Influence/Change: What formula are you using?

Success at work involves influence at work. We employ influence in decision-making, sales, client relations (internal and external), change management, organizational transformation, managing, recruiting, handling conflicts, negotiations, and so on.

 We all have our ways of preparing to exercise influence. Some of us are aware of these approaches and for others the approaches are largely unconscious. A way of preparing that yields the best results is to use a formula to guide our research and analysis of what needs to be in our influence/change communications.

 There is a 1960s vintage formula that I have found provides a very useful question stimulus and analytical framework through which to strategically prepare for an influence opportunity. I’m referring to Gleicher’s Formula or Equation. David Gleicher was a  consultant at Arthur D. Little. In equation form, his formula looks like this:

Change = Dissatisfaction ´ Vision of the future ´ First steps towards that vision > Resistance.  (C=DVF>R)

This was later refined to DVF > Cost (economic and psychological). The thought is that, if any of the elements on the left side of the equation are weak or missing, then overcoming resistance/cost won’t happen.

 The great value of using a formula like Gleicher’s when we are planning to exercise influence to achieve a goal is that it brings discipline to our thinking (or lack thereof!) It makes us examine our assumptions against what the person we are trying to influence is thinking, believing, fearing, wanting, etc.

 Who hasn’t heard the admonition to be client (external or internal) centred (driven, etc.) today? Well, the client’s cost resistance is one thing, but that psychological cost is a swamp of resistance, to play on John Bunyan’s Slough of Despond. From bias, to “I don’t know you”, to the fear factors, such as the fear of failure.

 This side of the formula – resistance – has the most weight, precisely because it is the client’s centre. But how many of us want to believe that we’ll achieve the influence we want to have, based on the client’s dissatisfaction with the status quo (and how much research did we do on this?), combined with our vision of the future for the client (our product, service, idea, goal, etc.), along with our gentle (or otherwise) push with a suggested action or exhortation (“now get out there….”)? Some will do thorough research (questions, surveys, etc.) and analysis, using a disciplined approach that will include the resistance part of the formula. But many will not do much more than a cursory think- through, driven by their firmly held assumptions.

 Resistance is powerful. Facts and persuasive influencers notwithstanding, change can be non-existent or slow if it cannot outweigh resistance.  For example, on the issue of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, Professor Andre Potworowski flags the resistance problem in a column by technology writer Tyler Hamilton.

 “It is, in effect, a challenge of change management… The greatest barrier to innovation comes from resistance to change on the part of the consumer… People must begin to see the possibility of profiting from sustainability,” says Potworowski.

 And every issue, challenge – indeed, opportunity – is the same. Does DVF outweigh R?

 There is a circumstance where influence/change can happen extremely quickly. I’ll take some liberty with Gleicher’s formula to explain. When I ask myself what factors have been present when I’ve seen an immediate result in influence/change that overcomes resistance, it looks like this:

Fear + Urgency + Limited Options (FULO) > Resistance.

Why? Basically the values of Gleicher’s DVF are jacked-up to the “threat” level and the cost considerations – economic and psychological – don’t have as much sway.

 How many times do most of us have these FULO factors working in our favour to overcome resistance when we’re exercising influence? Not that many. So, we have to deal with the CVF factors Gleicher identified. We can “manufacture” FULO. Many high-pressure sales techniques do just that. We can introduce some aspects of FULO into DVF. Certainly there’s an ethical line for using these “weapons of influence.”

 Gleicher isn’t the only one with a formula. Just a sample from my bookshelves includes:

 Dale Carnegie, How to Win Friends & Influence People – great advice for anyone.

Robert Cialdini, INFLUENCE – The Psychology of Persuasion – PhD. He has six “weapons of influence.” They are present in every analysis I do and often employed in my strategies and those of my clients.

John Adams, Successful Change, Paying Attention to the Intangibles – a change leader I found by exploring Gleicher, he asked the question “Why do so many of these efforts fail?” He found his own answer. His research led to a list of 12 Individual Change Success Factors that he believes are complementary to Gleicher’s Formula. He shared it in OD Practitioner in 2003.

Howard Gardner, Changing minds: the art and science of changing our own and other people’s minds – Harvard Ph.D. put forward the concept of multiple intelligences, and in this book outlines his 7 Levers of Change, all starting with “Re”. I’m thankful to Gardner for introducing me to a formal examination of resistance. It informs my thinking, training/coaching and counsel.

Gregory Berns, Iconoclast: A Neuroscientist Reveals How to Think Differently – MD, PhD. Berns wanted to have innovation in the title but it was overused. He really framed the fear factors part of resistance for me.

Chris Argyris, Overcoming Organizational Defenses – Professor Emeritus Harvard and Thought Leader, Monitor Group. Argyris discusses the undiscussable: how organizations resist change by implementing “organizational defenses”. My take on it: Most organizations talk the talk, but few walk the talk.

 I will explore influence and the references above in future blogs, but in the meantime, enjoy your reading if you check out these experts. And don’t forget to use a formula to increase your strategic influence.

Copyright 2009

How to help non-sales staff sell

Copyright 2005/2009

Asking non-sales staff to sell is an issue that arises more and more these days, as organizations compete to move their products and services. Sounds good on the surface, but the request (or demand) often terrifies people who don’t do sales on a regular basis. If they are going to participate in sales activities they need help. I first wrote about this in 2005 and am updating that article here.

 There is nothing wrong with sales. It is just another manifestation of influence. If the influence is of benefit to the person being influenced, then most societies would usually agree it is a “good” thing.

 So, why are some people and not others afraid of selling? For the answer to this question, which I did not address in my original piece in 2005, I’m drawing on neuroscientist Dr. Gregory Berns’ 2008 book iconoclast, particularly his commentary on “fear”. My conclusion is that some people fear sales because they are uncertain of the benefit of the influence sales represents. They suffer from “ambiguity”, or the inherent fear of the unknown. And/or, they may, like a third of Americans, suffer from the same fear that arises from that most common phobia – public speaking. It’s the fear of failure.

 In his book, Berns references the science of these fears and notes some experiments that prove the power of these fears and their effect on human behaviour. When people who have these fears hear the word “sales”, a movie runs in their head and it triggers a reaction. Think of the fear inherent in making the initiating phone call with the prospective client, or in the “asking for the order” of closing the sale. These images trigger the socially debilitating condition – fear of rejection.

 Before I get into solutions to these fears, let me answer another question. Why would organizations want to have non-sales staff selling? We hear from clients that they want as many points of contact with potential customers as possible. We hear that they also want staff to cross-sell products and services to existing customers. Consulting companies want consultants to go out and bring in new business, or “kill their dinner” as they say. But many of these people are not psychologically equipped to go out and “sell”.

 A number of years ago, I received a call from a truly desperate PR consultant who practically begged me to help him find new business or to get another job. A consulting  firm had recruited him from a position at an industrial association because of his knowledge of a particular industry sector. He told me he had been promised that the firm had lots of business for him to work on and that he would only occasionally be required to participate in new business pitches. Well, that lasted for a couple of months, and then he was told that he had to make a far more substantial contribution to his billings from clients he was to bring into the firm – or he would be let go. This was a likeable, knowledgeable fellow – but a salesman he wasn’t and he knew it. When he told his wife, she was devastated. She had warned him not to leave the association for the consulting field. His distress and bleak prospects had such an effect on me that I use his story as a cautionary tale for anyone who asks me about a career change, where the selling reality is not fully understood. His story also prompted me to want to find a solution to the problem.

 Another situation where non-sales staff are asked to participate in selling occurs when the organization has to make a sales presentation as part of a bid on a major contract. We’ve seen these situations cause serious concern amongst these staff. Organizations that realize the terror this creates come to us looking for training/coaching assistance, to help their non-sales staff to be less anxious and to make a better showing for the prospective client.

 So, what help do we provide these terrified staff?  I should note here that the solutions offered were not derived from, but are consistent with Berns’ commentary on “Taming the Amygdala Through Reappraisal and Extinction”. (The amygdala is the brain’s fear centre.)

 Here are 3 critical components:

1. Brand/Reputation-building, not sales

Change the words and you change the perception of what is being asked of staff. Sales to most non-sales staff (and even to some salespeople!) is as frightening as giving a speech to an audience of 1,000 people. In truth, these people are not really being asked to close deals. Usually they are being asked to find selling opportunities or to contribute to the sales process, not necessarily to do the actual sale.

 It makes sense to use language that doesn’t frighten staff. In fact, what most non-sales staff do is deliver the product or service. If they do it well and look after the customers, they help to build the brand image and enhance the reputation of the organization, thus making sales easier. If the task is explained in those terms to staff, there is likely to be far less anxiety.

2. Customer knowledge

 I always want to have the customer knowledge discussion in these sessions. Non-sales staff have a perspective on their customer and some have a deep knowledge. However, many haven’t fully thought through their customer’s wants and needs. A customer knowledge discussion puts a current perspective about the customer in their heads. It often stimulates a conscious empathy for the customer. Eliciting an expression of interest in helping the customer get what they want/need isn’t difficult after this discussion.

 It may seem like a “no-brainer”, but too often this knowledge and consciousness is taken for granted. When we ask them to tell us the customer’s story at the beginning of this exercise, they can’t. We get part of the story, but not all. So, we should never assume staff have it top of mind. We should always work through the customer knowledge discussion.

 How powerful is this customer mindset? I met the top salesperson for the largest region in a particular division of a major bank. We talked about sales. He said he never sold. He just gave the customers what they asked for. Their ask which resulted in the sale would come after he explored their wants and needs with them, as well as the possible solutions and products that might satisfy those wants and needs. He said he never asked them to buy a product. He didn’t have to. They asked him. His success was based on customer knowledge. And while the monetary reward was good, he said looking after the customer was what he enjoyed most. No anxiety or terror here.

 3. Personal contribution

Most employees believe they are making a contribution and take pride in what they do. We tap into that. We get them to tell us what that contribution is and how it helps the customer. Then we ask, if they were speaking to a customer or prospect, would they feel comfortable in talking about their knowledge of the customer? Or how they as employees contribute at their organization to satisfying the customer want/need? Customers more often want to hear a credible story about how their wants/needs will be dealt with from the people who do the work, rather than hear from a person whose job it is to “sell” making grand claims. But staff doesn’t have this perspective on their minds or the right stories prepared, if they are blinded by the terror of the demand that they have to sell.

 Don’t deal with this terror by saying, “Oh, you’ll be fine, don’t worry” (this line is about as comforting as the “this won’t hurt a bit” line.) Shift the focus from outcomes to a focus on a process that will credibly show non-sales staff how effective they can be at “sales”.

The Net shortens the News Cycle

From Politico’s Arena comes a valuable comment from Christine Pelosi on 2 counts:

1. A topical analysis of  Judge Sotomayor hearings on her nomination to SCOTUS
2. A reference to a very interesting study on how the Net shortens the news cycle today

Here it is complete with the link to the Study:

Christine Pelosi, Attorney, author and Democratic activist:

From Judge Sotomayor’s hearings, we have learned that United States Senators are on the 24-hour news cycle and Supreme Court Justices are not.

It is perhaps a historic coincidence that America’s first Internet President, Barack Obama, sent up a Supreme Court nominee for confirmation hearings the same week that Cornell University published a landmark study - “Meme-tracking and the Dynamics of the News Cycle” – that demonstrated how the web shortens the news cycle. The Cornell researchers tracked the accelerated web-based circulation of ideas – scouring 90 million articles and blog posts during the 2008 campaign for the “genetic signatures” for ideas, memes, and story lines.

They found what most Americans already intuit: the Internet shortens the time in which a meme circulates from main stream media to blogs (2.5 hours) and into the popular culture, thus words have more weight as perceived evidence of a person’s character and philosophy. The study helps explain why the role of United States Senators in this Supreme Court Justice hearing is to elevate their chosen memes (“most experienced nominee in 100 years” “wise Latina” “prosecutor” “judicial activist” “moderate” to name a few) through repetition and questioning in order to quickly frame Judge Sotomayor’s character and philosophy, capture the conversation, and build momentum to justify their vote.

Meanwhile, by contrast, the role of Supreme Court Justices is to navigate a long-term jurisprudence cycle not a short-term news cycle. Court rulings rely heavily on precedence, must endure over time, and ideally are not swayed by the passions of the moment. As Judge Sotomayor said, “we don’t rule for the home crowd.”

But before she can be elevated to a lifetime appointment to work in the long-term jurisprudence cycle, Sotomayor must endure the last unblinking look of the 24-hour news cycle. Unlike nominees of the pre-Internet era, the judge’s public utterances were captured on tape and can be taken in or out of context with the stroke of a keyboard. Sotomayor must assess the weight of her words on and off the bench to show us her personal character and judicial philosophy without prejudging cases or adding new weight to badly chosen words. In the questioning to date, Democrats emphasize her words on the bench and Republicans emphasize her work off the bench.

She has demonstrated patience, intellect, and the ability to withstand withering patrimony with aplomb. To her credit, Judge Sotomayor is attempting a candid discussion on jurisprudence that will endure over a lifetime and avoiding a gaffe that will circulate in a news cycle.

 Again:  MEME-TRACKING AND THE DYNAMICS OF THE NEWS CYCLE

http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/kdd09-quotes.pdf

How do reporters prepare for media interviews?

I was asked this question in a media training session the other day. I recalled an interaction with the reporter/host trainer at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation a few years ago and the “lunch and learn” he organized for me to address a collection of CBC radio hosts/producers/researchers. An article I wrote about that session – “Learnings from lunch with the CBC” – is repeated below. One piece of advice that I gave that media group, when I was asked about how to break the dreaded “message track” of interviewees, was that reporters should ask the interviewee to tell them more about the message the interviewee was delivering. My advice was based on the premise that if the interviewee had more good information of interest to the audience, then the “tell me more” prompt might get them past any stress induced freeze-up and bring out that information. If, on the other hand, the interviewee had only prepared a superficial message, they’d be hard pressed to expand that message and would look appropriately foolish. I was interested to see this technique referenced in a very interesting blog post on Politico by Mike Allen titled: “Reporters war-game Obama questions” and found at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20403.html .

Learnings from lunch with the CBC

There’s a saying in manufacturing: You can’t manage what you can’t measure. Let me apply that sentiment to media and message. We can’t get to win/win with media and message without understanding and a mutual goal. Studying, analyzing and discussing the media relations process leads to learning and understanding of the needs of the participants.

Ever since I wrote a column titled “The win/win interview: Can we get there from here?” I have received a large volume of comment, anecdotes, attaboys, and invitations from readers. One particular interaction, with Ira Basen, a radio producer and trainer at CBC in Toronto, led me deeper into how some media feel about the spokespeople they face, whether from politics or business, and their extreme frustration with the “message track.” This all led to my joining Ira and CBC Radio host Andy Barrie for a ‘lunch and learn’ with CBC staff in Toronto. Let me share how it went and what I learned.

First, the session was well attended and everyone was welcoming and engaged. I was given more than a fair share of airtime to voice my opinion. No ambush, no piling-on. Just a lively and enlightening interaction. I even had one participant sticking up for a point I made, and Ira has been supportive and fair, although not always in agreement, since we first met after he read the win/win column.

What did we learn? The trust situation is damaged. Although both camps have positive experiences, we are drawn to the bad experiences that we’ve had or observed and that causes us to distrust each other. In fact it was Ira who voiced the outcome of this in our first meeting. He said that our camp probably developed the message track (the mantra-like repetition of the exact same message) to counter interviewers who, through their control of the interview and the process, prevented the message from getting through in any form. That fits the law of unintended consequences. The result, however, is bad media interactions. Bad for the audience, the media and, I think, our camp. This was my message to the CBC folks.

My solution is for our camp to bring good stories that are relevant to the audience of the medium with which they are interacting. The media, I suggested, should help their interviewees tell their story in order for both to get to win/win. Well, there was some strong reaction to that at the lunch and learn, I must say.

When one attendee asked what I thought he should do when faced with a mantra-like message track, I suggested that one option would be to say to the guest, “Tell us more about that?” He didn’t like that answer. But I explained that if he asked any other question, he was going to just get the mantra again. So why not see what else the interviewee had to say? And once the interviewee opens up, the dam will have been breached.

I also said that I don’t teach people to do mantra-like message tracks because I don’t think they have any credibility with an audience. I train people to develop their story, make it absolutely relevant to the audience of the medium and to be a good interviewee. We coach people to be the interviewee the media like to have on their programs.

Control is an issue. Several of the CBC participants expressed the view that they decide what the content should be. They decide what the audience needs and wants. In fact, some believe that they are their audience. Andy expressed this: “What I’m told frequently when I do what could be considered a hostile interview – and I don’t set out, believe me, to do that – is people will say to me you asked exactly the question I wanted answered, that was on my lips.”

Andy also believes there is a natural antagonism that exists because the company spokespeople represent the interest of their companies’ shareholders while he and others in the media are representing the public good. So, he rejects my suggestion to let the spokesperson tell their story and let the audience judge. I argued against the idea that the spokesperson is there to promote the shareholders’ interests. I said that I couldn’t remember a media training session where the shareholders were a factor in the discussion.

What I argue for, although I know not everyone who does media training agrees, is that the spokesperson should be thinking first and foremost about the legitimate interests of the audience that is reading, watching or listening and should tell their story in the context of the audience’s interests. The rest will take care of itself – including shareholder value. But that trust thing is always there. And both sides can bring up examples of the worst behaviour of the other. Then we all get tarred by the same brush.

We talked about the rehearsed versus the unrehearsed interviewee. One participant mentioned that they really wanted someone unrehearsed. My response was that few of us go to important meetings unprepared and unrehearsed. Media interactions are important business meetings. Why wouldn’t we approach them on the same basis as other important meetings?

I asked the group if they’d had an interviewee who couldn’t tell their story – in effect had nothing to say. I took the response to indicate this was a reality and an unpleasant one at that. So, I said, wouldn’t you rather have an interviewee who had thought about your audience and their interests and brought a coherent, interesting story that spoke to those interests? Intellectually, I think that’s exactly what they want. Emotionally, I don’t think they trust our camp to deliver on that.

So, there’s a sampling of the learnings from the CBC lunch and learn interaction. A worthwhile investment of time from my perspective.

How did the CBC folks feel about it? Here’s Ira’s e-mail: “ The feedback has been very positive. Even people who were pre-disposed not to like you (most of the people there) agreed that you made some important points.” That’s what I mean by win/win. It should always be the goal.

With media, favor offense over defense

Copyright 2009

Recently I was helping to prepare a very senior executive for a major media interview. As we gathered for the coaching session I was struck again by the defensive attitude that was expressed by the participant and internal advisors alike because a secondary issue was hot and was likely to be introduced into the media interaction by the reporter.

 

The problem I’ve seen too often is that almost all preparation gets focused on the attack point. And, while excellent rebuttal argument may be built and bridging practiced to get away from the secondary issue and back to the core message, there isn’t enough core message available to sustain that move. In those cases it is easy for the reporter to make the attack dominate the interaction.

 

My approach to this is to ensure that the participant – the executive in this case – has a clear and very strong objective to accomplish in the interaction. In my training/coaching sessions I suggest participants think of the objective as a destination – something they must get to. No detours or obstacles should deflect them from getting to where they set out to go.

 

What I’m really trying to accomplish with this is to get their mind-set focused on offense more than defense.

 

To deliver on offense I believe the participant needs both the intellectual arguments and – as critically – the emotional, passionate energy to not only match the emotion of the attack but to use it to fuel their determination to reach the destination. This isn’t manifested by wild emotional outbursts. On the surface it could in fact seem rather cool, especially in the face of a spirited attack. But there is a belief in the destination that has its own passion and that is what usually drives the credibility of the argument on offense.

 

Back to the example I started with to illustrate this point. We didn’t need to start the session focused on the negative – everyone in the room had already spent lots of resource on the issue. Instead, we started with defining the destination. It wasn’t difficult to do, but did require some discussion and refinement. That exercize is the first step in conditioning the participant to think offense.

 

The next step is to review the positive story. Note that it should be a story – not just messages or facts. Story allows us to deliver both emotion and facts in a structure that can include the best interests of the viewing, reading, listening audience. It all depends on how we structure the story.

 

A technique for finding an appropriate and powerful structure that might counterbalance an attack is the concept of ‘The Other Goliath’. In essence, it means we need to find another, far larger Goliath than we are in the media’s story equation of David versus Goliath (good versus evil).

 

In another case I worked on recently, the company had already found this Goliath: threat to consumer safety. This was an alternative to the media’s equation, which was: consumer versus profit-driven company. In the new equation the company plays a different role than in the media equation. They had a good story about protecting consumer safety and could support it.

 

It’s not unusual for companies to try to find another bad guy to take their place in the equation. Sometimes the attempt is misplaced. They choose a completely irrelevant or inappropriate substitute to focus attention on. It doesn’t fly. In other cases, there isn’t any factual support for the premise that someone or something else is the real Goliath.

 

Premise needs to be proved. The story (it carries and develops the premise for comprehension) needs to be supported.

 

In the last case I mentioned, while the company had the premise right, they lacked all the supporting information to allow the full story to play out. It was available, but had not been integrated into the explanation. If I had been a reporter I would have pressed the company to prove its alternate premise (new Goliath) and if it couldn’t do it convincingly, with examples and facts, I wouldn’t have accepted it and may have dismissed it or minimized it in the balancing of the story.

 

One reason there wasn’t more information in the story was the quite legitimate concern of a senior communications manager that he didn’t want his spokesperson going into deep detail. I believe this decision came from a defensive mindset. To me there are no right and wrong approaches. Only options with pros and cons. You analyze their benefits and risks and choose one. That becomes the “right” one if you need that label.

 

I explained to the communications manager that in this case the positive story was not substantial enough without further detail (proof). So we simply added a very strong example to the story to support the threat to safety premise and to make a far better story. In fact, the logical place for the example was at the beginning of the story because it captured the problem statement for the consumer. After that, the company’s position became solution to the problem – rather than the problem as the media wanted to portray it.

 

There is nothing magical about this. As shown, the companies can be almost there with their offense.  The difficulty with getting to the best place is that too often the people involved are too close to the issue. They become susceptible to the negative, defensive mindset and focus too much time and attention on that side of the equation.

 

The other difficulty is not going far enough on the offense story. Sure, there may be problems with it, but that shouldn’t cause it to be abandoned or cut short. I tend to keep asking questions until I get enough information that either makes it go or supports finding another story. But, in asking these questions I often get information that the people close to the situation have forgotten or somehow dismissed as irrelevant or unnecessary. Maybe to them, but not necessarily to someone on the outside.

 

If, at the end of the exercize the media still doesn’t buy the story, but does give it good play as balance because it is fully formed, supported and delivered with energy, then the reader, viewer, listener gets to decide. And that can be the victory we’re after when we’re dealing with serious issues with the media.

 

As some sage has often been quoted: The best defense is a good offense.

 

Sounds good. What about investigative journalism? Different story. The best offense with investigative journalism is to communicate your story to your key audiences directly, because the media aren’t going to. Yes, they’ll ask lots of questions in research, ask for an interview with your most senior person, and try to curry favor to get the interview. If you refuse, the tone will change and you are likely to experience threats. If you refuse the interview, you should also expect the “ambush” interview, where they try to get to your executive directly – on the phone, in the parking lot, at the elevator, etc.

 

I don’t generally like to accuse media of having written the story before they talk to us. With investigative journalists, j’accuse. I believe they take a purely deductive approach – they know you are guilty and they’re only interested in the information that supports that premise. I strongly suggest only doing these interviews if a key constituency must have you engaged in the interview to defend a position. This rarely produces anything more than the media taking select bits out of the interview and through editing, using it to support the thesis. Better to send a written statement of your position and save a spokesperson’s psyche from the bruising they take before, during and after these interviews. Yes, the broadcast media will scream the loudest, but participating isn’t going to make them go any easier on you than the statement.

 

How to Control a Media Interview

By Patrick McGee

Copyright December 2008

 

If you’re afraid/concerned about where the reporter is going to take an interview, then you need to know how to control the direction of the interaction. There are three key things you want to keep in the front of your mind:

1. Own it. Consciously commit to be in charge. If this was a business meeting you were running, would you simply be reactive to the questions or direction in which the participants wanted to go? I don’t think so. You would lead the meeting and maintain a pre-determined focus. Why does this have to be the reporter’s meeting? It should be yours, even if they asked for it.
2. Prepare. Determine the interview outcome that will meet your needs, the needs of the reporter and those of the readers/viewers/listeners (that YOU decide are the target). Build the whole story – not just messages – so that you can tell that story completely, concisely and compellingly and the reporter can, at least in theory, just take that story and have a great product for their audience. Be prepared to bring the story without any stimulus from the reporter. In other words, you don’t have to wait for the questions. (I watched Richard Branson of Virgin companies’ fame tell his mobile phone story on a remote TV interview for three or four minutes without a single question from the media host because Branson’s earpiece wasn’t working and he couldn’t hear the host. So, he just launched into his story and stopped when he was finished. Brilliant!)
3. Manage the interaction using premise challenges. In effect, explain why you won’t answer a question precisely, but rather will respond appropriately, and use guiding to let the reporter know where this interaction is going. (They may not like that you’re leading but another part of them likes to know where they’re going.)

 

In my Media Training sessions at McGee+Associates I often get asked about controlling the interview: who does this well? One only has to watch television to see people who are masters, strivers and failures. But there was one situation recently that I thought provided an excellent real life example of the concepts outlined above.

 

On December 9, 2008 in Chicago, Illinois, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Patrick Fitzgerald, along with his staff and members of the FBI, the IRS, and the Postal Service held a full-house press conference to announce the arrest of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and John Harris, his Chief of Staff, on corruption charges. (All of this was included in the notice to media, so they knew going in what the presser was about.)

 

I’m going to take you through excerpts of the transcript to show you the words Fitzgerald used to control this interaction with the media. And if you want to watch him in action you can do that here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4691428975272263845

and/or read the full transcript here: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/12/fitzgerald_press_conference_on.html

 

Fitzgerald clearly did not go into this interaction unprepared. He was in charge. He was focussed. He had a story and he told it and told it well. And he guided the media during the session and challenged the appropriateness or premise of their questions. This is the technique I’m going to illustrate below. Key points will be underlined. Any editorial comments I have will be in bracketed italics either before or after the transcript material from Federal News Service (all typos in the transcript are theirs and any others are mine) carried on the Chicago Sun-Times blog of Lynn Sweet.

 

(Fitzgerald starts the press conference by introducing his colleagues and even here he is guiding the reporters with directions and then he launches into his story which, in one paragraph, is really the essential story without the details.)

MR. FITZGERALD: Good morning. Joining me is — to my far right, is Rob Grant, the special agent in charge for the FBI office here in Chicago. To his left is Al Patton, the special agent in charge of the IRS Criminal Investigative Division, and to his left is Tom Brady, the inspector in charge of the Postal Inspection Service in Chicago. Behind me, to my left, are Carrie Hamilton, Reid Schar and Chris Niewoehner, assistant U.S. attorneys.

This is a sad day for government. It’s a very sad day for Illinois government. Governor Blagojevich has taken us to a truly new low. Governor Blagojevich has been arrested in the middle of what we can only describe as a political corruption crime spree. We acted to stop that crime spree.  (Fitzgerald, with that last sentence, has just covered off one of the weak spots in the actions he has just announced – did they act too soon? He will come back to this point/message in his story several times in the press conference and it will be easier to defend/explain as part of the story. For the next 14 minutes or so, he tells the long version of the story and lets the FBI man have his say.)

(As Fitzgerald is walking back to the lectern after Special Agent Rob Grant is finished, the first question is thrown at him. It deals with the timing issue.)

Q Mr. Fitzgerald, was this done today in an effort to head off the appointment of someone to fill Barack Obama’s Senate seat? Was it so imminent that that’s why you had to step in?

MR. FITZGERALD: I would say that we decided that this required unusual measures, and there were a lot of things going on that were imminent.

There’s a bill sitting on the desk that we think a person who was supporting that bill has been squeezed to give $100,000. And to let that bill be signed to me would be very, very troubling.

There is a hospital — Children’s Memorial Hospital — believing that it’s getting $8 million, but its CEO has not coughed up a campaign contribution. And the thought that that money may get pulled back from a Children’s Memorial Hospital is something that you cannot abide.

There is an editor that they’d like fired from the Tribune. And I laid awake at night worrying whether I’d read in the paper in the morning that when there were layoffs that we’d find out that that person was laid out. The complaint– the complaint lays out, in there, in fact, when there were layoffs, there were conversations to find out whether the editor who should have — they thought should be fired was fired, and he wasn’t, and the governor was asking whether there’d be more layoffs. So we have the governors, in these modern times, the only one who’s looking for more layoffs.

You take that, what’s going on, add it to the fact that we have a Senate seat that seemed to be as recently as days ago auctioned off to the — you know, to the highest bidder for campaign contributions. And Governor Blagojevich’s own words on the tape with a bug that’s set forth in the complaint talked about selling this like a sports agent.

Q Couldn’t he just –

MR. FITZGERALD: So — I’m just — so we stepped in for a number of reasons.

Basically, as I said before, we’re in the middle of a corruption crime spree and we wanted to stop it.

(Members of press shouting simultaneous questions.)

Okay. Can we –

Q Patrick, you said –

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, just one second. No, no, let me just say one thing. We’re going to stay here as long as this is productive. We will — you’re not on a clock. We want to dispel any misperceptions. So don’t feel like you got to — anyone’s got to yell to get a question in.

Okay.

Q (Inaudible) — you said twice that we shouldn’t cast aspersions on people who we think we recognize within the complaint. Does that mean that all of these people are beyond blame in any way? I mean, some of the things in the complaint point a very kind of a tacky finger at some people, their willingness to play. And if pay to play is illegal, isn’t the willingness to play also culpable, even if you didn’t charge today?

MR. FITZGERALD: What I’m trying to say is this. Look, we never give – ….I’m never going to say no, because that’s just our practice. But I don’t want people, when I answer those questions, ….What I’m trying to do is explain caution about a complaint. …

Yes? (He points out a reporter for the next question, who says they want to know one thing, then outlines two parts with various conclusions and data .)

Q Would you please address one thing? And that is, when Blagojevich walks out of here today, unless I’m mistaken about the constitution of Illinois, he will still be governor. He will still have the power to make the appointment to the Senate seat. He will still have the power whether or not he’s going to sign the bill that you are concerned about.

Also would you address the fact — and I know you’ve referred to this — would you just address whether or not President-elect Obama was aware that any of these things were taking place?

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. I’m not going to speak for what the president-elect was aware of. We make no allegations that he’s aware of anything, and that’s as simply as I can put it.

And the first part, my understanding is that he is the sitting governor of Illinois today, now, and that is not something we have any say in or control over. So at the end of the day, he will be the sitting governor.

Q In your view, in your view, Pat, in your view –

(There are lots of questions and hands waving. He sorts it out.)

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, this — and then Carlos next.

Q In your view, Pat, should the governor, on his own volition, step aside while he fights these charges, or should the Illinois state legislature move ahead with what it’s threatened to do and impeach him? What are your views on both of those?

MR. FITZGERALD: The Office of the United States Attorney has no view. We are not entitled to any view. And the view of what happens in the legislature of Illinois is not for us.  (When Ari Fleischer was George W. Bush’s Press Secretary, he might have said: “The premise of your question is not valid so I can’t answer it. But I can tell you this….” Fitzgerald just skips calling it a premise challenge and goes directly to an explanation of the fault in the premise of the question. His response is strong and clear and uses deep, as in fundamental, context to respond. Too many interviewees don’t go back far enough and miss out on using some of their strongest arguments.)

Q What do you –

Q Pat –

MR. FITZGERALD: Carlos. Carlos and then Carol (sp).

Q Pat, given the scope and the brazenness of this alleged conduct of Governor Blagojevich, what does it say that this happened despite the cautionary tale of George Ryan?

 

MR. FITZGERALD: I just — I think it tells us certainly — you know, I don’t want to jump ahead of things. Again, the governor’s presumed innocent. (Another diplomatic premise challenge. Fitzgerald could have prefaced his response with: “Your question is inappropriate based on timing.”)

Q Are you able to tell us if, in the Tribune scenario, it was the Tribune who came to you and said “We’re being extorted,” or you that went to the Tribune with this revelation?

MR. FITZGERALD: I don’t — that’s not set forth in the complaint. What we can tell you is that that was conversations we intercepted on the governor’s side, speaking to Mr. Harris about what they wanted to do…

Q So it’s conceivable, then, that the Tribune, at some level of management, was considering, or forced to consider, the governor’s alleged extortion.

MR. FITZGERALD: I’m not going to speak for the Tribune or what happened, what message got there… So I’m not going to speculate as to…

(The following is an instructive exchange. The reporter asks about “a different matter”, an issue that is not on this day’s agenda. The reporter is trying to change the focus, whether intentional or not. Fitzgerald just says it’s not on focus and then stays in control invoking a position he has already established. Then he moves on to someone else, not taking a follow-up. Note the language that allows him to be in control.)

Q Mr. Fitzgerald, what does this say about Senator Durbin’s letter to the president requesting commutation of George Ryan’s sentence, which has only been a year of the six-and-a-half-year sentence that was imposed for the — for the crimes this office charged him with and convicted him of?

MR. FITZGERALD: And that’s a different matter. I told you the office doesn’t have a view on what happens in sort of Illinois government. We just don’t have a stake in that. To the extent the office has a view in the Ryan pardon, if we’re asked by the Department of Justice or the White House to express that view, we will do so privately. But we’re not going to — it’s inappropriate for me, on behalf of the office, to express a view where the power of pardon and commutation rests with the president. And it’s not our power — our power, and we do not make a practice of commenting to other branches of government, what they ought to do unless asked by them in private.

Yes?

Q I’ve got two questions. What does the law say about the appointment process of the U.S. Senate, you know, as it relates to the governor before his arrest? And then I have another question, is how could the appointment process of the U.S. Senate, you know, change now that, you know, the governor’s been arrested?

MR. FITZGERALD: And I’m not going to comment …I’m not going to comment on any proposed modifications.

Q Which advice would you give to anybody who would now take a senatorial appointment from Rod Blagojevich?

MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, I’m — I’m going to duck that one on — okay.

Yes, sir. (Why can Fitzgerald get away with ducking and moving on? Although unstated, the premise of the question is inappropriate and he knows that everyone in the room knows it, so he just moves on. If the reporter challenged him, Fitzgerald would give him the “we don’t do that” explanation. Since he’s given it once, he doesn’t use it. Some of the people I train worry that using this tactic would be rude. With the words he uses and the point having been previously established, Fitzgerald isn’t rude.)

Q We understand the governor was taken to the FBI headquarters this morning.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

Q Was he interviewed there? And did he make any kind of a statement?

MR. FITZGERALD: I’m not allowed to comment on whether anyone made a statement, but he was arrested and taken to the FBI.

Q Was he interviewed?

MR. FITZGERALD: I don’t think I – (Fitzgerald appeals for advice to one of his staff out of camera. So for those who think they have to know everything or else someone might think them incompetent, it’s not necessarily so. Here’s a very confident, in-command Fitzgerald, appropriately seeking counsel from one of his lawyers. No worries.)

Q (Off mike.)

MR. FITZGERALD: I don’t know if I can comment on whether we attempted an interview under the rules. I can’t comment on that.

Q Mr. Fitzgerald, would you make clear just something about the timing here? When the Tribune ran its story a few days ago revealing that the governor was being taped, would you explain — and I think some of this is laid out in the complaint — did further taping take place, or did that essentially terminate your ability to listen in?

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, what I would say is to back up, and to the extent that there have been articles I’m not confirming or denying the accuracy of the articles. You can compare them against what happened.

I will say this…

 

Q Patrick, you are always very careful to separate politics and law enforcement. …How about weighing in on a matter of civic responsibility?

MR. FITZGERALD: I think there’s enough people here who can weigh in on their opinions about things, and the citizens can weigh in with their opinions.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office and the FBI do not have an opinion on what actions the legislature ought take. The only opinion we’ll express is that we hope that people with relevant information will come forward and cooperate with us.

Q You’re — you live here in Chicago. Do you trust this governor to make a good choice for the Senate, which is so important?

MR. FITZGERALD: I am a citizen of Illinois, and I do have opinions and beliefs. And what they are, are for me, because when I speak, I speak on behalf of that seal, and that seal has no opinion on that matter.

And in the back? Yes? And then you.

Q (Off mike) — confirmed so many investigations — (off mike) — be additional counts added against these defendants and others?

MR. FITZGERALD: What we’ll simply say is the investigation continues. We’re not going to predict that other charges will or will not be filed.

Yes?

Q You spoke before about if Senator — you didn’t know — no awareness that Senator or President-elect Barack Obama knew about this. So is it safe to say he has not been briefed? And can you also tell us if any phone calls were made to President-elect Obama that you intercepted, or to Rahm Emanuel?

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. I’m not going to go down anything that’s not in the complaint.

And what I simply said before is, I’m not going to — I have enough trouble speaking for myself. I’m not going to try and speak in the voice of a president or a president-elect.

So I simply pointed out…. And that’s all I can say.

(Fitzgerald is not afraid of the media. He is prepared to manage the interactions. The questions are getting more speculative rather than fact seeking. Here’s a light exchange.)

Q What will be your position — what will be your position at this afternoon’s hearing on detention or bond for the governor?

MR. FITZGERALD: I don’t expect there’s going to be a contentious issue about bond, but we’ll — Magistrate Judge Nan Nolan will be handling that proceeding. I think she can hear the specifics from us for the first time in court. But –

Q You won’t oppose — (off mike).

MR. FITZGERALD: I think Judge Nolan should hear what our position is, not through your excellent reporting but through our (assistants/assistance ?) telling him what it is.

Q How would you categorize this — (off mike) — compared to other things that you’ve seen? How would you categorize it?

MR. FITZGERALD: I’m not going to go beyond saying that just we — the conduct we think is appalling. I’m not going to do a comparative to other cases, but I just think it’s very, very disturbing that we have these pay-to-play allegations going on for years, and that they picked up steam after a conviction, they picked up steam after an ethics-in-government act, and that it would go so far as to taint the process by which the governor and his inner circle of advisers were choosing someone to take a seat in the United States Senate to represent Illinois.

Q (Off mike) — said that Senate candidate number five took herself out of the running after this was made apparent to her? Can we gather that is Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky?

MR. FITZGERALD: I’m not going to confirm or deny any names with numbers. I just can’t.

Q You do name the governor’s wife in this. And you quote her in the charges. Can you recount for us what she said and what her role was as it’s laid out in the charge?

MR. FITZGERALD: Since I don’t — (inaudible) — won’t quote it accurately, there’s a paragraph, I believe, … I think I’ll just leave you to looking at the complaint and –

Q If she what the governor has been charged with, why wouldn’t she be charged if she’s saying the same thing?

MR. FITZGERALD: I’m not going to comment on anyone not charged. I’ll simply say ….

Q Mr. Fitzgerald, I have a question….

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, you hit on two questions. One is a legal distinction.

 

 

Q Mr. Fitzgerald?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes?

Q Sir, just to be crystal-clear on this point, you’re not aware of any conversation, then, that took place between the governor and any member of Barack Obama’s transition team at all?

MR. FITZGERALD: And what I simply said is you can read the complaint. I’m not going to sit here with a 76-page complaint and parse through it. You know, that’s all we’re alleging. And I’m just — I’m not going to start going down and saying, “Did anyone ever talk to anyone?” You can read what we allege in the complaint. It’s pretty detailed. Look in the 76 pages, and if you don’t see it, it’s not there.

Q In the briefings that President-elect Obama has had over the past weeks with various government departments here, would it be possible for him to have been briefed on what was going on here with regard to this investigation?

MR. FITZGERALD: I’m not going to comment on that. I’m not the briefer. I’m not at those meetings. But I would simply say that this was very close-hold in Washington, and on a need-to-know basis. So I’m — but I’m not going to — I’m not the briefer, so I’m not going to represent what happens. But — I’ll leave it at that.

Q Pat?

Q Is there anything –

Q Will you quantify the number of calls that you’ve gotten –

(At this point the questions are getting out of control and Fitzgerald reasserts authority with clear direction – it gives the media direction and they settle down. This kind of control can be asserted one-on-one just as well as in a group.)

MR. FITZGERALD: Sorry? Okay. After Carol (sp), we’ll go do a ring around the back.

Q Pat, one of the things I think that people out there look at is, the governor’s known he’s been under investigation for several years now, and yet he would still engage, allegedly, in this kind of activity. What does it say about the audacity of the governor to do this while he’s under investigation and knows it?

MR. FITZGERALD: I’ll leave that for you to draw your own conclusions. It’s a pretty audacious set of conversations set forth in the complaint, in the circumstances.

In the back? Yes.

Q Which union did the governor solicit in exchange for the Senate appointment?

MR. FITZGERALD: I think it’s laid out in the complaint that it’s …and again, I’m not going to describe more than is in the complaint –

Anyone else in the back?

Q Can the FBI comment on at all on the search warrant that was executed for the governor’s office at the Thompson Center?

MR. FITZGERALD: That’s — I don’t think it’s the governor’s office at the Thompson Center. There’s a search warrant — can we say where? (Fitzgerald again defers to his staff and doesn’t proceed with his answer without guidance.)

MR. FITZGERALD: It’s at the office of Deputy Governor — a deputy governor. And there’s a search warrant being executed at the Friends of Blagojevich campaign headquarters.

Q Right now?

Q Can I ask you one, Pat?

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, one more. I just want to get the — I want to make sure –

Q Can you help me with a matter of law, a question of law…?

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, and I’m not going to get into hypotheticals that you’ll abstract, from the complaint, and start going down that road.

Q I was just wondering, is — I haven’t read the full complaint either — is Rezko going to be testifying regarding this case at all? (Off mike.)

MR. FITZGERALD: I think there’s a discussion of Mr. Rezko, in a footnote, somewhere in the complaint. And I couldn’t tell you the footnote number. But if you look there, there’s a succinct summary of his status, in that footnote, that I won’t try to repeat out loud.

And yes. Who’s next?

Q If a Tribune executive did agree to fire somebody on the editorial board, as an exchange for this, would it be criminal behavior? And can you characterize at all how far the Tribune plot went?

MR. FITZGERALD: I’m not going to say how far the Tribune plot went, other than the person who was identified, as the person to be fired, was not fired and still works there today….We don’t go beyond that. I’m not going to opine …

Q Pat, you spoke very directly about why the indictment had to come now.

(Fitzgerald makes sure the reporters have their facts straight in this premise challenge.)

MR. FITZGERALD: First of all, there’s not an indictment, I realize. It’s a complaint. So I don’t want people to understand it’s an indictment. We’ve filed a criminal complaint.

Q State lawmakers said this morning they’d like to see impeachment proceedings within — (off mike) — January. Now, I understand impeachment is somewhat — something like a trial. Would you assist them in any sense or with any of the evidence you’ve prepared — (off mike)?

MR. FITZGERALD: I thought about a lot of things this morning. That one hasn’t come up yet. And I’m not going to take it off the top of my head and spring. So we’ll go from there.

STAFF: Thank you very, much folks.

END. (Yes, the end of an hour-long masterful performance of managing the interaction with a room full of reporters. The language of control and premise challenge that Patrick Fitzgerald used is the type of language that we use each and everyday in our interactions with colleagues, clients, suppliers, family and friends. Fitzgerald has shown that it is equally appropriate and extremely useful in controlling a multi-lateral media interview. I know it works in one-on-one interviews as well. )

 

 

 

 

Resolving conflict and moving forward

An executive in Europe was put in charge of a major project for her company. The project involved multiple offices and a number of key players. She wasn’t involved for very long before she found herself engulfed in conflict and at risk. Not good for an upward career path.

She found her way to me for some problem solving and communications counsel.

When we met up over the telephone, she briefed me on the situation and the “cast of characters”. There was a lot of negativity in her description. The negative feelings she had seemed to block a clear perspective and, therefore, a constructive way to resolve the escalating conflicts.

I had learned a neat technique during a negotiating course at Harvard Law School and with my client’s permission we used it to re-analyze the situation she had just described. We used role reversal.

I asked the client to go back through each of the characters and tell me what they would say, in their words, about her. She did.

In so doing, her tone changed. She became more empathetic to each character’s situation and mindset. We explored some characters more than others, but we covered them all.

I didn’t have to tell her what to do. She was ahead of me. She “saw” her way forward. It was one of the options she had been mulling over but in which she had not had confidence. Her mind seemed to unblock. There was a confidence and energy in her voice. She was in a hurry to get off the phone and get on with taking actions to solve the problems.

All of that took one hour. She had spent that time actively “listening” to the critical players, even though they weren’t on the call. She had interrogated them on their feelings and thinking and objectives, based on her knowledge. She had developed a new perspective on the conflict and quickly selected the actions that she now knew would begin to drive toward a solution.

Is it working? I asked her later. She said this: 
“Yes, I am happy to tell you that there has been some progress in the
last week or so.  I don’t think that I am out of the woods yet, but
there is a clear improvement.”

Thinking “out of the box”, in my opinion, is achieved by adding new information or stimuli to help us achieve a new perspective or “see” a solution that is not the one that is blocking progress.

Listening, using a variety of techniques, is one very effective way to add that new information or stimuli. And if you can’t seem to do it on your own, or do it well, get some help from someone with objectivity.

 

Copyright November 2008

 

Louder than words – non-verbal communications

Copyright October 2008

The US election presidential debates. Senator Obama counted on his fingers. Senator McCain stuck out his tongue, rolled his eyes and wandered the stage. Who won the debates? The polls and the independent pundits credited Senator Obama with having a clear plan to address the economic crisis. And for a man whose opposition was trying to position him as someone without the experience and ability to lead the country, that was victory for Senator Obama. Both had non-verbal communications. Why Obama over McCain?

One of the thinkers about “body language” has said that this isn’t just a “by-product” of the speech process (Kendon 1980). He said it was just a different way that we expressed ideas and that the receiver registered them as such.

So, in the thoughtful piece Debate coaches: McCain must up game on Politico.com October 13, 2008, Andy Barr compared McCain’s delivery of his plan with Obama’s: “McCain then made many of the same points, but in a digressive fashion that was considerably harder to follow…The dishevelled delivery (my emphasis) was matched in last week’s town hall debate by an equally disconcerting style, as McCain walked around the stage seemingly without purpose.”

Back to Kendon. The non-verbal communication of Senator McCain in the debates has spoken louder than his words and his “ideas” have not gone over well with those he needed to influence.

There are many examples of non-verbal communications – demeanor captures part of it – conflicting with verbal communications. Here’s a reprise of a piece I did a few years ago in another space.

Did Kobe Bryant – the Los Angeles Lakers basketball star accused of sexually assaulting a female hotel employee in Colorado – hurt his claim of innocence because his demeanour sent the wrong message? At least one PR consultant thinks he may have.

When reports first came out that he was being investigated, Bryant acted as though nothing had happened, even appearing the picture of contentment at an awards show with his wife.

But, on MSNBC’s Right Now program, Los Angeles PR executive Michael Levine commented that Bryant didn’t act “innocent.” He said that if he were advising Bryant, he would recommend a strategy that would have Bryant “create a feeling of more righteous indignation” over the accusation.

It took the prosecutor a couple of weeks to lay the charge of sexual assault. Only at that time did Bryant become righteously indignant about his innocence. (Not too righteous – he had to admit that he had committed adultery with the woman, but claimed it was strictly on a consenting basis.)

MSNBC Editor-in-Chief Jerry Nachman commented that more than a PR strategy, Bryant’s early lack of righteous indignation – his demeanour in other words – spoke to a key legal point.

Nachman was referring to the “exceptions to the hearsay rule” regarding testimony. One such exception is “tacit admission,” which means that if a person fails to strenuously deny an accusation, statements about his or her passive demeanour can be used in testimony – from a policeman perhaps – to support tacit admission. In layman’s language, according to Nachman: “an innocent man wrongly accused will protest.”

 The picture of attitude

Even those of us who don’t have celebrity clients (or bosses) need to be aware of the impact of demeanour in the business environment.

For instance, consider the story of a CEO who is not happy with the demeanour at meetings of a particular high-potential young executive. While another senior officer interprets the demeanour as a front for shyness, the CEO finds it either a display of boredom or displeasure. Either way, demeanour is now a factor in the career path of this individual.

And herein lies a big part of the problem of demeanour as message. First, we may not know that we are displaying a certain demeanour, and second, whether we know or not, we don’t have control over how others interpret that demeanour.

Certainly different audiences have interpreted Kobe Bryant’s initial “no sweat” reaction to the allegation of a sexual assault in different ways. He may have meant one thing, but some people interpreted it as another thing entirely.

We all have our biases, which are based on prior knowledge. It’s this prior knowledge that we use to filter all new data coming into our brain.

We have images of demeanour stored in our brains, and meaning attached to the variety of demeanours: bored, outraged, angry, afraid, threatening, empathetic, enthusiastic, interested, and so on.

Vincent Covello, the risk communications expert, tells a great story that demonstrates just how this works. At a public meeting where a certain company’s representatives were meeting with “the community” over a contentious issue, he instructed the executives on the panel to sit forward throughout the whole meeting – even if it went on for several hours. They were not to sit back in their chairs and they were not to cross their arms over their chests.

Once the meeting was well underway and photographers and TV camera operators had drifted away from the front of the stage, Covello signalled one of the execs to display the banned demeanour. Once that one executive had leaned back in his chair and folded his arms, it took only a moment for the visual image makers – the photographers and camera operators – to move into position to capture that executive’s demeanour. But before they could shoot, Covello signalled the exec to sit forward and uncross his arms. The media waited, but when the demeanour didn’t reappear, they went back to the sidelines.

Covello explains that the disengaged posture of leaning back, together with the crossed arms of “closed” body language captured for the media the stereotypical demeanour of big company executives toward the little people of the community and their concerns. It was this “prior knowledge” image that the media had in their brains as an illustration of disinterest.

 Walking the talk

So, when we walk into a business meeting, what message are we giving with our demeanour and what interpretation are the others in the room giving it? Is it what we want them to read?

In an article entitled The Power of Posture, Nick Morgan* wrote:

“The way you stand could change your life. Immediately. For businesspeople, stance is an important indicator of how deeply you are engaged with your job, how much you believe in the products you are selling, how confident you are that your company will survive.”

Of course, it’s not only how we stand but also how we sit, as Covello demonstrated. It’s our whole demeanour. And the first step in ensuring that our body language matches the message we want to send is to be aware of our demeanour. When we become conscious of our demeanour, then we can modify it. (I’m still on the learning curve on this. I tend to display my emotions and feelings and am not good at poker – I have too many “tells.”) Sometimes that means asking a trusted advisor to watch us and give us a description of our demeanour.

As Covello advised his corporate clients, we can still be bored, but don’t let anyone see the signals for it! Match your demeanour with your conscious, intended message.

# # # 

* Nick Morgan is the Editor of Harvard Management Communication Letter. “The Power of Posture” appeared in the HBS Working Knowledge electronic newsletter but first appeared as “Are You Standing in the Way of Your Own Success” in the June 2003 edition of HMCL.

THE STORY’S THE THING.

Copyright 2003, 2008

Hamlet used a story – performed as a play by a travelling performing troupe – as a powerful communications tool to “catch the conscience of the King,” thus exposing the King as the murderer of Hamlet’s father. William Shakespeare knew that stories were important triggers for the brain.

Storytelling remains an important tool for communicators, and the weight of evidence showing how useful stories are in effective communication with all audiences just keeps getting larger.

In Gerald Zaltman’s How Customers Think he devotes two chapters: Memory, Metaphor and Stories and Stories and Brands, to the power of stories in how people think. Throughout the book he talks about how to tap into the deeper, sub-conscious thoughts of the people we might want to better understand in planning our communications with them.

He says one way to do that is to elicit stories from them and then mine the stories for the information that might really tell us what they will do in a given situation. (In an appendix to Chapter Four Zaltman shows how to conduct the Metaphor/story-Elicitation Process and later shows how to mine the information and build consensus maps. A very practical book.)

To support the need to dig deeper, he cites the work of Merikle and Daneman, summarizing their conclusions by saying that: “Unconscious reactions to marketing stimuli are a more accurate indicator of actual thought (and subsequent behaviour) than the conscious reports consumers often provide.” (He also devotes a very interesting section to minimizing the value of focus groups.)

And while Zaltman has a heavy emphasis on customers and marketing – the external business world – everything he talks about also has application to employees – the internal business world.

Zaltman says that “memories are stories, stories consist of memories, and both are often expressed through metaphors. Most important, the fusion of memory, metaphor, and story enables consumers to create meaning around, or to see personal relevance in, a company or a specific brand.”

I found this statement particularly pertinent to a technique we use in media training when we are trying to make our spokesperson’s messaging more useful and acceptable to the media. Simply put, we ask them to build the message platform as a story starting with the target audience’s problem (need, want, threat) and then working through to the branded solution, rather than the other way around, which we see too often in messaging. If the reporter and/or the audience don’t see personal relevance in a message, they are going to tune out, move on, and not remember the message. The message will not have any meaning for them. The story format helps remedy that need.

Stories within stories

Using stories in management is an area that needs a look as much as using stories with customers. Gaynor Dawson’s story of becoming the superintendent of 43 Junior High School Principals for the Calgary Board of Education offers a clear illustration of the effectiveness of using stories in a management context.

“As I look back, without realizing it then, the tool that was most useful to me in my job was story-telling. I was the carrier of school successes, colleagues, system news . . . These principals began to share their stories with me . . . they became part of the junior high school’s legends, myths. If a school had a success story, I would say, “Did you hear?” If there was a tragedy within a school, I would say, “You will want to know . . .” These 43 principals became story-tellers . . . at our meetings we left time to share stories of success, hard times, personal challenges . . . Our meetings became a place to come to refuel, to rebuild, to share pain, problems and celebrations.

“They knew through the stories I shared of the values that were important in their work with me. They knew which lines they couldn’t cross . . . not because of rules … because of shared stories, successes and even failures.”

If we think of our management teams, who uses stories this way and who doesn’t? And who are the most effective managers as far as communication is concerned? Ms. Dawson has shared an effective technique for improving communications.

Learning the art of storytelling

There are many consultants who teach story telling as part of or as the focus of their practice. One, whose website alone provides very useful information on the impact of stories, is Richard Stone, President of The Story Work Institute based in Florida.

In his articles section there’s a piece called How is Business Like a Story? Using Narrative Structures to Create a More Successful Organization. This article takes us through the application of the narrative form in business and describes its impact in an internal context. Near the end he points to practical implications, such as:

“Take the time to listen to the stories being told in the hallways of the organization. Here you’ll find what bureaucratic layers will hide from you. This is the pulse of the company, and will serve you as a diagnostic tool for understanding what ails the organization. Creating space for staff to tell you their stories will also unleash their creative spirit.”

And for those who might still be skeptical of the power of stories in a business environment, I’ll close with one of Stone’s examples. In an article titled Enhancing Communication Skills Through the Power of Story Telling he relates the example of the Disney Development Company and how it went about training Community Guides who would sell the as yet unbuilt new community of Celebration, Florida. 

“To help them with their task of selling the community, SWI designed a one-day training program that taught the guides 

·     how to improve speaking and listening skills through the art of storytelling; 

·     how to effectively communicate a clear picture of the power of place in people’s lives through the sharing of personal stories; 

·     how community means much more than a place, that it lives in the relationships people have with each other, and how to communicate that Celebration will be a place that fosters such interactions; 

·     how to translate the city’s many features into stories filled with human interest, and  

·     how to ask incisive questions that will elicit a visitor’s stories of community, thereby enhancing the Guide’s ability to relate Celebration’s many features to the visitor’s true needs and interests, improving the likelihood of a future purchase.”

Did it work? Oh, yeah. When development is complete, Celebration is expected to have 12,000 to 15,000 residents  (9000 to date). Some 2,500 of those had already moved in during the community’s first year of existence. Subsequent new developments sold like the proverbial small-town hotcakes – one new section sold a third of its lots on the first day of sale. In a later section about 78% of proposed units were reserved by potential buyers, again on the first day of sale. Such is the power of a good story well told.

                                                                        -end-

Zaltman, Gerald, How Customers Think, Harvard Business School Publishing Copyright 2003

Philip M. Merikle and Meredyth Daneman, “Conscious vs. Unconscious Perception,” in The New Cognitive Neurosciences, 2d ed. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000), 1295-1304.

Storytelling as Communication, excerpts from an address by Gaynor Dawson, Human Resources Consultant, in The Business & Professional Woman magazine, copyright (c) 1998 Val Publications Ltd on behalf of BPW Canada. Note: this magazine is no longer published. Dawson piece now available online. 

.

WHO ARE YOU TALKING TO? AND WHY?

By Patrick McGee Copyright 2008

You’re giving a presentation to influence a group to support a project and at the end you get this question from the most important person in the room: “Are you sure you’re asking for enough money?”

Is that victory or what?

 

It happened to a client I worked with. It happened because he identified the most important person in the room. It happened because in his presentation he addressed the most important business concern that the most important person in the room had. And it happened because he made certain to remind the most important person in the room of that most important concern – at the beginning, in the middle and at the end.

 

Identifying the most important person in the room was easy. Zeroing in on that person’s primary business driver took a couple of tries. Why? Well, like most of us, my client considered this most important person’s most important issue through his own lens and the driver he identified first was not enough for the president to override his own lukewarm interest and the conflicting interests of others and support this proposal so strongly.

 

In coaching this client during is preparation, we moved up the president’s “hierarchy of needs” until we found the ultimate driver: his financial target. The proposal was then built to set this context in the president’s mind for the duration of the presentation and to show how the proposal supported the achievement of that target. And that’s why the president wanted to ensure the success of the proposal.

 

We have duplicated this success with others for their speeches and presentations by using the same approach. Its successful application relies on the use of the Why? question. (The Japanese use a concept called The Five Why’s? They keep asking Why? until they are satisfied that they have deepened their understanding to the fullest.) Spending preparation time on getting this front end right helps ensure success at the end of the presentation.

 

What about a mixed audience? We get this question a lot. We use the same approach.

Example: A client was going to a major industry conference in Europe. There was a lot at stake for the client. Her company had invested heavily in the content she would present and her boss wanted the company to make an impact. Her performance was going to be closely watched.

 

We talked through who would be in the audience. Not only did we identify audience segments (customers, potential customers, competitors, other suppliers, media, others) so that we could identify who was most important to talk to, but we also analyzed what their mindset would be at the time that my client would make her presentation. The reality is that getting 45 minutes right after lunch on the third day of a conference is like the story reader at kindergarten at naptime. Yes, you’ll have some listeners, but most of the audience will be tuned out, even if their eyes are open.

 

That analysis of the audience is important. We knew what the client was facing. Then we put ourselves in the seats of the audience. (This is a great exercise: Ask yourself, “If I am sitting in this audience, how I am I feeling and what am I interested in?”) The client had a lot of data. Would the audience absorb it? Why were they there?  Why would they stay awake and listen to my client? Why would what she had to say make an impact? Why would they engage with the company? Why would they follow up?

 

The answers to these questions fine-tuned the base presentation and the tactics to achieve the goal of the company.  Instead of the presentation being over laden with data and rushed, to get it all in without running overtime, my client knew what the audience needed and how best to deliver on that need. She set the context: why do companies need to know about this data? Then she whets their appetite: What kinds of data have been collected? Finally, she set the measurable engagement piece: How can attendees (even the napping ones) get access to all of the data?

 

So, what’s new about this audience analysis? Nothing except the depth. Most people who make presentations think about their audience. In truth, many make too many assumptions (that’s a subject for a future blog post) and their analysis is light, or lacking, or they propose to talk to everyone, instead of to those who really matter. And sometimes they just miss what the audience really needs to hear, especially if it’s not what they said they wanted to hear.

 

Any audience can be analyzed and strategized. If you feel that you won’t be rigorous in doing it on your own, get some help: a colleague or a coach. We get so close to the subject we can’t see the forest because we have our nose pressed up against a tree. Remember the client at the beginning of this post? Would the president, the most important person in the room, have asked him that commitment-laden question if the client had not pushed himself to find and invoke the key driver that would eventually trigger the president’s support? If you want it you have to know whom you’re talking to and why.

MORE BUSINESS LESSONS FROM IMPROV: BLOCKING

An educator I was media training said that a basic skill that should be taught in all schools is improvisational communications. He said we face the need to improvise responses to situations in all aspects of our lives – from work to home to the community. I agree.

An aspect of improvisation in the theatre that is also found in our daily lives is the concept of ‘blocking’ – the rejection of a suggestion that is ‘offered’ by another party.

For several years now my son, Thomas D’Arcy, has studied and performed improvisation as part of his performance training. “There is nothing more frustrating – well, except impossible suggestions from the audience – than being on stage and having one of the actors block your offer,” he says. “It can stop the story and then you have to work that much harder to get around it and keep the action going.”

We see blocking at work perhaps more than we realize. I was in a business meeting not long ago when one of the participants brought forward a creative suggestion to address a problem. It was not ‘out-of-the-box’ to me, but it was to some of the others at the table. One in particular immediately blocked the suggestion by attacking it. Some others joined in support of the attack. I was immediately reminded of the contemporary meeting rule that all ideas were to be respected. And that’s what I said. Clearly, while the specifics of the suggestion may not have been accepted the direction was worth exploring. Reined in, the attackers then let the suggestion stand and we were able to move on constructively.

The immediacy of the rejection – the “block” in this meeting – caught me and I went back to see what improvisation expert, teacher and author Keith Johnstone had to say about blocking.

“When I meet a new group of students they will usually be ‘naysayers’”, observes Johnstone.“The motto of scared improvisers is ‘when in doubt, say NO.’ We use this in life as a way of blocking action. Then we go to the theatre, and at all points where we would say ‘No’ in life, we want to see the actors yield, and say ‘Yes’. Then the action we would suppress if it happened in life begins to develop on stage.

 

“In life, most of us are highly skilled at suppressing action. All the improvisation teacher has to do is to reverse this skill and he creates very ‘gifted’ improvisers. Bad improvisers block action, often with a high degree of skill. Good improvisers develop action.”

Think about meetings you have been at like the one I described earlier. Creativity, new ideas, action were probably stifled. Think about what happens when a participant is blocked:

1.      New ideas are rejected;

2.      Enthusiasm is dulled; and

3.      Sometimes, we are forced to accept an inappropriate idea because the block of this idea is rejected by the offering party and, if that party has the power, it can impose their idea to get around the block.

I’ve held for a while now that there are no rights and wrongs, only options, each with their advantages and disadvantages. It allows me to stifle my ‘naysayer’ nature and consider all ideas. It is my structure for improvising a response to the ideas of others and it has worked in that it has kept the action moving.

Another way to overcome the ‘naysayer’ or blocking mentality is to release the ‘yeasayer’ in all of us. There are many techniques for this but let’s talk first about how it works, psychologically.

Johnstone quotes extensively from Arthur Couch and Kenneth Kenison on this: “Yeasayers seem to be ‘id-dominated’ personalities, with little concern about or positive evaluation of an integrated control of their impulses. They say they express themselves freely and quickly. Their ‘psychological inertia’ is very low, that is, very few secondary processes intervene as a screen between underlying wish and overt behavioural response. The yeasayers desire and actively search for emotional excitement in their environment. Novelty, movement, change, adventure – these provide the external stimuli for their emotionalism. They see the world as a stage where the main theme is ‘acting out’ libidinal desires. In the same way, they seek and respond quickly to internal stimuli: their inner impulses are allowed ready expression…the yeasayer’s general readiness to respond affirmatively or yield willingly to both outer and inner forces demanding expression.

“The ‘disagreeing’ naysayers have the opposite orientation.”

So, it sounds like the yeasayers have fewer inhibitions than the naysayers. Therefore, a sure way to loosen up the creativity juices is to serve a lot of alcohol to the participants. Where that is inappropriate, any exercises, games, etc. that let people get into a ‘yeasayer’ mood might be appropriate. At minimum, participants should be asked to agree to a yeasayer approach to the discussion. The more individual and public the agreement the more chance that each person will act consistently with their public commitment to act like a yeasayer for the discussion. (If they balk at making a public commitment, remind them that the alternative is to go through inhibition-loosening exercises.)

In improvisational training, turning students into yeasayers involves trying to get them to say the first thing that comes into their head without the idea police in their brains screening the thought or trying to replace it with a more brilliant one.

Johnstone says: “Suppose Mozart had tried to be original? It would have been like a man at the North Pole trying to walk north, and this is true of all of the rest of us. Striving after originality takes you far away from your true self, and makes your work mediocre.”

Improvisation has a lot to offer us in improving our daily communications. We see how blocking stops the action in the story in improvisational theatre just as it does in our business and other interactions.

 NOTES

1.      IMPRO Improvisation and the Theatre by Keith Johnstone, Published by Routledge/Theatre Arts Books, N.Y. Copyright 1979 Chapter on Spontaneity pp 75-108

2.      This term and its opposite, ‘yeasayers’, come from a paper by Arthur Couch and Kenneth Kenison. ‘Yeasayers and Naysayers’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 160, No.2, 1960. Found in the footnotes to Johnstone’s chapter on Spontaneity in IMPRO.

3.      ‘Yeasayers and Naysayers’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 160, No.2, 1960. Found in the footnotes to Johnstone’s chapter on Spontaneity in IMPRO.

Copyright 2005,2008

EXITING THE MEDIA INTERVIEW – CRITICAL CONTROL TECHNIQUES

I have been doing media training for over 20 years and I’ve found that the toughest aspect of media interviews that trainees need to master is the exit. If you are being interviewed and you can’t end it, then you aren’t in control of the interaction and the less the control the more the risk.

 

NOTE: All interviews should be negotiated to establish the parameters (subject/focus of the interaction that you would use if it were a business meeting? Who is the reporter and what media outlet? When is a mutually agreeable time for the interaction? Where is the best place for the interaction or where does it have to take place? Critical to the exit: How long should the interaction last given the subject/focus and circumstances?). Setting the same parameters as you would for a business meeting is the key to our training methodology. Our participants’ strengths are in doing business meetings, not media interviews. Therefore, the control techniques we use in business meetings are critical to control the interaction with media. Negotiating the time limit based on how much we have to say about the subject will help as much with exiting the media interview as it does for exiting a business meeting.

 

There are two techniques to the exit:

1)      Ending the discussion

2)      Preparing and executing the physical disengagement.

I’ll elaborate on these more after further exploring the problem.

 

In one very memorable training session I was working with very senior executive in a large energy company. This person had been trained before a number of times and was experienced at media interviews. In fact he came to my session directly from a media interview. We were practising addressing the media during a serious accident at a plant. This executive was very confident and competent in taking control, making a full and very appropriate statement and managing the questions. What the executive was not able to do – at all – was end the interaction. The questions kept coming until the “reporters” were done. When the deficiency was identified, the executive quickly wanted to fix the problem in the second simulated interview. Everything went very well through to the close of the interaction. The executive said something to the effect that: “ Well, that’s all I have for you at the moment.” But then he stood and waited. And the questions started up again. In the critique, all he wanted to talk about was why his feet wouldn’t move. He wanted to leave but couldn’t.

 

In discussing this very common situation, some people say that they feel it would be rude to leave. Others express fear of being shown walking away accompanied by negative commentary. But many just do not know why they cannot leave.

 

When we work on this with trainees, we emphasize that there are two parts to the exit. The first is shown in the example of the energy company executive above. He used an appropriate line to close the discussion. We also see this often in press conferences. In fact, we use it in our daily interactions.

 

The second part is the stimulus that gets us physically moving out of the interaction. It seems as though we need our mouths to say the right thing in order for our feet to move. When the executive in the example above tried again and added the words: “and I’ll brief you again later when we have more information,” his body was starting to turn to make the walk away. The words he used suggested a separation. In a stressful situation it seems that an important cue to physically exiting is a line that calls for physical movement. Another might be any variation of: “I have to get back to….” So, active voice versus passive voice for exit lines works best.

 

Exiting is a more difficult technique than just closing the discussion. In fact, we’ve seen training participants (and news conference participants) try to close and exit, only to stop and even return to the interview spot, because the reporter asked another question. When participants ask what they should do in this situation, I ask them what they would do in a business meeting they were trying to exit. The answer is often that they would use the “stop” hand signal and a repeat of the close and exit line. Of course! That’s control. As valid with media as it is with our business colleagues. 

 

Another line that is effective in ending the discussion? “Thank you.” I think thank you and its variations work for many people because it negates the “rude” worry. So, it works on one level but may not get the feet moving. A technique one participant used on me while I was playing an aggressive reporter involved extending his hand to give me a closing handshake. The action of putting his hand out caused me to respond by shaking hands automatically, thus breaking my control and cueing my brain that the interaction was ending. He had no trouble walking away after that, he told me. Brilliant. Doesn’t work for everyone and certainly only in certain circumstances, but he drew on his business skills to take control to effect an exit.

 

All of the above has been focussed on stand-up scrums or stand-up one-on-one interviews. What about telephone? Well, what lines do you use to end formal phone interactions with business audiences? The same ones will work with telephone media interviews.

 

What about studio interviews? Problematic. So let’s look at the dynamics of this interview situation. You’re wired with a microphone. You’ve agreed to be there for a certain time. Your brain will resist walking out. (We need to assume here that in the negotiation for the interview, you chose or agreed to this venue for a very good reason.) There would be no need for you to call for an exit if the interview stayed on focus, because you would have enough new information to support your story to keep the focus for the length of time agreed. If the interviewer tries repeatedly to drive the interview off focus, then an improvised exit may be required. I dealt with this in an earlier blog post titled: What do you say if they ask if you’re gay? Essentially, you either fight to stay on focus, or you get out. The lines you could use would sound like a variation of: “I’m not prepared to get into that today so why don’t we end it here. Thanks for having me on.” Then the awkward part, taking off the microphone and walking off the set. The question you need to have answered for yourself before you go into the studio interview is this one: What will be worse if the interview changes focus and you can’t get it back on focus – staying in the interview and risking doing a bad job, or physically exiting and risking looking like you’re fleeing?

Why even think about any of this? Preparation. The best outcomes are reached in business meetings when the appropriate preparation has been done. Very successful sales people think as much about the exit (or close) as they do the pitch – and so should any media interviewee.

Copyright 2008 Patrick McGee

SPITZER APOLOGY – BELIEVABLE STATEMENT OR B.S.?

I didn’t believe any of it. Not one word of Eliot Spitzer’s televised resignation statement was believable to me. (OK, the part about resigning and the date maybe.) And for every executive or corporate spokesperson who may one day have to do something similar, take a lesson. The words don’t mean a thing if they don’t have that certain body language and tone.

Eliot Spitzer said these words: “In the past few days I’ve begun to atone for my private failings with my wife Silda, my children and my entire family.” His wife was standing right beside him. Did he look at her? No. Did he even slightly turn his body in acknowledgement that she was there? No. Did he look at the camera to communicate with his eyes that he meant the words? No. He read. He was a proficient reader. But he was not believable. I think if he meant those words, he would have made some gesture towards his wife, let alone look her in the eye, when he said them. I think, if he really meant what he was saying, he would have used non-verbal expression to support the words on the page. He went on to say: “Words cannot describe how grateful I am for the love and compassion they have shown me.” He was right. So, where was the gesture towards that representative of the family, standing so close by in support? There wasn’t one. More. “I am deeply sorry I did not live up to what was expected of me.” No eye contact with anyone. Oh yes, his eyes flicked up and down as he read, but you could tell his eyes were not connecting with anyone. Finally, he changed the pace of the delivery, looked up and delivered the word “sincerely”, to the cameras. Why? He was talking to the people of New York. As in: “To every New Yorker, and to all those who believed in what I tried to stand for, I sincerely apologize.”  I would have thought his wife was one of those and deserved some eye contact. Apparently not. Maybe she knew better. The performance never improved. He had his chance: “As I leave public life, I will first do what I need to do to help and heal myself and my family…..” Still no acknowledgement of the family rep stating next to him. (If you want to see a powerful, non-verbal performance watch this announcement but focus on Silda. She makes eye contact with the media and with someone off screen. She obviously had her reasons for being there and I thought she was very strong, not just for showing up, but for her performance.)

We all have our own idea of what remorse/contrition looks and sounds like. We use that filter to evaluate the words we hear to determine credibility and trust. Mehrabian’s analysis of an emotional communications moment says that the body language and voice make up 93% of the trust value. That leaves only 7% for the words. Spitzer gave us the words but left out the rest. Business people beware. This bell tolls for thee as well.

  

Clinton risks violating the fairness bias

The all out attack on Barack Obama by competitor Hillary Clinton ahead of the crucial Ohio and Texas primaries risks violating the fairness bias of the undecided voters. It’s a risk that anyone in business runs when they decide to go at their opposition – whether at a shareholders’ meeting, a community forum, or through the media.

Why? Two reasons.
First, “life may not be fair, but humans have a strong bias for fairness,” says Lucas Laursen in the Feb/Mar issue of Scientific American MIND magazine. He notes that studies have found that relationships matter when people judge fairness. “Humans accepted unfair deals from computers but not from people.”

So, Clinton’s supporters (strong relationship) will likely accept unfair treatment of Obama, but the undecideds (neutral relationship) probably not. That may then be the deciding factor in how the undecideds vote.

So fairness is a key factor. It’s also very subjective and the perpetrator is usually a poor judge of fairness.

Second, Clinton may misstep in regard to the concept of relative credibility. Simply put it says that you should be very careful attacking someone with more credibility with the target audience than you  because, rather than driving them down, you drive yourself down and they go up in credibility. She better have objective data that says that with the undecideds she has more credibility or else she might just deliver the undecided vote to Obama. 

I wrote a piece on relative credibility a few years ago and have replayed below the example I used for illustration.

Relative credibility in actionParty A, my client, was involved in a complex conflict involving litigation, grievances, and harassment with Party B. My client found the situation intolerable. Both parties finally agreed to appoint an experienced mediator to try to reach a settlement of all actions and issues.The mediator selected had vast experience as a litigation lawyer and mediator. He was not sympathetic to Party A as far as we could tell, but we thought he might be partial to Party B.Party A was eager to reach a settlement, but was also very emotional about the treatment its members had received at the hands of Party B and tended to show their emotions in any discussions involving Party B. Because of this, Party A’s credibility was diminished except with its supporters. The other party had enormous credibility because of historical goodwill.Once we had agreement within Party A that Party B probably had more credibility with the mediator starting out, we were able to devise a strategy to overcome this deficit. It worked better than we could have hoped.Party A stifled its instinct to “attack” Party B. Instead, Party A signalled through words and actions to the mediator that its goal was to reach an agreement – but not at any cost – and that Party A could and would provide the mediator with all of the information on the issues he might need to mediate the dispute.The members of Party A sat on their emotions and delivered the facts, the context and the co-operation that the mediator needed. Party A raised its credibility by their professionalism, candour, and co-operation. Party A also got a boost because an arrogant, uncooperative Party B destroyed the credibility it had.As Party A surpassed Party B in credibility with the mediator, Party B — probably not realizing that the relative credibility of the two parties had changed significantly– lost even more credibility and boosted Party A further by attacking it.The conflict was finally resolved and for the most part in Party A’s favour. Party A held a victory party. I doubt that Party B did. While the resolution took a very long time and many factors came into play, there was one constant: The mediator worked tirelessly and doggedly to get a settlement, which was his victory. By doing so, he was apparently driven – consciously or not – by the credible position and actions of Party A. This resulted in victory for Party A.

WHAT DO YOU SAY IF THEY ASK IF YOU’RE GAY? MANAGING THE MEDIA’S “GOTCHA” QUESTIONS

Bill Clinton’s recent hard-edged intervention in the Democratic leadership race reminded me of his aggressive response about his anti-terror record in a media interview with Chris Wallace. I included it as an example of one way to challenge the premise of the reporter’s gotcha questions in a column I wrote for PR Canada in September 2006. It starts with the Diane Sawyer interview with American Idol’s Clay Aiken asking about his sexuality. Here it is again for those who are interested in managing difficult questions in media interviews:

It used to be that the “gotcha” question was “When did you stop beating your wife?” Now that the “Did you ever take drugs?” question has worn out, the “gotcha” question is: “Are you Gay?” So, what do you do if the media ask a “gotcha” question?

Let’s look at the options:

·         Negotiate a clear focus for the interaction ahead of the interview.

·         Warn the interviewer off certain subjects.

·         Answer the question directly, perhaps yes or no.

·         Provide a variation that confirms or denies, perhaps with lots of ambiguity so that the receiver won’t be sure of the answer: “I won’t tell you what I am but I don’t have any problem that people have different sexual preferences.”

·         Challenge the ‘Premise’ on the basis of the appropriateness of the question, the facts/interpretation of the facts/conclusion drawn off the facts. Saying in some way that the question is inappropriate is a premise challenge tactic. (Below you will see this done by former President Bill Clinton.) Refocusing on/bridging to the main/agreed focus of the interview is a premise challenge of the appropriateness of the question.

·         Exit. If the techniques of not answering the question directly do not convince the reporter to move on and have been well delivered, then get out.

In any given situation, you might well see a combination of options employed. There is no right or wrong response, just options, each with its own upside and downside. For instance, warning the interviewer off a certain subject – such as the gay question – might have an upside of eliminating that question, but it might have the downside of signalling a sensitivity that the reporter has a difficult time ignoring. The reporter may be prepared to break an agreement in order to increase the conflict/news value of the interview. Let’s look at some real world applications.

The New York Post carried a headline: “Clay Aiken Calls Diane Sawyer’s Gay Question ‘Rude’.” It refers to an interview on “Good Morning America” between the veteran broadcast journalist and the 2003 runner-up who became an instant star after his performances on “American Idol.”

The Post reported the exchange this way:

Sawyer went right after Aiken, asking at the top of the interview if he was “ready to come out and say you’re gay.”

“That would not make sense for me to do that,” Aiken said.

“You think I’m rude for asking?” Sawyer asked Aiken.

“I’ve gotten to a point where I feel it’s invasive. Forget it. What I do in my private life is nobody’s business anymore, period. I don’t think you’re rude because I figure people have a job to do.” Aiken said.
“I just don’t understand why people care, to be honest with you. I’m not spending my time with this anymore. This is a waste of my time.”

So, Aiken didn’t answer the question, he challenged the premise. He also signalled that he was done. He waved his arms and his body language signalled he’s going to leave, but he didn’t. Finally he said: “So, I’m done.” And then Sawyer changed the discussion to the issue of intrusive questions into private lives and admitted, “You got me”. She doesn’t like it either.

Some have criticized Sawyer for lack of journalistic vigour for not pressing Aiken, presumably until he broke and supported her initial conclusion. I’m not interested in the content, only in the technique. In this exchange, Aiken premise challenged his way through the interview. He could have also used the premise challenge that we’ll see in the next example: Do you ask this question of everyone you interview? (This shifts control to the interviewee.)

Another example. Chris Wallace interviewed Former President of the United States Bill Clinton on Fox News Sunday with an agreed focus of the Clinton Global Initiative. Wallace didn’t  start with the question: “Tell me about the Clinton Global Initiative.” Instead, Wallace put Clinton on the defensive straight off:

Wallace: In a recent issue of The New Yorker you say, quote, I’m 60 years old and I damn near died, and I’m worried about how many lives I can save before I do die. Is that what drives you in your effort to help in these developing countries?

Clinton: Yes, I really – but I don’t mean – that sounds sort of morbid when you say it like that. I mean, I actually…

Wallace: That’s how you said it.

Clinton: Yes, but the way I said it, the tone in which I said it was actually whimsical and humorous. That is, this is what I love to do. It is what I think I should do.

A few questions later Wallace really lights up Clinton.

Wallace: When we announced that you were going to be on Fox News Sunday, I got a lot of e-mail from viewers. And I’ve got to say, I was surprised. Most of them wanted me to ask you this question: Why didn’t you do more to put bin Laden and Al-Qaeda out of business when you were president?

The two of them engage in a choppy exchange with Clinton trying to get control and Wallace raising more questions that attack Clinton’s record. Finally Clinton gets aggressive.

Clinton: OK, let’s talk about it. Now, I will answer all those things on the merits, but first I want to talk about the context in which this arises.

Clinton and Wallace get into it with Clinton using a combination of answers to criticisms and premise challenges to Wallace on his motives. Here are the best bits strung together.

Clinton: So you did Fox’s bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me. What I want to know is…

Wallace: I want to ask a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?

(Control has shifted to Clinton. It’s his agenda that now drives the interview. Wallace is responding to Clinton’s attack.)

Clinton: It was a perfectly legitimate question, but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of.

Wallace: We ask plenty of questions of…

Clinton: You didn’t ask that, did you? Tell the truth, Chris.

Clinton: ….And you came here under false pretences and said….

Wallace: …I didn’t think this would send you off on such a tear.

Clinton: You launched it – you set me off on a tear because you didn’t formulate it in an honest way and because you people ask me questions you don’t ask the other side.

Wallace: That’s not true. Sir, that is not true.

Wallace: Would you like to talk about the Clinton Global Initiative?

Clinton: No, I want to finish this now.

(Watch both parts on You Tube, links at the end.)

So, who won? Wallace. He got one of the best interviews a reporter could ever get. Clinton got to talk about his global initiative but it was lost in the political discussion that was present throughout. Clinton took the hook, fought valiantly and used premise challenge explicitly throughout, but Wallace got a great interview at the cost of having his nose figuratively but seriously bloodied by Clinton’s counterpunching premise challenges.

One final, quick example. Bill Parcells was the legendary coach of the Dallas Cowboys of the National Football League. His very controversial star receiver Terrell Owens, was reported to have tried to commit suicide with an overdose of medication. Parcells was holding his daily press conference following practice and knew next to nothing about the details of the situation. The Associated Press reported on the result.

“After getting almost strictly Owens-related questions, coach Bill Parcells cut off his usual 25-30 minute session after only nine-minutes. He ended it by getting up from his chair and saying, ‘When I find out what the hell is going on, you will know. Until then, I’m not getting interrogated for no reason.’”

Parcells picked up his water bottle and walked out. And yes, some media outlets carried that act on their sports news. So what? Parcells had provided reasonable responses to the questions – but he could not answer their questions precisely because he didn’t have the information. His exit was reasonable. No damage for walking out. If he had speculated and given them a controversial quote, they would have enjoyed the “gotcha” but also would have been wondering why he stayed in a vulnerable position.

As Diane Sawyer admitted in her interview, the reporters know what’s in the best interests of the interviewee. The interviewees need to know it too.

Copyright 2006

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaNIBFSMjb8&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT7yKfXN4p0&NR=1

Improvising answers in business

Many business people ask how they can better improvise their responses to difficult questions in meetings. I had a similar question about difficult suggestions from the audience, after watching Tom McGee compete with his Improv troupe in the Canadian Improv Games.

  In Improv, a group of people are put on the spot when they take seemingly random suggestions from an audience. Without any more than a minute or two of huddling together to confer, they are able to turn those suggestions into a coherent, funny sketch on stage.

So, I asked Tom how they do it. His answer?

“Structure. It’s all about structure.”

What? Improv is not spontaneous and unrehearsed? “No,” he said. “We use set structures of story, character, status and so on as our prepared structures and incorporate what the audience offers into those structures.”  The process still demands creativity, but that creativity is supported by prepared structures.

Structure gives the improvisers control of the situation. With it, the audience’s suggestions become part of a controlled performance. Without it, those same suggestions become large threats.

This is also the key for business people. They need to remember that they use structures to communicate every day. When the stress is less, it is easier to reach for those structures.  They come into use in responding to questions; they provide control and bring comfort.

Business people, in situations that are stressful, are often frozen by difficult questions. It’s the “deer in the headlights” effect. We should expect improvisers to suffer the same fate on stage. But the good ones don’t, because they reach for their known structures and use them to control whatever challenge the audience has given them.

Keith Johnstone says in his book, IMPRO Improvisation and the Theatre: “…it (narrative skill) also means that you look back when you get stuck, instead of searching forwards.”

When we teach media interactions, we talk about the “bridge” structure. Simply it means we either address or don’t address the specific question, and then use a word bridge, such as “the point that needs to be made is….” To take us back to the point we want to make. Certainly this structure could be and is used in other interactions, such as with customers.

Another structure used in media interactions is the “premise challenge”. Here, we challenge the premise of the question rather than answer it. We might say, “You’ve based your question on some inaccurate data. I think we need to correct that….” Now that we’ve taken control, we can move the discussion to where it is more comfortable for us. Again, a technique most people use without thinking. It is important to understand the structures we use in communicating, so that they can be consciously applied in any situation.

The empathy approach – words and actions – in situations of high concern and low trust is another control structure. In fact, it is an extremely powerful control structure when someone is expressing anger to us. I have broadened my own take on this. I call it ACUESAA: Acknowledge, Concern, Understanding, Empathy, Sympathy, Agreement, Action. Any of these responses, alone or in combination, create a structure to reduce concern and build trust. This approach is effective with any audience.

Here are some other structures that can be used by business people:

• Rule of three. When a difficult question is asked, people can freeze and not know why. Then they begin to focus on their freeze-up and their anxiety just feeds on itself. If they take a lesson from Improv and Keith Johnstone, then they need to look back and not forward. Of all the things they could say, what three things would they choose? Selecting that structure often brings content to mind almost automatically. Therefore, control is established and the ice is broken. Sometimes it is tough to come up with three, but, as in Improv, the skill of using this structure can be learned and practiced.
• Chronology. This structure is time based. To respond to the question, the content is organized and delivered in chronological order. “It’s important to start at the beginning…And finally we arrive at today….”
• Too Hot. Too Cold. Just Right. Most of us know the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. In it, everything was analyzed in that manner. So, using this structure, we can find the options that are unacceptable and the one that is.

As with Improv, the answer for business people to handle difficult questions is to find a control structure that gives them confidence and comfort in stressful interactions.

 Copyright 2005/2007

Read a speech rather than memorize? Sure. Just do it well.

Imagine the anxiety of having one foot on one train going east and the other foot on a train going west. That’s what many executives go through when they have to give a speech or make a presentation. They are conflicted between giving it without notes (the eastbound) and needing a written text (the westbound).

I have just encountered this anxiety with two different clients. The best advice I gave them was to stop worrying and just read the speech. But do it well.

Why is this good advice? Because it deals with their reality, unlike much of the standard advice on making presentations. Their reality is that they do not have the time to absorb 20 minutes of presentation that must be fairly precise. Their reality demands precision because, as in both client’s situations, what they were going to say had to be approved by lawyers and others, and what they said had to – for compliance and legal reasons – be exactly what was approved.

Another reason my advice worked for them: business audiences are accustomed to people reading speeches. That’s not an issue. Reading one badly is. Speaking without notes can be problematic. Some people who speak without notes do it brilliantly and the communication is powerful. Many people who speak without notes are good, but the communications is not always great – the point is lost. And some people who speak without notes are atrocious and the communication that results is very negative for the speaker. (If you have the time and the ability to answer the questions below and speak without notes, do it.)

I can tell you that in both client cases I mentioned at the start, resolving the old “memorize versus read” conflict helped them.

So, how to read a speech well?

Since content drives good performance and good performance helps the audience listen to and accept the content, I always start with a few questions that impact content.

1)      Who is the audience? What do they care about? What do they want to hear from you? What will keep their interest? Defensively, what will let their brains leave the room? (Or worse, let them focus solely on you and your performance and ignore the content?) Do you know someone in the audience who is representative of their needs? Do you care about them?

2)      What’s the purpose of the presentation? Is it to inspire trust? Transfer data? Fill a spot on the agenda? Entertain? Get exposure for your brand?

3)      Now, what structure is appropriate for the need and the purpose? There are many structures – the Churchillian structure is one. It uses one dominant argument/point/theme and has everything else support that dominant point. The Rule of Three structure that I like best starts with a problem statement – one that gets the audience to nod in agreement that it relates to them -  followed by a generic solution that should elicit another nod of agreement, and beg the question in their minds: “Where do I get it?” The third piece is the branded solution that delivers on that question and is the speaker’s payoff.

If the speaker has had input into the presentation through the above questions, then their familiarity with the purpose and content of the speech should be high, even if someone else has written the speech for them. (This exercize also helps the speechwriter. Otherwise, they do what research they can, guess the rest and write a draft.)

The speaker should never review drafts of speeches silently. They can’t get a feel for the language, the pacing, and the degree of reading difficulty without reading it out loud. By reading aloud, they not only make the changes to the content they want but they start the performance practice part of reading a speech well.

If the speaker knows why they are talking and to whom, and has an expected outcome, the communication is almost always superior. The bonus is that the text tends to stick in the memory bank as well. This results in an easy transition from a need to read every word to the eyes-up technique of “scoop and dump”.

When the speaker has a familiarity with the text and the purpose behind it, there is less need to be tied to reading. Because the brain is familiar with the text, the speaker can look down and scan a short piece of text – the scoop – lift their eyes to the audience and deliver the exact words to them – the dump. It takes practice, but becomes progressively easier as one does so. Finally, the audience almost perceives it as a “no notes” performance because the speaker’s eyes are up and on them so much.

Another way to make the scoop and dump technique easier is to mark up the text. This means putting visual cues into the text in order to reduce thinking (the main source of disfluencies or screw-ups). I have/ marked-up/this sentence/ to show you where my/ out-loud /reading breaks and emphasis/naturally go.  Read it aloud with the breaks and punch the underlined words. Now take out the marks and read the sentence aloud. Which has more impact? Which is easier to read with eyes up?

A speech structured for the eye will sound like it. A speech structured for the mouth should look like it.

Other techniques to help read a speech well. Use large type on the page, well spaced and use only the top portion of the page. This helps the reader keep their head up and assists with scooping and dumping.

Do not grab the lectern. Some people think holding on eases their tension. I learned from the engineers long ago that if you stress a rigid frame –and the speaker’s skeleton is a rigid frame – by squeezing your hands together or squeezing the sides of the lectern, it only makes it quiver/shake more. There should be space between the speaker and the lectern. The hands should be together about mid torso or resting gently on the edge of the lectern. A great way to relieve stress and increase the power of the voice is to let the hands find their natural expression throughout the speech.

And, finally, speak to the audience individually with short, one or two second eye contact. Talk to them, rather than at or over them.

So, if circumstances call for reading a speech or presentation, just do it. But do it well.

Risk: What’s your primary objective?

I was talking with a friend recently about the risks that young people take. A quote came to mind from a retired race car driver when asked why older drivers lose their competitive edge. He said: In the brief moment that a gap opens between two cars ahead, the young guys go for it and the older guys consider the risk. Risk assessment isn’t always dependent on age. I believe it’s dependent on the primary objective.

For instance, the young gun wants to race or get to the front. The old hand wants to have a car left to race to the finish or to live to race another day. I don’t believe we can accuse the young racer of not thinking. I believe we have to understand their mindset at the moment of decision. What is their priority?

This is true of workers on the factory floor and executives in the boardroom as much as it is of kids in a car on a Saturday night or middle-aged mothers parasailing off a beach in Cancun. What’s their primary objective? It doesn’t excuse a bad outcome, just explains their thinking at the time.

The fellow I mentioned at the beginning is involved in a project to teach young people about risk assessment in the hope that they can be better equipped to make appropriate judgement before taking risky actions. I told him a story of an outing I took as a teenager with a group to a gravel pit in winter. Where I grew up, winter meant snow. Lots of it. So, the sides of the pit were covered in snow. I remember diving down the hillside doing huge somersaults, with the momentum flinging me farther out on each roll. The snow cushioned my contact with the hill. It was a blast. No one else chanced it, so I got to be the centre of attention with the group for my feat of daring (stupidity). I never once considered that I had never done this before, so I had no idea if the technique itself could injure me. I didn’t think about hidden rocks or buried equipment that I might land on.

What was I thinking? Probably wanted to show off. To have an adventure. Use my athletic abilities to have fun. I didn’t think of risk. I would now and I wouldn’t let my son do it if I could warn him off. But would having a knowledge of risk assessment applicable to fun, have had an effect on me? You just don’t know until the moment comes. There is likely to be a conflict. Like the mom who told me that before she got harnessed up to go parasailing the thought that she might be invalidating her travel insurance did run through her mind. But it lost out to the need for the freedom to do something completely different, thrilling and, yes, dangerous.

For young people, the primary objective seems to be living – experiencing, growing, testing, chancing. As we get older, the primary objective seems to be staying alive. So, it’s easier for older people to stop and think. (Obviously not always and certainly not for all older people.)

I’m back to my race car drivers. The young gun goes for the gap while the older driver makes a fast risk assessment. The young driver goes to the front or crashes and goes home early. The older guy sees the gap close but survives to run for the checkered flag or just survives another race. A lot depends on the primary objective.

 I applaud my friend’s efforts to help young people live and live. Fewer deaths by misadventure is just a very good thing.

Communicating well takes brains

 I was conducting a media training refresher session with some experienced communicators from a major company when one of them expressed frustration that the marketers wanted to over-emphasize the company name or the product name in a press release. “It doesn’t always fit,” she said. “What do you say to them?”  That led us through a discussion of the logic train of  thought about problem and solution. We also touched on motivation behind the communication and premise regarding the receiver of the communication. With more time to think about it here’s my expanded take on the issue she raised. First, the marketers are not wrong to want to get out the brand names in the communication. What’s missing is a discussion with those marketers as to just what the communication (press release) is supposed to accomplish, and who exactly is it aimed at? If the answer comes back that “it’s everyone and we want them to buy the product or services of the company,” then there is a problem. If it comes back that the target is only those aware of their own need who are ready to choose a supplier to satisfy that need, then you’re fine. Here’s why. Years ago I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Walter Lindenmann, the head of research at Ketchum Public Relations. Walt used a model to explain the process that the brain of the receiver goes through to act upon the satisfying of a need. Basically he said they have to be aware of the solution, have to develop an attitude of acceptance of the solution and then have to behave in such a way as to choose the solution. The receiver, he said, harbors ‘latent readiness’ to move through the different stages of awareness, attitude and behavior. Typically, a trigger must be present to move the receiver to the next stage. An urgent need can be the trigger to swift movement though all three stages. So let’s apply this model to the press release problem. I would argue that the brand solution, in the absence of a problem statement and generic solution, would mean the receiver is aware of the need (problem statement) and has decided that the need can be satisfied by a particular solution (generic solution) represented by a number of brands (branded solution). The receiver has just not chosen the solution yet. Therefore, almost all that is required for this segment of the broad audience is the communicating of a brand name solution. This would make sense to this qualified audience and might trigger the desired behaviour of having them choose your brand. But what about the rest of the broad audience exposed to the press release?Where are their brains in terms of latent readiness?  Some of that audience does not know they have a need. They haven’t thought about it. Just throwing a brand solution at this audience is unlikely to elicit the desired behavior. They are likely to ignore the communication altogether because it doesn’t trigger their awareness of the need. It doesn’t really speak to their stage of interest. Some of the audience may know they have a need but aren’t settled on the solution that the brand can deliver. So, they need more than a brand mention, they need an argument to influence attitude formation and acceptance of the desired choice. The truly amazing thing is that when time and effort is spent on the first two, then often the behaviour is self triggered by the receiver. They say: “Yes, that is my problem (need, want, threat, etc.). And that kind of solution would certainly take care of it. So, where do I get this solution?” Bingo! Time for the branded solution. Why waste the few opportunities we get by mis-constructing the communication because of lack of analysis of the receiver’s brain and thinking process?I believe that if PR people can have this discussion with their marketers, they can reach a clear understanding of the target audience, understand their stage of latent readiness, and shape the structure and language of the release so that everyone can feel better about it. If, however, the marketers say no, we want everyone as a target, then a discussion of how the brain works using a model like Lindenmann’s will clearly show that that takes more than a brand reference without the ‘problem – solution’ logic train.  It’s not easy. What we learned as we grew up and received our education and practised as communication gives us a base of knowledge, but it is not always full enough, or attuned enough, or applied properly enough to ensure we communicate well. More research and analysis will help. I referenced Lindenmann’s model above. It is a useful and practical way to look at the receiver’s brain. But many will take issue with it. Gerald Zaltman in his book  How Customers Think: Essential Insights into the Mind of the Market says the logic argument only touches a small group of customers. Most are not logical because that suggests conscious processing and he argues that much of the brain processing of market behavior is sub or unconscious. My point is not to promote one thesis above another. What I can argue and would suggest to any communicator who is frustrated with what a colleague is proposing should go into a communication such as a press release, is to challenge the premise of their opinion. Simply ask questions that will bring out the thinking behind the opinion. Get clarity. Get at the research that supports the opinion. There is quantitative and qualitative research. And there is brain research. And sometimes the quantitative and qualitative are looking at brain related issues – psychology and sociology. But we won’t get what we want to send from our brain to the receiver’s brain right unless we know how the receiver’s brain is going to receive what we send them. Copyright 2004 Patrick McGee

I was watching a documenary on K-tel International recently. They blitzed TV with ads for compilation music albums and kitchen and home gadgets. When they stuck to their knitting they were extremely successful. A former marketing manager says in the documentary that they estimated it took four  solid exposures to get a consumer to buy. So they purchased about 150 spots a week on TV and radio to drive buying behavior in the stores. This is just one bit of street proof that you should get to the consumer more than once. They also created engagement. I was just on the net researching K-tel and came across comments from bloggers that once they heard the ads for the albums they couldn’t get the songs out of their heads. Drove them crazy. But they bought the product. The K-tel guys also used the strategy to get into stores. In the UK, where no one had heard of them, the main stores refused to carry their product. So K-tel ran their ads and listed the desired stores where they wanted their product carried: “available at ….”. When people came into the stores looking for the product the stores reconsidered and placed orders. So, a combination of repetition and engagement gets most consumers to behave the way we want them to. A powerful story that draws them in helps to overcome a lack of repetition.

Conflicted Thinking:CSI Grissom (Inductive) vs. CSI Eckley (Deductive)

What happens in the workplace when people think differently? Sometimes that conflict brings great results and sometimes failure – as in resistance. The more aware we are of how our colleagues, clients, and other contacts think, the better we are prepared to manage the conflict to the best outcome.

The two methods of thinking or reasoning are shown in this example from the CBS hit television show CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Two characters – CSI Gil Grissom and CSI Conrad Eckley – are usually in conflict on a great many levels. In one episode, Grissom (the star character of the show) reviews a case originally investigated by Eckley. Grissom always suppresses his ‘gut feel’ or intuition in favour of the evidence. In other words he doesn’t jump to conclusions. His bottom up approach is more inductive than deductive. When Grissom starts reviewing the old case he sees that Eckley quickly decided who was guilty and only collected the evidence that proved that conclusion – a more deductive approach. While Eckley closed the file in short order he got the wrong guy. Grissom worked from observation up to the theory of guilt. If you want to see both ways of thinking used by one character while others characters do the same, resulting in a bizarre dynamic of conflict and ultimate resolution, watch the medical drama HOUSE from Fox Broadcasting.

William Trochim has a take on the difference that positions deductive as top down and inductive as bottom up. However, he characterises deductive as “more general to more specific” and inductive as “moving from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories.”

In my experience I would say that deductive types start with a specific conclusion and then build a case of proof to support that objective. Business and organizational types display deductive thinking a lot, even though they participate in many interactions that are inductive. It could well be argued that they have already used inductive thinking to reach that conclusions and then frame the case in a deductive structure. Fair enough. I think this just shows that there is little ‘pure’ deductive or inductive thinking.

Wearing my crisis consultant ‘hat’, I have been both praised and accused of being a ‘top-down thinker.’ (As long as the client gets a good result I don’t care what they call me.)

However, different preferred thinking models can bring conflict. An interesting discussion of this was posted by Antoine Henry de Frahan in a post titled Deductive-Inductive Strategy on his Legal Management blog and it reminded me of a few client/consultant interactions that I have had in the past.

As a communication coach, I saw this conflict manifest in the impression that one executive left with his peers and superiors. He was seen as detached, cool, even arrogant, although with his employees he was seen as supportive and a very good leader – because he interacted with them differently. Working this through together, we analyzed why this poor impression was left with one group and not with another. We determined that his propensity to immediately display a deductive thinking structure in his communications with his peers and superiors was based on an unconscious assumption on his part: “I get it and I assume you do too; so let’s move this discussion along.” The problem, we concluded, was that those with whom he interacted were not always at the same place in their thinking, or preferred an inductive style. He is now taking that into consideration when he interacts with his different audiences. It will slow things down a little or a lot, but the impression and co-operation should lead to the best result in the end.

Wearing another hat – that of media trainer – I see this conflict in our thinking versus that of the media. I want my business/organizational trainees to build a story to tell, with sufficient proof to sustain that story. I would characterize that as deductive – top down. The media want to find a story by exploration through questions – bottom up. This often leads them to ask questions that might be beyond the scope of the story we want to tell. We prepare for that and try to ensure that we provide enough interesting, fresh information in support of our story that we meet the needs of the reporter too, while maintaining our story’s focus.

I can certainly understand the reporter’s resistance to any restriction on the scope of discussion. After all, brain research is showing us that any attempt at influence (a restriction of choice/freedom) brings automatic and often unconscious resistance. But we also know that a well-made case with sufficient proof to withstand any objections (resistance) works. So, we shouldn’t be dissuaded because the reporter is using a different thought or reasoning structure. It does, however, require that we have a compelling, ‘sticky’ story that will meet their needs.

A word about ‘investigative’ media. I view them as the Conrad Eckleys of this world – deductive to a fault. They have the guilty party in their sights, they then set about to confirm it. Sometimes their targets deserve their fate, other times not. And yes, sometimes non-investigative reporters use this approach, just as some investigative reporters do build from the bottom up. But when an investigative reporter calls, our preparation is similar even though our expectations will change.

So, what do we do about the conflict in thinking? The most significant danger, in my view, is that it triggers resistance from others. If we know our style and the preferred style or likely position of the other party, we can accommodate their needs and perhaps reduce their resistance. Is there one method that is better than the other? No. Each has its upside and downside. The key is to be conscious of them both, how they work and where they can be best applied.

Copyright 2007 Patrick McGee

 

A Utility Executive responds by email:

Pat, good points. Actually, I think we save time and get better results by drawing others into a discussion, leading to a mutually agreed upon conclusion. The thing is, with peers, even if I think I’ve got the answer, if they don’t agree at that moment, we aren’t moving forward until they “get it”. More often than not, my conclusion is “half right” – and the mutually agreed upon solutions are almost always much richer than my own conclusions. Tough lesson – but learning how to listen to others is a skill that few have. That, and a quick deductive mind, is very powerful. Moves you ahead in a corp culture too, because people appreciate it when their opinions are valued. 

 

From an Advertizing Creative Director by email:

Very good, Pat. It’s so prevalent. Now you’ve given me a vocabulary to
describe it. Thanks.