romeo’s body, kills herself.   It’s a tragedy.

What’s the structure of a story like that?  All great stories have the same structure.  Stories begin with a meeting, or at least a significant change in circumstances.  (Romeo meets Juliet and falls in love.)  Then, there’s a complication that raises the ante (Romeo marries Juliet).  Then there’s a crisis that pushes the story irrevocably to an end (Romeo kills Tybalt).  That leaves you with a question that must be answered either yes or no (will Romeo and Juliet be able to live together in peace? Answer – no). 

It’s important to understand that each of these steps is irrevocable.  That’s what makes a powerful story – the force of circumstances tests and reveals character, and that’s what we find interesting.  Once people have met, they can’t ‘unmeet’.  Once Romeo and Juliet have married, in those days they couldn’t ‘unmarry’.  And it’s still the case that once Romeo has killed Tybalt, he can’t bring him back to life.  Comedies answer the resulting question with a resounding ‘yes’, tragedies with a ‘no’. 

How do you apply this kind of story structure to your communications?  Think about giving your audiences information that changes their perception of things, powerfully enough that it can’t be undone.  Build one realization on another like the events in Romeo and Juliet.  Build to a question that you resolve at the end.  Then your presentations will attain the level of the classic story, and your audiences will hang on every word.  (I talk more about how to do this in Trust Me.) 

What to do when a speech goes horribly wrong - 5 tips

Technology will fail you.  Audiences will go cold – or fail to show up.  You’ll forget to say something important.  What happens when things go wrong – when you’re staring what seems like failure in the face?  Here are 5 ways to help you recover. 

1. Remember, the audience doesn’t know what you haven’t done or said.

Giving a speech is especially tough for perfectionists – the kind of people who are often asked to give speeches.  Why?  Because you know what you should be doing, or you should have done, and when reality falls short, it’s debilitating.  So try to see it from the audience’s point of view.  If it isn’t wrong in their eyes, it’s not wrong.

2. Enlist the audience’s help with technological problems. 

If you take the burden of solving a technological problem on your shoulders alone, then everyone in the room will be watching you attempt to fix it.  The seconds will seem like eons.  And the audience will rapidly get impatient.  Instead, make it everyone’s problem by asking if there is a really smart, nice technophile in the room.  At least 4 engineers will leap to your rescue and the problem will become everyone’s.  I once had to give a speech at a Harvard Business School event in one of its very high-tech auditoriums.  The speeches were back-to-back that day, and so I had to break my rule of always rehearsing in the room beforehand.  The A/V person was nowhere to be found.  So naturally the sound didn’t work on the videos I wanted to play.  I enlisted the help of a couple of really smart biz school students and the audience as a whole waited patiently with me as they tried to figure out what was wrong.  The students were not able to figure out the problem, and so I gave the speech without the videos.  The audience treated me like a hero, rather than an idiot, because I had carried on without my usual accoutrements. 

3. Be in the moment and remember there are no mistakes. 

It is easy to say and hard to do, but Improv teaches that there are no mistakes, only happy accidents.  This philosophy is fabulous for public speakers.  If you can genuinely stay in the moment and respond to whatever happens with courage and a positive attitude, the audience will love you for it, and forgive you anything that goes wrong – which said audience will probably not notice anyway. 

4. Take a time out and turn the issue over to the audience. 

Sometimes, things go wrong that are apparent to the audience.  There are hecklers, or you go blank, or a person dressed as a gorilla wanders through the hall.  That last actually happened to me once, but that’s another story for another day.  When the glitch is obvious, or you see a train wreck coming, it’s always good to pause and say, “Let me pause here for a moment and take everyone’s temperature.  How are you doing?  What questions do you have for me so far?”  Usually, the several minutes of the time out are enough to get the presentation back on track.

5. If all else fails, throw out the rest of the agenda and go to Q and A.

Just as no one ever complained about a speech that ended early, no one objects to opening up the floor to Q and A.  Of course, the disadvantage is that you’ll most likely lose forward momentum; audiences’ questions meander, circle back, and repeat.  But that’s OK if the audience is engaged.  Just keep a close eye on the energy levels, and cut things off just before the audience starts to flag. 

For an hilarious take on how to cope when Power Point lets you down, here’s a short video from my favorite corporate humorist, Tim Washer.  Enjoy!

 

Nancy Duarte's "resonate"

Nancy Duarte’s new book resonate arrived in my mail box a few days ago, and I’ve been racing through it ever since.  It should immediately join the shelf of great books for serious students of public speaking; it’s destined to become another classic like her earlier book, slide:ology. 

What’s innovative about resonate is that it incorporates insights from storytelling experts like Joseph Campbell, Robert McKee, and Syd Field from the mythological and movie worlds into a straightforward presentation development system (including lots of yellow sticky notes) to enable you to design a presentation as compelling as any Hollywood movie – or almost.   Duarte is one who gets the idea that speeches need the same techniques and structural devices that make movies interesting.  Situation, complication, resolution.  Tension and release.  The audience’s journey.  Good speechwriters need to know and use these concepts – and Nancy makes them clear and usable for you. 

This book is as beautiful, of course, as slide:ology.  Nancy derives inspiration from a number of great speakers from Martin Luther King, Jr to Benjamin Zander.  Her discussions of these speakers and their speeches are useful and to the point.  And she keeps clearly in view the goal of all this effort:  to change the world with compelling presentations.  For the serious student of public speaking, resonate is a must-have.  I’ll have more blogs on some of the subjects raised in resonate,  but I wanted to get out early notice that this book, just released, is a winner. 

The Runway Conversation

How do you deal with the fear of public speaking?  However bad your fear, it's probably not as serious as that of a gentleman I met on a long flight across the country.  Here's the story he told me as we waited on the runway.  Enjoy!

 

 

The Silent Speaker

Continuing with my video theme and thanks to the Harvard Management Mentor series for which I originally taped these comments), here's a story about the most memorable speaker I ever saw, one who began by saying...nothing.