This is the first installment of a four-part series.
At CRA, we use Aristotle’s three methods of persuasion—Ethos, Pathos, and Logos (found in his Rhetoric)—as the foundation for creating quality messages. We gloss these terms as Believe, Do, and Know. In other words, a good message makes the audience believe we are credible. It establishes a personal connection, which helps to encourage that the message is acted upon. Finally, a good message helps the audience to know something new and important by presenting reasonable and intelligent arguments.
I thought it would be useful to return to the source to help fill out these concepts a bit more. One interesting point to begin with is that there are only three ways for a person to be persuasive according to Aristotle. These can be characterized broadly in terms of: 1) the character of the speaker; 2) the emotional state of the hearer; and 3) the argument itself.
Three posts, corresponding to Ethos, Pathos, and Logos respectively, will follow this introductory post over the next three weeks. Each will include practical coaching points designed to help translate Aristotle’s observations into the practical world of business.
The 2008 U.S. Presidential Election has provided unending examples of the things leaders do to create followers–some good things, some bad. I’ve had conversations with many leaders who are trying to emulate Barack Obama’s inspirational rhetoric and engaging speaking style; or leaders who are trying to create a compelling story like that of John McCain’s heroism.
While an engaging speaking style and strong narratives help make leaders more credible, nothing is more compelling to most people than authenticity. That’s why my typical advice to leaders seeking role models would not be to emulate either one of these presidential candidates, but to look in the mirror for inspiration and ideas.
But if pressed for an example outside of yourself of someone who has that unique combination of authenticity, competence and caring, I would encourage you to take a closer look at the life of Tim Russert. Someone who should be–but sadly isn’t–covering this election.
Anyone who knew Tim Russert (and the millions who felt as if they did), knew him as an objective journalist whose passion for politics was obvious, his optimism was contagious, his integrity unmatched, his values consistent, and his caring genuine. He worked harder and was arguably better at his craft than many who will be covering tomorrow’s election results.
Russert had a professional credibility and personal likeability about him–he asked tough questions with a smile, told stories that helped people relate, and built relationships with people from all walks of life (and from both sides of the aisle).
So, on the eve of this historic election, my hat goes off to Tim Russert–partially because I share his hometown of Buffalo and can relate to his story (Go Bills), but mostly because I appreciate people who are the best at what they do, and do it with their own genuine style, compassion, and humility.
After sitting through one too many PowerPoint presentations, I began thinking about different presentation techniques and the most effective methods for making information memorable, or sticky. During my research, I came across the Cognitive Load Theory, which highlights the importance of how people process information and the implications for presentation design.
Dr. John Sweller, Professor of Education at the University New South Wales, Australia, developed this relatively straightforward theory that suggests people learn, process, and remember information better when it’s presented in a simple manner that doesn’t require considerable memory load–the amount of memory necessary to process and remember information.
In today’s boardrooms many people use PowerPoint as the way to present information, regardless of the content. This is a problem because people tend to include too much information on each slide and, as a result, end up reading the information directly off the projector screen. According to Sweller’s Theory, this presentation method is redundant and reduces the audience’s ability to remember what you’ve said.
So, the next time you’re putting together a business presentation, remember that every person has a different capacity for processing information and PowerPoint is not always the right tool for the job. Try to resist the temptation of putting everything on the slides, and improve your likelihood of presentation success by remembering two key things:
Focus on Simplicity: Make your messages clear and simple, and avoid using complex data. This will reduce memory load and increase audience recall.
Avoid Redundancy: If you’re going to use PowerPoint, do not read the information directly off the slide. PowerPoint presentations are more effective when they’re used to highlight key points from your presentation, not to repeat it.
To learn more about Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory click here.
What will all of this mean for me? It’s the question of the day as employees watch the stock market plummet, retirement savings shrink, and global currencies fluctuate. The financial crisis brings many questions to mind, and the role of senior leaders is to answer those questions and keep people focused on the right things.
We’ve learned a few lessons about communicating during uncertain times, and offer six quick tips here as you consider your communication approach.
- Get out there. A lot. If you think people are panicking now, closing your office door and saying nothing is the last thing that will help. During times of uncertainty, people want to hear from their leaders, and overcommunication is the strategy of choice.
- Set the right expectations and communicate using “probabilities.” You don’t know exactly what this will mean for your organization, but you do have some ideas. How will the end of the year wrap up? What does 2009 look like? Set expectations that are realistic and share your personal view. Regularly invoke probabilities (e.g., what will happen, what probably will happen, what we don’t know, what won’t happen) to set expectations for the upcoming months.
- Have a consistent elevator speech that you and your leadership team use. Leadership needs to communicate a consistent front during all times—especially during times of uncertainty. Get your leadership team clear on what to say and how to say it.
- Understand the questions that are on peoples’ minds. Walk in the shoes of your employees to better understand the concerns of the day. Speaking directly to these concerns will give you more credibility and relevance.
- Recognize it’s what you do more than what you say. Actions speak louder than words. The 440K spa trip? Probably not the right time.
- Lead with courage. Employees smell fear, and fear paralyzes. Leaders must set realistic expectations about the future while concentrating on moving people forward with confidence. Hopefully, the strategy hasn’t changed. Remind people, and help employees to understand what they can do and why.
Since PowerPoint 1.0 launched in September 1987 it’s grown to become a staple in our daily business life. It seems a meeting isn’t complete without a projector and a screen. At CRA we don’t always believe there’s a need for PowerPoint (sometimes uninterrupted dialogue is more powerful), but we do believe if created correctly, PowerPoint can be extremely helpful in illustrating your thoughts.
I’m sure many of you have witnessed a time when a presentation caused confusion and actually spoiled the main message. I thought about this as I read The Universal Principles of Design by William Lidwell, Kritina Holden, and Jill Butler. The book touches on principles of design that apply to everything from everyday computer programs to the not-so-everyday nuclear power plant, Three Mile Island. Below I’ve listed the book’s top design tips for a successful PowerPoint presentation.
1) Color. The color you use should serve a purpose: “to attract attention, group elements, indicate meaning, and enhance aesthetics,” the book explains. Use color in moderation, and limit your color choices to five (which is the number of colors the eye can process in one glance). For simple, successful color selection, stick with the primary colors.
2) Framing. Think about the order of your presentation. To make sure you tell your story in the best order possible. Think about how the audience will see and hear your story. Graphics, text, and background information can powerfully alter how people view your presentation.
3) Ockham’s Razor. Ockham, a medieval friar and scholastic scholar, is credited with the idea that when given a choice between functionally equivalent designs, the simplest design will be chosen. This means simple designs are favored over complex designs. While this seems like common knowledge, I believe it’s the number one cause of “death by PowerPoint.” We want our presentations to be flashy and attention-grabbing, but in reality the clutter makes the presentation less effective. When in doubt, stick to basics.
4) Picture Superiority Effect. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. Pictures are “generally more easily recognized and recalled than words, although memory for pictures and words together is superior to memory for words alone or pictures alone.” Audience memory increases even further when words and pictures are used together. With this in mind, you can emphasize key points incorporating pictures and words together to gain the highest level of audience recall.
5) Readability. I think the book explains this best, “It is a common belief that complex information requires complex presentation. This is not true. The most complex information requires the simplest presentation so that the focus is on the information rather than the way it is presented.” Avoid acronyms and jargon.
Avid CommLog readers know this isn’t the first time we’ve written about PowerPoint. To refresh your memory click here and here and view some of our other posts about PowerPoint. With these tips in mind, hopefully, we can all avoid “death by PowerPoint” and be more successful communicators in the long run.
Is urban violence viral? It might be, according to experts cited in this New York Times magazine article. The essence:
CeaseFire’s founder, Gary Slutkin, is an epidemiologist and a physician who for 10 years battled infectious diseases in Africa. He says that violence directly mimics infections like tuberculosis and AIDS, and so, he suggests, the treatment ought to mimic the regimen applied to these diseases: go after the most infected, and stop the infection at its source. “For violence, we’re trying to interrupt the next event, the next transmission, the next violent activity,” Slutkin told me recently. “And the violent activity predicts the next violent activity like H.I.V. predicts the next H.I.V. and TB predicts the next TB.” Slutkin wants to shift how we think about violence from a moral issue (good and bad people) to a public health one (healthful and unhealthful behavior).
It seems plausible, and interestingly, very similar to our approach to stakeholder management at the office–except in that case, we’re trying to foster the spread of behavior rather than hinder it.
Either way, the central issue is network effects, and in particular, the role of hyper-connected actors within the network. Think of it this way: If someone catches the cold, but only interacts with a few other people, the rate of transmission is likely to be low. If on the other hand the ill person shakes 100 hands a day, well, a lot of people are probably going to get sick. Substitute the willingness to enact violence, or support for your company’s SAP implementation, for the common cold, and it’s clear that not everyone in the network is equal in the effects they exert on the whole. It’s all about dealing with the critical few.
For the seminal academic piece read Rogers; for the seminal popular piece read Gladwell (the book or the original article).
Have you considered gearing up for your next speech by having a couple of cocktails while working on your presentation? Or, have you considered having a few drinks to ease your anxiety the day before a big speech?
Research on speech performance in the past has mostly focused on writing, speech anxiety, practice, and motivation. A new study conducted by R.K. Mitchell and L. Nelson has turned these studies upside down by focusing on the effects of drinking alcohol in the five days prior to a speaking engagement.
In this study, the negative effects of drinking prior to a speech outweigh all of the positive effects of writing, practicing, reducing your anxiety, and your motivation to perform well. This study shows a strong correlation: the more alcohol consumed in the five days before a speech, the poorer the speech performance. There is no clear evidence at this time as to the number of drinks or the frequency of drinking that will have a negative effect on performance, but there is evidence to show a correlation between the two.
We may want to take this into consideration before a speaking engagement. If you would like to know more, you will find the full research article under the title:
Don’t Drink and Speak: The Relationships among Alcohol Use, Practice, Motivation, Anxiety, and Speech Performance, found in the May issue of Communication Research Reports by R. King-Mitchell and C.L. Nelson.
(For access online, a subscription is required)
www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a778590849~db=all~jumptype=rss
We work very hard to teach leaders that human beings are sense-making creatures: We try, at every opportunity, to make sense of what we see, hear, and experience. A consequence is that when a vacuum of information exists, we try to fill it by creating meaning of our own, which may or may not be close to the reality a leader is trying to convey.
Thanks to an email forward by my wife Kate, this morning I saw a wonderful example of this: Over two hundred people deciding to freeze in place, simultaneously, on the main concourse of Grand Central Station in New York. Watch the video, and watch folks try to create meaning out of the event. Acting class? Protest? What in the world IS this? Everybody there has a different interpretation, but they all HAVE an interpretation, and it’s one they’ve crafted out of their past experiences and the overall context at hand. They fill the vacuum.
So the question is: What vacuums of information are your employees filling with meaning? You may not know, but you can count on the people you lead to create meaning for your every decision and action. Your job as a leader is to frame those decisions and actions, adding context so their interpretation is as close as possible to your intention. In times of uncertainty or change, when what you can communicate may be limited, this can be difficult. But there are things you can do to help:
- Refuse to allow vacuums. If there is information you’re not able to share because the facts aren’t settled or HR, your superior, or legal won’t permit it, frame the context by communicating probabilities: What’s certain, likely, unknown (or what you can’t say), unlikely, and impossible. Doing so at the very least contextualizes and constrains the meaning employees (or your peers, or your kids) can create.
- Refuse to let silence be a message. NOT communicating when employees know something is afoot sends a message, and it’s a relational one that employees will interpret as ranging from “I don’t care” to “I don’t respect you.” The act of communicating in the face of uncertainty, be it by sharing probabilities, or even saying “I don’t know” or “I can’t tell you and here’s why,” sends a message about your identity and the relationship. It says “I care” and “I respect you,” both of which are essential to maintaining relational capital during uncertain times.
- Aggressively challenge incorrect conclusions. If you find that employees (or the Board, or your kids) have filled the vacuum with incorrect meaning, challenge and correct those assumptions. Provide the facts, or if you can’t, the probabilities or even the “I can’t say,” but don’t allow the wrong meaning to exist. Not only does it keep bad information in the system, it can brand a leader as passive. In the face of very disruptive change or very bad news, an audience can easily interpret this passivity as cowardice.
Managing meaning during difficult or changing times isn’t easy, but it’s a leader’s burden. The point is to get folks through it with as much relational capital and loyalty as possible–and silence is antithetical to both.
