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. 

.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.