Can a connection be made?

One last blog about the Presidential debates.

I find it troubling that facts were the biggest casualties of this series. If I were an undecided voter I doubt I the debates would have led to a decision. Yes, the President gave lots of detail for how he would reach his policy goals, whereas Governor Romney continued to deal in vague, positive-sounding generalities. But some people do not like all that detail and do not want to know how the economy will be fixed: they just want it to be fixed. So this time, "how I feel about the candidate" just might tip the scales.

The televised debates were meant to give us a clearer view of each candidate; to show us what each of them stood for. But, as I said, facts were distorted so much that it was hard to score them on that point. That brings us back to perception and connection. So what's the final score?

I give the ultimate win to President Obama. Here's why: he proved he can learn from his mistakes. His delivery continued to improve as the cycle went on, while Governor Romney succumbed to overconfidence that led to a smug delivery in the third debate. The Governor is already battling the perception that he thinks he is better than at least 47% of us. He should be more careful not to seem snobby and elitist. A dose of humility would have helped.

As the President noted in his interview with Jay Leno on Wednesday, "If you don't have the energy and presentation that make people snap up and say 'I get it'" you lose. He learned to overcome his personal tendency to be cool, cerebral and aloof and come out in the third debate as someone who will fight for the voter. His eye contact with the moderator, the way he cocked his head as he listened, his use of gestures that were congruent with his words (to name just a couple of specifics) all said: this is a real person who just might listen to a voter like me.

Now I know voting is so incredibly partisan this time around that no one can predict what will happen. But I know that many of us in the professional speaking world hope the President is reelected. He is the better speaker, and - best of all - he has shown he can learn from his mistakes! The fact that he is aware that there is always room for improvement endears him to teachers and coaches everywhere. These debates, after all, did provide us with a glimpse of what makes him tick.

Never underestimate the power of making that connection.

Don't forget the audience

Presidential debates are part campaign rally, part talk show interview, part smack down. I found this  week's debate at Hofstra University a particularly interesting example of the genre. First, you can't put anything over on the undecided voters of Nassau County. They were all thrilled (I would assume) to be there, and were given strict orders not to react to the candidates' responses. But the camera did occasionally catch faces showing various degrees of perplexity, disagreement, enthusiasm. It was good people-watching if you were looking for reflexive responses - the kind that can't be hidden!

Regrettably, the main event became the showdown between the candidates, gleefully reported on by every major media outlet in the country. And though partisans seemed to get some basic animal thrill from watching their guys "duke it out," I would not be surprised if the undecided remained undecided. The candidates each began with a massive failure to play to the studio audience, and to the larger audience at home.

My guess is that both President Obama's and Governor Romney's debate coaches told them to look at the questioner when answering to show sincerity and commitment. But that's exactly what they did -  they showed, all right, but who believed them? They both glombed on to the faces of their unsuspecting targets and fixed on them for way too long. I really felt for Jeremy Epstein, the first one to pose a question. It's hard enough to disengage when someone locks you in their gaze, but when that person is the President, what can you do? Jeremy said in a post-debate interview that he felt nervous, and that he felt he couldn't move because Mitt Romney was looking at him so intently.

After the debate, when Jeremy met the candidates, he said felt he was talking to "real people" -- and for him, that was the best part. Hmmmm. I wonder how a candidate could harness that power of connection during the debate? Here's a hint: real communication never takes place anywhere in the vicinity of a stare down. Relax your gaze, look around, open up your body and your gestures to include others in the audience. Take a cue from Oprah: you need to connect with everyone there -- they are likely as concerned as Jeremy about job prospects for young people. And use the camera to convey your sincerity to the audience at home. There seems to be some great aversion to the camera, as if the candidates had been coached not to try to speak to the very large viewing audience. I can only imagine why that would be -- it will seem more "real" if you don't occasionally connect with viewer at home?? Like this is in any way a "real" event we are just eavesdroping on! There is no fourth wall here. Use the tools of your media, fellas. You don't need to direct address us for paragraphs at a time, but occasionally look in our direction.

Both did a better job as the evening went on. By question three you could see the President loosening up and trying to connect. He did start playing to the crowd more, and his body language relaxed, as did his enunciation. But when Governor Romney interrupted him, you could see his defenses go up, his posture stiffened, he disengaged from the questioner and focussed on his "combatant." Partisans had been begging for that since the first debate. So if the evening was about a fight, they gave us a good show. But if I were an undecided voter, I would still have a lot of questions.

The veep stakes

Last week I wrote that the Presidential debate looked very different to me that it did to most major  pundits who proclaimed their opinions far and wide.  The Daily Beast posted an interesting article that helps explain why: "But with the rise of blogging and especially Twitter, journalists are spending more and more time immersed in the world of retorts and clever one-liners than ever before." So thoughtful responses from Obama, because they weren't snappy or zingy, led him to be caricatured as sleepy, tired, unfocussed. 

After last night's Vice Presidential debate, even greater dissection of the contestants was offered up. Fortunately, looking sleepy was not a charge that could be leveled against either Joe Biden or Paul Ryan.

I thought Joe Biden's energy and pugnaciousness were refreshing, and I did not mind his interrupting  Paul Ryan or Martha Raddatz, since he had valid points to make. Often he corrected a point made by his opponent, a move calculated to try to get people to actually think about what was being said (which is one of the only proven ways to counter mis-information). Much has been made about his smiling at Ryan's statements, but Joe does not have a poker face: much better to smile at something you consider a bunch of "malarkey" as he colorfully termed it, than scowl and/or shake your head! Paul Ryan looked far too earnest. Like he was trying reallyreallyhard to convince the moderator (and by extension, the viewing public) that he was right. His bulging eyes, raised eyebrows and furrowed forehead were exhausting to watch. So earnest, so sure of himself; he walked a very fine line between confidence and smugness. He crossed it a couple of times. But I know he appealed to those who were predisposed to see him as the Next Big Thing and Joe as a washed-up glad-hander.

From a professional standpoint, my critique is of their delivery only; there are way too many organizations who have fact-checked their content for me to weigh in on it. I would give this one to Joe. He was at ease, yet forceful when he needed to be. He used vocal variety to express different ideas and thoughts appropriately. He was at home in his body: he moved, he gestured, he breathed. Paul Ryan, for all his confidence, was, oddly and visably ill at ease. He drank way too much water and swallowed nervously throughout. He lacked the kind of vocal cadence you use when you have internalized a message; he sounded well-drilled. He hammered home his messages with pretty much the same tense, I- want-to-really-make-you-understand feeling all the time. Pushing himself at us, not pulling us in. I got the feeling he wasn't a very good listener.

I'll be listening again next week as Obama and Romney meet again. Who knows? Maybe I will hear something new!

Debating the debate

Presidential Debate season is upon us, and that always makes me ponder just what it is the audience for such televised events expect to see. Every four years when they roll around pollsters tell us that debates really don't change anyone's mind.  So why do we tune in?

I think there are many reasons, not the least of which is that these debates are shared media events for a population that often feels overlooked. They are Superbowls for policy wonks, nerds, and student government officers nation-wide. The debate on October 3rd got more than half as many viewers as the most recent, record-breaking Superbowl!

But, contrary to the experts cited in columns across our nation this past week, I did not see it as a "game-changer," a slam-dunk for a "new and improved" Mitt Romney who all of the sudden appeared presidential. Yes, he had some good moments, but those have become legendary as the week has worn on. And for all the "experts" say "optics matter," am I the only one who thought the smile Governor Romney reverted to while listening was tentative and tense? Apparently Jason Sudeikis and the writers and directors at Saturday Night Live remembered it. It reminded me as I watched Wednesday night of the face my Siamese cat used to make when she smelled something really bad. Of course, the President did not do a great job, either: he did look down a lot, and seemed disengaged.

They both rambled. I do not know what debate the other experts and pundits were watching when they proclaimed Governor Romney succinct and to the point: I felt he was suffering from the run-on-sentencitis that Sarah Palin perfected. And the President joined him in the weeds with too many details, too many factoids that the viewing public could not process.

I would say neither man won, in terms of connecting with the audience. Republican partisans I know disagree, but they had set the bar for success for Governor Romney fairly low after his summer of gaffes. They would argue with me, but I stand by my assessment. He had a few good moments, but overall, he sounded like a politician, trying to score points, talking at the audience.

Many people watch these debates for sport, many for schadenfreude, but I have to believe there are still a few (and maybe the most important, the Undecideds) who actually want to connect with the candidates. Who want to see that they are actually talking to their audience, trying to communicate with them. Not lecture to them, talk down to them, or be disengaged for any reason whatsoever.

Only connect, as E.M. Forster would say. It's that simple. And that hard. It will be instructive to see, during the next town-hall-style debate October 16th, if they have gotten better at connecting. In the meantime, the pretty boy of the Right tries to take down the sex symbol of the Left this week as Congressman Ryan meets Vice President Biden. Now that will be good television!

Resurfacing after a success!

It has been quite a while since blog readers have had any new posts from me. But I had a good reason: my play Becoming Calvin had its world premiere this past month in Washington, D.C. It went quite well, and now of course, I am more determined than ever to put it on a larger stage, i.e. get it out to more professional theatre companies or colleges/universities that can produce it. For another opinion about the production, you can read this blog posted by Ruth Everhart (a terrific writer herself!).

The cast of Becoming Calvin with Jonathan Lee Taylor as Calvin

I learned so much during this process. I thought I would share a bit of it with readers of this blog. As Producing Artistic Director of the production I wore just about every hat there was. In the three years since I wrote the play I have been raising funds to get it up and running. I decided I would direct this production myself (having had some directing experience before), because we hadn't raised sufficient money to hire someone else. So I cast all the actors and hired the designers. That was lots of fun; I got to meet so many creative, vsisionary people! As the summer wore on I used the killer logo designed by a talented college student as the basis for putting together promotional materials (thank God for Vistaprint!), and the program. I tracked ticket sales. . . you get the idea. I was doing it all! And it was very instructive to see how much needed to be done.

graphic by Alexandra Pigott

Even more instructive, as my "army" of volunteers dwindled down to two dedicated souls, was how two stalwart, detail-oriented, organized people did the job of at least a dozen less self-directed folks. I was also blessed with paid talent who pitched in wherever needed, out of devotion to the project, and/or the satisfaction of doing a job well. Turns out that as a rookie "job creator" I made some very smart hiring decisions! I went with gut instincts, hiring people who not only excel as actors, stage manager, and designers, but who truly are team players. No over-sized egos (a good thing, because the dressing room was tiny!) And I will always look for that from now on: because creating a universe out of nothing, which is what we do in the theatre, has to be a collaboration. I liked being the boss, yes, and I was ready to accept responsibility for anything that went awry (nothing major did, though). For six weeks this summer I did virtually nothing but oversee every aspect of this play. But it was worth it -- because the people I worked with were fabulous.

Now I return to the solitary writer's role as I embark on the sequel, Being Calvin. I will miss the interaction with such gifted people. But as I stare at so many blank pages, I know now that there will likely be another happy ending, when this play is staged. And even if my role is reduced -- maybe I will only be the playwright -- I will be part of something greater than the sum of its parts. I believe that is what drives artists, always. And why we keep creating, one note, one brushstroke, one word at a time.

Of labor and roller coasters

Happy Labor Day!

In case you need a refresher on why most people in the U.S. get the first Monday in September off from work, why many businesses are closed, etc., check out the handy History of Labor Day from the U.S. Dept. of Labor website. It is interesting to note that workers are celebrated in most other countries on May Day, but here that has long been seen as a day that is too un-American to mark.

But whether we mark the day in September or in May, we should pay tribute to the men and women who protested, marched, petitioned, fought, faced imprisonment and ostracism to make each and every workplace and work site a safer, more equitable place. As a member of three unions -- Actors' Equity Association, SEIU, and the newly unified SAG-AFTRA --  I am grateful for those who paved the way.   

So, we mark the day by not laboring. Many of us relax at the pool one last time and barbeque. Here in my corner of Virginia our kids are getting ready to go back to school. (I believe my son is working, even as I type, on finishing up his summer work packet!) We have an extremely late start date because our lawmakers think it is important our families have one last chance to ride roller coasters and hit the Midway at the amusement park.

I am back at work tomorrow, going into the home stretch for my upcoming production of Becoming Calvin. As Producing Artistic Director of this project, I have been at the helm for 3 1/2 years. As you can imagine, I am very excited to finally get it off the ground. Our fundraising period was successful enough to allow me to hire professional actors who are extremely gifted. Getting the right people to do their jobs has made my job so much easier.  I am grateful to the union that supports my actors, so they can bring the play to life!

Thanks, Labor!

Act like you mean it!

I love actors! (and by this I mean people who act, regardless of gender. The trend among those of us who are actors is to use this gender-neutral term; see SAG Awards, which, unlike the Academy Awards given by the Academy for Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, are given to acting professionals by acting professionals.)

I am in the midst of rehearsals for an upcoming production of my new play Becoming Calvin and am working with some very gifted people. They are professional, experienced actors who know their craft, and really understand the subtleties of human communication. They know that the meaning of a sentence, of a single word, even, can be changed by a slight shift in vocal tone or inflection, a pause or quickening of the pace, or a physical gesture that underscores or undercuts the actual words. They know that what is actually being communicated is so much more than the lines they read on the printed page. When they are exploring a script, as my cast is now, it is fascinating to see the various permutations of meaning they explore for a single sentence. It is important, too, because the way that sentence is read can derail or propel the entire scene.

While we were having auditions for the play there were some actors who felt compelled to "embellish" the text and use it as a springboard for their own antics. The playwright in me was not pleased! There was much to mine in the words that were there. Why did these actors ignore them and overlay the text with tricks that got easy laughs? Needless to say, these actors are not in my current cast.

Watching rehearsals last night I realized (for about the millionth time) how subtle and nuanced human communication really is. No wonder so much of it fails so completely! If people aren't looking and listening closely they can miss important cues as to what is really being said. E-mail is full of these kinds of communications missteps; this has long been understood. But we need work at "being in the moment" for every communications exchange--personal and professional. That is of paramount importance if we have any hope of conveying what we truly mean.

Just take a cue from the actors!

Powers of persuasion

I work a lot in the realm of communications and leadership, so of course the conversation often comes turns to the art of persuasion. As with any art, many people think they are more skilled at it than they are. I have a colleague who claims she "could sell ice to Eskimos," which is a marketing cliche that I wish would die, once and for all! The truth, as any parent can attest, is that you cannot make anyone do anything. Unless they want to.
 
So when I heard Shankar Vedantam's latest report on NPR's "Morning Edition" last week, "Manipulating People into Saying Yes" I was intrigued. Vedantum reports that new research shows people will comply with requests you make of them, i.e. do what you want them to do, if you first make an unusual request that grabs their attention. And that makes sense, because in that initial approach you are establishing a relationship. Then your subsequent request (what you really want them to do) does not seem to come out of the blue. NPR's radio clip provides some humorously anecdotal evidence of how and why this works.

As I say to my clients and students, you can't make people do anything they don't want to -- unless they see how they would benefit. So how do we convince people of the benefit of doing what we want? Look at human nature. Many of us want to live our lives peacefully, not rocking the boat unless we have reason to. Though we may not actively go out of our way to please others, we also don't want to cause undue anxiety/draw attention/make others angry by needlessly displeasing them.

In his story, Vendatum highlights the nature of his request: "And what the unusual request gets you to do is it gets you to stop and think. And when you get to stop and think, you become much more likely then to comply with the real request." People don't want to displease him, so they do the little thing he asks. Why? He gets their attention by showing his vulnerability. He starts to break down the walls that separate him from his subject. He clearly establishes a relationships.

The lesson for us? When we jolt our conversation partners out of "auto pilot mode" and invite them to be not only in the moment, but in the moment with us, we have taken the first step toward true communication.

Separated by a common language

Just back from a trip to Toronto!

Had a great time visiting the Bata Shoe Museum, Art Gallery of Ontario, dining with friends, catching what breezes we could on rooftop bars (in the middle of a heat wave), and walking, walking, walking!

Being in English-speaking Canada as an American really makes you realize how very important it is to communicate clearly! Yes, we speak the same language, with more or less the same accent (I grew up on the U.S. side of the Great Lakes, after all). But I found I needed to listen closely to actually hear what is being said. Spoken Canadian, after all, can be different from spoken Mid-Atlantic or Midwestern American English.

That's one of the wonderful things about travel: you see with new eyes and hear with new ears! When we don't do this, and kinda-sorta listen, putting our ears on auto-pilot, we miss out on the nuance that can reveal so much. If we can listen attentively, taking in and responding to different cadences, accents, and vocabularies, we will no longer be separated by a common language (with apologies to GBS). And nothing will be lost in translation.

News flash: men and women more alike than different

Well, like I always say: someone should do a study!

And they did. This week I heard a story on NPR about a recent study concerning communications differences between men and women. And how it adversely affects women in the workplace, specifically those pursuing science and math careers. 

The story, ably reported by NPR Science Correspondent Shankur Vedantum, reveals some truths about how we communicate. These discoveries, refreshingly, fly in the face of what I ironically refer to as conventional wisdom: "The sampling technique has revealed flaws in common stereotypes. Take the one about how women like to talk much more than men. When Mehl actually measured how many words men and women speak each day, he found there was practically no difference — both men and women speak around 17,000 words a day, give or take a few hundred."

That sound you heard around 5: 45 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday? That was me, cheering in Arlington, Virginia. The "stereotype threat" referred to in the story has long been one of the banes of my professional and personal existence. Yes, stereotypes often have a basis somewhere 'way back, but that does not mean they hold for every new encounter. And yet our brains like to organize and categorize, so stereotypes creep in insidiously, and before we know it, we are operating under false assumptions. And so are the people we are trying to work with and live with. Even when we know we do not fit the stereotype, the fact that we are aware of it affects our performance.

One of my biggest communications mantras is "banish the inner critic" whenever you speak/interact in the public sphere. Trust your preparation, silence that negative voice. It is hard, but neccesary if you want to succeed. You can't allow someone else's prejudices to trip you up!

Yes, this is extremely challenging when the stereotype is so pervasive and yet unrecognized. Harness your inner warrior and fight it! Because in your more circumspect moments, you know that ugly stereotype -- the one less mindful folk insist applies to you -- is setting a trap.

And now we have the science to prove it.

Lincoln: leadership and vampires

Hoping to beat the heat that blankets much of the mid-Atlantic region this week, I took advantage of our "indoor season" here in Virginia and finished reading Ronald C. White Jr.'s excellent A. Lincoln. It is a compelling biography of one of our nation's true heroes. Today as we experience governmental gridlock, we could use a leader like Lincoln, whose wisdom and determination led him to do the right thing, in spite of public opinion, often against the advice of his "team of rivals"(as Doris Kearns Goodwin so famously dubbed his Cabinet).

I am not quite sure about the new movie Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter. I have not seen it, but I wonder if its timing was planned to tap into a national zeitgeist. Aside from being in the middle of the 150th anniversary of the Civil War , this election year make us think about leadership. Many feel we could use a leader like Lincoln, who was brave enough to stand up to his enemies and fight to the finish (see White's book for a description of Lincoln's ongoing frustration with his generals, "Unconditional Surrender" Grant excepted).

White's biography provides a great case study in leadership. I urge anyone anywhere who wants to be a real leader to read it. I particularly appreciate the pages White devotes to analysis of Lincoln's important speeches and addresses. And the detail he gives on Lincoln's thorough preparation! The master speaker worked tirelessly in relentless pursuit of the right phrase, the correct tone, and imagery. He also kept reams of private "notes to self" in desk drawers wherever he was (law office in Springfield, Presidential Office in the White House) that provided the foundation for many speeches - even years later.

So the myth that he scribbled the Gettysburg address of the back of an envelope is just that  --- a myth. But like the story about Lincoln being a vampire slayer, maybe it appeals to us because we need to believe that someone who is such a monumental figure had superhuman qualities. No mere mortal like us could accomplish so much. . .  Or could she?

When lightning strikes!

On Friday I finished two weeks teaching back-to-back classes at American University's intense Discover the World of Communications program for high school students. I spent three hours every morning with incredible youth leaders and leaders-in-training, sharing my approach to public speaking in a course called "Speaking for Impact." The afternoon I was with young filmmakers who wanted to explore being in front of and behind the camera in "Acting & Directing for Camera." It was a whirlwind!

I kept thinking I need to blog about the experience, but kept putting it off because a) I was pretty brain-fried when I came home after teaching (and commuting into DC during rush hour -- which I am not used to -- and which doesn't seem to be any better in the summer), and b) I could not think of one overarching theme to distill into a blog post.

And then, Friday night we got hit with an incredible storm in Northern Virginia.  So the power was out for 30 hours and I couldn't blog if I wanted to.

I got to thinking, though, about different types of power, and realized that I had been dealing with variations on the theme of power for the past two weeks (an insight I may share with the new batch of "Speaking for Impact"-ers tomorrow).

Communication is a tool. Used the right way, it can yield enormous power. We often forget that. It only takes a second to make a lasting impression. Sometimes, we connect with people instantly. Crackle! You feel the electricity, like a lightning strike. Other times we have the luxury of establishing a relationship that unfolds, over time, like a lazy summer shower that gives us gifts of rainbows. But always, when we successfully communicate, we connect: there is a transference of energy from one person to another. And back again.

A successful communicator disturbs the atmosphere: We feel enveloped by her or his presence, energy and message. Much like a good lightning storm, a good speaker (and filmmaker, for that matter) generates electricity.
Feel the power!

My morning with Hillary and Madeleine

Hillary Clinton and Madeleine Albright kicked off the inaugural Women in Public Service Project Summer Institute  last week at our alma mater, Wellesley College, and I was there!

The theme of Day One was "The Importance of Storytelling." I was one of many speakers and trainers invited to join the WPSP for its two-week Institute. Its mission: to build a generation of empowered women leaders. When I was asked to come and help these emerging global leaders share their stories, I jumped at the chance! Even as cultural differences loom large, the truth is that every civilization around the globe, since time immemorial, has depended on its storytellers. Sometimes they are truth-tellers and witness-bearers (and there are quite a few of those at the Summer Institute). Sometimes they are the dreamers and visionaries.

But we all have stories that need to be told, truths or dreams that can only be shared through narrative structure that relies on a beginning, a middle, and an end. And we learn anything more easily when it is framed as a story, because our brains naturally accept such a structure. We stay "on track" with any speaker who can guide us down that path.

On Monday afternoon (after the festivities of the morning - see above) I was fortunate to be preceded by the incomparable Judge Nancy Gertner. She recounted a number of professional situations in her career as both attorney and judge when stories supported and proved her point.

I began my tutelage as the delegates engaged in role-playing, working in committees and giving formal policy presentations. My job was somewhat complicated by the fact that many of the global delegates were speaking in English, their second or third language. And some, knowing the importance of their subject matter, were reluctant to use stories to illustrate their points. They were not eager to add the  "distractions" of such narratives to their efficient, ordered analyses. I think they harbored a not-uncommon view that stories trivialize a presentation, undermining the speaker's authority.

But there were others who used stories extremely well. And they showed their sister delegates how to incorporate them to make a point: their eyes lit up, their bodies became energized when entering the "story" portion of the presentation. Such engagement showed clearly that this strategy makes presentations come alive. And makes the listeners care. And listeners act upon what they care about.

Story is a powerful tool!

No time to blog

I took part in the Opening Day festivities of the Women in Public Service Project Summer Institite earlier this week, which I will blog more about later.

And I am busy assembling the cast and creative team for my play, Becoming Calvin.

So I really did not have time to blog this week! But I did get out the June edition of my newsletter, Notes from the Speaker's Bubble. The lead article is about the value of going back to the beginning once you have mastered a discipline or practice. Very helpful when you're stuck creatively or otherwise in a rut. If you like would like to subscribe to my monthly newsletter, sign up here.

Will get back to blogging more soon, I hope!

What we can learn from "Acting!"

Actors love to act! But of course, the best don't let you catch them in the act of acting. Baaaad acting, the kind we associate with Jon Lovitz's Master Thespian, loves to call attention to itself. Good acting, well... that is somewhat indistinguishable from "being" -- on a very focussed level.

I have been auditioning actors for my upcoming production of the play I wrote three years ago. It has been a long journey to get to this point, and now the fun is starting! I love meeting actors, and there are many talented ones in the DC area. I have been amazed and gratified by the number of gifted men and women willing to be a part of our adventure.

And what an adventure it is! I am playing a lot of roles myself: wearing both playwright and director hats, at the moment (also doing the day-to-day producing work, but that's another story. . .) That may be why I am most attracted to actors who let the story be the star, not themselves. They do not spend time being clever and thinking up "bits" to enliven the scene; they work to bring the scene -- as written -- to life! The fact that they trust the text speaks volumes, I think, about they way they work as artists.

I tell my Adult Ed acting students, as well as my public speaking clients they, too, need to trust the text. Sometimes this is more difficult, especially if they haven't fully prepared. But here's the professional advice I give them: You Need To Prepare. I know they already know this, but sometimes you just have to hear something from an "expert" to believe your gut instinct. And to act upon it.

Make the time, do the preparation. Then you can relax and just be. Be the conduit for the message. Let it pass through you freely. You will communicate more clearly if you can just let it flow, and not clutter  it up with cleverness that comes from forgetting that it's not about you. It's always, always -- in theatre, in a speech, in a conference call -- about the message!

Don't forget to breathe

"Take a deep breath."

I give this advice all the time.  In my work as a speaker trainer/communications consultant, my clients come to me to learn how to improve their speaking abilities. If I had a magic wand to wave over them, transforming them on the spot into genius orators, I would pull it out! But I don't, so I start with the magic I know: I start with the breath. Breath is the engine for all speech: you simply cannot produce vocal sound without it.

And breath is, of course, a necessity to – life itself! If we don’t breathe we die. But we forget. When we are stressed, we make matters worse by “holding our breath" – or we take quick, shallow panic breaths when we should do exactly the opposite.  The professional term for this is “getting in our own way.”  And it takes some people months, even years of practice to stop “trying” so hard to “do or “make” and just “be.” Be in the moment. Be aware. Be the breath.

Even Google recognizes that breathing is important! They have a Zen master at the Googleplex who teaches engineers how to breathe and practice mindfulness. Two Sundays ago on her radio show Interfaith Voices, Maureen Fiedler interviewed Chade-Meng Tan. He is a member of  Google’s Talent Team, and author of  Search Inside Yourself: The Unexpected Path to Achieving Success, Happiness (and World Peace). Tan’s course on mindfulness is one of the most popular classes Google offers its employees. His practices derive from Buddhism, but he has found that "The practice of calming the mind by focusing on breath is universal." He defines mindfulness as ''Just being present – without judgment."

Maureen Fieldler asked if this was hard for such high-achievers. Tan replied  "mindfulness is simple, but not easy . . . Googlers are already good at concentration & motivation . . . but they are very much in their heads and need to bring attention to the body. Sometimes their achievement drive interferes with the meditative mind." 

It is hard for any of us high achievers to let go, and stop trying so hard to control things. But as wise men and women throughout the ages tell us again and again, and as even Google knows, we have to stop doing and just be. Breathe. And let life unfold before you. It just may surprise you!

Lessons from Chuck Brown

This past week we have lost several gifted vocal musicians, ranging from the Prince of Lieder, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau , the Queen of Disco, Donna Summers, and the God-father of Go- Go, Chuck Brown. To spoil it for the superstitious who believe in the Rule Of Threes, let me also point out that Robin Gibb lost his battle with cancer this week.

Vocalists are special musicians: the are their own instruments. The upside is you don't have to pay for extra space in the baggage compartment when you travel, but the down-side is that you can't ever put it down. And that means you have to be aware of everything you are doing, because it all affects your voice. When I first heard a radio clip of Chuck Brown's biggest hit "Bustin' Loose"  I thought "what is he doing with his voice? He won't have it much longer if he keeps making that sound!" When I heard him live this past September he still sounded great - at age 74!

Singers know that everything shows up in the voice: their general health, physical and mental; their focus; how deeply they deep connect with the lyrics; and their need to share that connection with the audience. But the rest of us get lazy; we use our glorious instruments as quotidian tools. When we speak, there is no need to work as meticulously as singers do to produce a good sound. The technical demands are not as precise. You can be feeling "a little low" and still breathe deeply and be relaxed and focused and achieve a ''good enough" spoken vocal tone. We simply are not required to sing our "ah" in the center of the A. It could be a G flat and no one would really notice. 

And we are lucky that way, we speakers. But I think we should take a page from the singer's notebook. We should remember to work on our phrasing, our coloration, our line. We need to make sure we convey our message with all the nuance we can, given the relative limitation of the instrument used in spoken mode. And it is possible; listen to Jim Dale (who so fabulously narrates the "Harry Potter''  books) discuss the artistry of book narration in a 2005 NPR interview. 

I know, there is only one Jim Dale, but his work, and that of many other audiobook narrators (Stockard Channing as Ramona, anyone?) remind that even as speakers, we can play our instruments to astonishing effect! 

Still walking the walk

Since my blog post last week about walking in high heels was such a hit I thought I would continue in the vein. More insight on how to walk the walk. . .

Some women seem to instinctively know how to make walking in heels work. Sofia Vergara's character Gloria proudly totters on her heels during a family outing to Disneyland on last week's Modern Family . Fianlly, she, too, succumbs and hilarity ensues! Of course, that is comedy, not real life. 

Back in my childhood, girls were encouraged by their mothers, as well as their Girl Scout leaders (via whatever merit badge we got from doing so) to take the Wendy Ward Charm School course at the local Montgomery Ward Department store. Years ago, long before it went bankrupt and was sold to an online retailer, Ward's offered a multi-week course that prepared us to be "young ladies".  In the basement of a store in a strip mall.

But, location notwithstanding, we were transformed. We learned to walk -- rather, glide -- across the floor. In imitation of the Hayley Mills movie heroines so popular at the time, we put our heels down 6 inches in front of our toes and walked a straight line, while balancing single slim books on our heads. Certainly something you had to practice. Later in life,  I needed to "walk like a man" when playing Rosalind with my all-female Shakespeare troupe in college. I practiced walking with a wider stance, legs moving from the hip, avoiding the swiveling that set feet in a line in front of each other. A more liberating, balanced way to walk, for sure. But a gait that called out for sensible shoes, not "date night shoes."

At Wendy Ward we also learned very useful advice about how to sit. When seated, we were told, the only acceptable place to cross your legs is at the ankles, never the knees. Moreover, "our knees should be best friends" i.e., we must keep them together when seated. This is still great advice for whenever you're not wearing trousers. Particularly if you're on a panel and seated at a table without a table skirt, or up on a dias or stage sitting in a place of honor. Nothing kills credibility like showing too much thigh, or worse, offering the audience a glimpse up your skirt.

I see many online advice blogs that offer help to girls today. From what I see out there,  I can only surmise their readership is low. And I wonder if any virtual expert or e-communal experience can ever be half as effective as those after-school sessions where we learned to walk like we owned the world in the basement of Montgomery Ward.

Walking the walk

As I was surfing FB I saw that a friend posted she had recently made a resolution to wear high heels more often. I thought I knew why. There are many things a good pair of heels can do. They make you feel taller and hence, more powerful. They slim your overall look by visually lengthening your legs. They create a "wiggle in your walk," that many find attractive. For me, stepping into my heels often signals an imminent special occasion--probably because they remind me of my girlhood "party shoes" that were too impractical to wear everyday.

I know, too, that there are many reasons to hate high heels. The three main arguments against then:

1) Physiological/medical: Are you an orthopedist? If not, heels are no good for your health and well-being.

2) Feminist: What does it say that men find women more attractive when they are wearing footwear that renders them virtually helpless, or at least keeps them off balance?

3) Practical: There are so many things essential to everyday life you absolutely cannot do in heels, why would you want to wear them ? (Of course the women who take part in Amsterdam's Stiletto Run may disagree: after looking at them race in heels I would say they have special skills.)

I have been watching women teetering on sky-high heels for a long time. But I reserve judgement: I am sure they have their reasons. However, all too often whatever image/illusion these women create by wearing heels is shattered when they begin to move. Sometimes I worry they will fall and twist their ankles. Often I witness women who have no idea how to walk in heels clomp about like so many horses. I single out women; any self-respecting cross dresser or drag queen knows that walking in high heels is something that takes a lot of practice.

So - practice. Wear your heel inside to break them in. Slow down. Put one foot in front of the other. As young girls in the 60's we were taught to do this (I believe it was a prerequisite for getting our first pair of heels). Most importantly, extend your legs from your hip sockets, not just your knees. Not only does this put slightly less stress on your knees, it helps you maintain a graceful gait. Walking by kicking your your legs out from your knees results in that unattractive horsey-walk.

You have your reasons for wearing heels, none of which involves a comparison to Mr. Ed!  If you put in a little practice, you will glide like a runway model -- and not the ones who fall off their shoes.

Going to the candidates' debate. . .

If you're not already a fan of Amy Poehler's genius creation, Parks and Rec, you should be! This season we follow our heroine, that earnest cheerleader for local government, Leslie Knope, as she runs for City Council against the doltish heir to the largest employer in Pawnee, Indiana (Paul Rudd). 

Last week's episode featured the candidates' debate.  I recommend it to anyone who is contemplating a run for office or working on a campaign. Leslie was more than holding her own until she was blindsided by a "bomb" lobbed by her opponent right before the closing statements. She talked her campaign manager into letting her go off script so she could speak to the issue that threatened to derail her candidacy. What I especially liked about this interaction is that Leslie, who had vowed never again to disregard the advice of Ben, her manager (and boyfriend), made a conscious choice to do just that. She threw away the playbook and went out on a limb --- but it was very clear that she was not extemporizing, not just speaking "in the heat of the moment." As she has said from the beginning, "I have been preparing for this campaign my whole life."

Now, I know this is TV, and the whole thing was scripted, but I found it instructive. "Speaking from the heart" can be a powerful strategy -- only IF you have been thoroughly prepared and are absolutely sure of what you stand for. That's a big IF! Too often I have heard, "well, I will just wing it" or, "I don't want to be over-prepared, then I will be inauthentic." And the images we see of candidate debates on TV and in movies only perpetuate the myth that it is possible, when you're in a corner, to come out swinging and knock your opponent down with your brilliance. But that doesn't happen. The character of Leslie that Poehler created has never not been prepared. That is why Ben reluctantly gave her permission to deviate from their plan in this episode. And though she is fictional, we can all benefit from Leslie's example. The deeper your preparation, the greater your latitude to "change it up." The pros know that. But they never let you see it!

The other totally goofy plot line in last week's episode provides a brilliant example of the lost art of storytelling. I won't say more, except that Andy's recreations of movies made me reflect on the wildly improbable success of Charles Ross' One Man Star Wars Trilogy. We all relish a good story, well told.