Authenticity vs. preparation?

Deborah Kerr and Yul Brynner in "The King and I"

People who work with me know I believe there are few hard and fast rules for public speaking. We each have our own authentic presence, which we must discover and fully inhabit in order to be at our best. And the path to that presence differs for each of us. There are a couple of things I do insist on, though, for everyone--and one of them is preparation. If you are asked to speak it is because your opinion is valued and you have knowledge and insight to share. But every situation is different, so you need to give some thought to exactly what you want to say and how you want to say it each and every time. Surprisingly, I get push-back from clients who resist thorough preparation because they fear they will lose "authenticity" if they lay the necessary groundwork before they step in front of an audience.

"Is a puzzlement"

. . .as Anna's King of Siam would say. I find this all rather hard to understand: as someone trained in acting, having spent weeks in preparation for a particular role, I know that the truest route to authenticity is to be so thoroughly grounded in what you are doing you can live in the moment. But there is a belief circulating among some of my clients that knowing what you are going to say--beyond a vague idea and a couple of words jotted on a napkin--is a barrier to being your authentic self.  "I didn't really prepare much, but I was fine," is the refrain I hear all too often.

But is "fine" good enough? The truth is we can't be better at anything without putting in the work. I know some folks are pressed for time. Others use this fear of inauthenticity as an excuse for laziness. But something else may be going on as well--a misunderstanding of both authenticity and preparation. I am told that being well-prepared can be bad when it causes you to come across as "scripted"--which I take to mean reading words off the page, without any real understanding, not to mention investment in, or enjoyment of, the message. This is not true preparation. False prep of this kind can become like armor you put on to protect yourself, or a barrier you hide behind. It definitely inhibits authentic connection. Good, thorough preparation actually frees you so you can fully communicate. It allows you to connect with your listeners using words, vocal tone, gestures, body language, and eye contact. When you prepare, you are liberated from fumbling around thinking "What do I say next?" and can be fully focused and fully present.

And what could be more authentic than that?

After the curtain comes down

A year ago tonight my play Becoming Calvin opened in Washington, D.C.  It was a thrilling evening! And I had worked so hard to make it all happen. I won't bore you with the details, but suffice it to say that I fund-raised, directed, and produced this play as a labor of love.

The play had been commissioned in 2008 for a series of readings in 2009 to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the birth of John Calvin. Those readings went so well that I dared to dream of a production. There is an active professional theatre scene in Washington, but I was not already affiliated with a theatre group, did not have an agent, and thought I might as well just go ahead and do it myself. You know, find a barn and put on a show. Isn't that what show-biz (not to mention start-up) spirit is all about? Anyway, fundraising was grueling but not impossible, thanks to the 501(c)3 of the commissioning organization. I applied for a dozen grants and got a small one. I had some incredibly generous benefactors. And I was blessed with performers willing to work for the lowest scale the union allows. And a brilliant set designer who created magic out of a hat on a shoestring budget. And one friend who designed the music as a favor, another who ran the box office so she could be part of the magic of theatre. And a husband who did double-duty as House Manager, Company Treasurer (and my greatest cheerleader).

The production went off without a hitch. Indeed, audiences were surprised, some astounded. We played to overflowing houses two nights. Attendance at the other seven performances was respectable. I made a small profit, after all was said and done, which I paid myself for the hundreds of hours I had put into the project as producer/director. My plan was to take a breather, let the dust settle, put my communications consulting business back on the front burner, and a)market Becoming Calvin, and b)start the next play in my planned trilogy about John Calvin and his legacy.

One year later I have ditched the idea of historical play #2, and decided that contemporary play #3 will have a largely female cast, a unit set, and a running time under two hours. I have been doing market research, you see, as I have been shopping my script around.

It is good I have had some kind of positive outcome from this exercise! Though I do remain hopeful, I have found that the mere fact that you have written a good, solid play that takes an "original, refreshing" look at one of history's most important figures is not enough. As is often the case, the art I created will die in obscurity without the right combination of connections, luck, drive, unlimited time and energy to pushpushpush for its survival. Theatres that claim to be committed to bringing new works to audiences, it turn out, want new works by established playwrights. Universities have their every-other-year "new works" slots filled for the next five years, even if they were interested in a costume drama ("no thanks, but good luck!"). And on and on.... 

I am not alone in this. Many playwrights I know are singing the same song. I am determined to find a way to get this play in front of an audience again. And I will. But it takes time, and I am swimming in uncharted waters.

As a country we do not support individual artists, and many worthy arts organizations go under for lack of funding. The prevailing feeling is that the arts must support themselves. But while I am supporting my artistic self by spending time on my business, the art gets short shrift. Any efforts I make to market my play must by definition be part time and slapdash. The world of a working artist, believe me, is not like what you see in TV and the movies. We don't just wait tables/bartend till The Big Star discovers us noodling around on the bar's piano (see Smash, season 2). No one I know has had a moment of discovery by someone who can "put your name in lights." It is a hard slog. 

So next time any artist buddies of yours complain, be supportive. Do not make them feel they aren't doing enough to get their art published/exhibited/performed. And for goodness sake do not suggest that the quality of the art is to blame. Those of us who struggle for a foothold know all too well that a lot of lesser-quality work manages to find its way to the marketplace, so obviously that's not it. Art World is a place where being excellent is sometimes not even a qualification. You have to be at the right place, at the right time when someone who has money and/or connections decides to lend you a hand. It is the way our country has prioritized pretty much everything: those at the top are staying at the top, and it is getting harder and harder to join them.

 BUT -- someone will find a way to out of this conundrum. Eventually, we creative types can pretty much figure anything out!

Let's hear it for Labor!

Labor Day is here again, and for many of us that marks the end of summer, though here in Virginia we expect the weather to be hazy, hot, and humid for a while longer. But this day is about more than the end of "official" summer (a.k.a. fun relaxing time) and the return to our regularly scheduled programming. Labor Day is the day set aside to officially celebrate the working men and women who made our country what it is. Today, as you dive into the pool, or serve up burgers from the grill, take a minute to celebrate Labor on our 119th Labor Day!

I am an entrepreneur with my own business, as well as a card-carrying union member: Actors' Equity Association  (100 years strong)  SAG-AFTRA (born from a merger 17 months ago), and SEIU. So I have a unique perspective on worker's rights. I know some unions have been riddled with graft and corruption in the past, but so has just about every other entity in modern times: business, government, religion... I won't supply links here because I would be doing internet searches all day. I am sure you can think of your own favorite institutional scandals. The fact of the matter is unions protect workers. Few can argue with that--though I keep crossing paths with people who try. But once you throw in a few facts and personal stories, those argument wither.

A year ago I was "management" as a producer of my play, Becoming Calvin, here in D.C. Many people told me what I already knew: I could cut my budget significantly if I hired non-union actors. But the play was my baby, so I wanted to make sure she was cared for by the best. I spent a disproportionately large part of my budget hiring the right people, and I was glad I did! Sure, non-union talent might have been available for longer rehearsal hours, but the professionals I hired showed up on time and always completely prepared to work. There may be a surfeit of talented actors and stage managers out there, but the ones who have worked hard enough to obtain their union cards really are worth it. Every penny you pay them, every dollar you put into the union pension fund, every form you have to fill out. Professionals. You get what you pay for!

And I would be remiss on this Labor Day if I did not tip my hat to SEIU, which now covers my employment as Adjunct Professorial Lecturer at American University. Thanks to the recently ratified collective bargaining agreement with AU, I will now be paid a higher "terminal degree" rate that recognizes my academic rank as a Master of Fine Arts. The non-arts department I am teaching for had a hard time figuring it out, ("How can you be terminal? You're not a Ph.D!") but the SEIU agreement was pretty clear. I am sure without that backup I would be teaching for whatever rate the department deemed sufficient.

Go Labor!

Music to the eyes. . . ?

Chia-Jung Tsay at the piano

"Social judgments are made on the basis of both visual and auditory information, with consequential implications for our decisions." Thus begins the abstract for"Sight over sound in the judgment of music performance" by Chia-Jung Tsay, published last month in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States Of America. Maybe you heard Shankar Vedantam's NPR story about Tsay's findings on Morning Edition this week. 

I am fascinated by this research, because Tsay came to it in a very personal way. A child piano prodigy, she spent years on the piano competition circuit. She is a graduate of The Julliard School and Peabody Conservatory, and holds not one but two Harvard Ph.D.s--in Organizational Behavior and Psychology and in Music. Somewhere along the way she noticed that her competition scores were better when the judges saw her play, rather than when they just heard her. Something about the experience of watching her was influencing their judgement. 

I am sure the musician was delighted with those good scores, but the psychologist in her thought this was something worth looking into. So she designed a study in which volunteer judges, amateur and professional musicians, compared competition performances in a  variety of formats: silent videos, videos with sound, and audio-only recordings.

"What was surprising was that even though most people will say sound matters the most, it turned out that it was only in the silent videos, the videos without any sound, that participants were able to identify the actual winners," Tsay says. Which raises an interesting question: if this visual component matters this much in musical competition--where the overwhelming focus is on sound--how much more does it matter in other situations?

For those who might say that this is just an example of the "attractiveness bias," Tsay looked at the data to make sure these judgements weren't just about good looks. She says, "I wouldn't necessarily say that this is indicative of superficial judgment... There is something about visual information that is better able to convey cues such as passion or involvement or creativity. These elements are very much a part of high-quality performance."

Passion or involvement or creativity. Also a huge part of presence. I spend a lot of time working with clients on defining and projecting their presence. Many bandy that word about, but don't really know what it means. Confidence, yes, but also active engagement with your audience, as well as your content--whether it is a Beethoven sonata, a stump speech or talking points for the staff meeting. You need to be energized by what you do, even as you are doing it, and connect to it deeply. Tsay's study shows that the winners are those who clearly communicate that energy and connection.

And even though we do not yet competitively score keynote speeches or networking events, remember Tsay's conclusion the next time you want to turn in your best performance.

When voice reigns supreme

I just came back from a fantastic new movie. If In a World... is playing in a theatre near you, go! It's very cleverly written (winning Best Screenplay at Sundance) and directed by the talented Lake Bell. A blend of romcom and family dramedy, it is a funny and heart-warming film. But voice coaches like me and our clients will appreciate it on a different level: it offers a glimpse of the actual work that produces those rich, compelling tones we hear in movie trailers and on TV. In homage to the late, great Don LaFontaine, we also see the payoff that comes when you can make your sound convey so much more that words alone do.

This movie shines a spotlight on the little known, but very important corner of the world inhabited by unseen, ubiquitous voice artists. As the Big Producer played by Geena Davis says to our heroine Carol Soloman (also played brilliantly by Ms. Bell), what these people do is important, because "voice is power."

I won't spoil the movie for you by giving away the ending, but as I walked out of the theatre minutes ago I felt tremendously validated. It shows people who make their living from making sound as they ply their craft--doing so much more than just reading what is in front of them. Most people are unaware, but it takes work to get your sound "in shape." Vocal exercises are just a part of what I do with clients and students, but they are a foundational building block. Speaking is a physical activity, and your speaking technique depends on your ability to have a powerful voice. This, in turn, is made by discovering and strengthening your own powerful sound. And that sound depends on a variety of factors, only some of which you can control. So you better believe you need to exercise control over the ones you can!

Most of my clients come to me because they have realized that to get from where they are to where they want to be they need to step up their vocal and speaking game. And that means learning new skills, and yes, making funny faces and silly sounds. But it is all worth it, because in the end they have new techniques to integrate into their everyday speaking. And a more powerful sound.

But don't take my word for it: go see Lake Bell's very funny movie! And be thankful you are not trying to make a living in the hyper-competitive world of movie trailer voice-overs.

One picture, how many words?

A while ago I blogged about the growing influence of video in online communications, and how I hit upon the idea of helping clients tell their own business stories on camera. Two birds with one stone: solving the problem of prospective clients and business partners who don't like to/don't have time to read while delivering your own message with energy, focus, and personality that differentiates you from the competition.

I am very excited about the possibilities this kind of personal video can lead to. Combine a right-sized, thoughtfully constructed message with a confident and well-prepped speaker, throw in good solid production values, sprinkle with a soupçon of "lights, camera, action" excitement, and see how far your story can travel!

I am pleased to announce that our first clients were taped, and my vidoegrapher Jay Hogben completed post-production on their video stories. You can see Kate's and Wendy's stories here.

Gotta see this movie!

On a somewhat unrelated note, I finally had a chance this weekend to catch up on my bookmarked news stories. One of them was this interview on NPR with Lake Bell, about her new film "In a World...".  I am pretty excited to see it, since it is about a women voice artist. But this interview is laugh-out-loud funny: Bell's imitation of "sexy baby vocal virus" is spot on! But listen all the way to the end; she saves the best for last.

When Faith speaks...

I was thrilled to hear Susan Stamberg's interview on NPR yesterday morning with artist Faith Ringgold. I Faith Ringgold, portrait by Grace Mattewshave long admired Ringgold's art. One of my kid's favorite childhood books was Tar Beach , based on her famous story quilt of the same name. I have successfully used that book, with its magical story and gorgeous illustrations, as a jumping-off point for many elementary school drama workshops over the years. Every child wants to fly over the city like Cassie Louise--doing it in the classroom, though, takes some imagination!

Ringgold tells Stamberg that she started out as a landscape painter in the '60's, but was persuaded by a gallery owner to use her art to reflect the social upheaval and violence of that time. (Her work from the late 1960's is on exhibit now at the National Museum of Women in the Arts in Washington, D.C.) But her canvasses showed "Too damn much," she says. When she finally started putting her art on quilts, and adding narrative structure, she hit on something special that audiences responded to, and it was not just their comfort level with the medium. "I think it had a lot to do that it was a familiar medium and people liked stories. They like them. Yes. I think I had struck on a combination of imagery and politics that worked and people said OK."

It is true that we understand the world through story--I even blogged about it, see The Power of Story. And story can also be a balm. In Rx Storytelling I discuss the importance of connectional narrative.

But Ringgold relates story to scope and organization. Her paintings were more abstract, open to interpretation, showing us what the artist saw and felt, but not letting the viewer discover the truth for her/himself. "And I think that it had something to do with the fact that paintings people really don't understand. They don't understand how big - they don't really get paintings-" Ringgold reached some big conclusions in her paintings, and her audience didn't always get there with her, because they were coming in at the end of the story. In her quilts, she can make statements that are every bit as bold and provocative, but the viewer/audience has joined on the journey, and so understands.

I think this is a useful image for us to keep in mind whenever we speak. Because we always have a greater chance of reaching understanding when we make sure our conversation partners have heard the whole narrative arc. We do forget, though. But thinking of Ringgold and her "quilt epiphany" might help each of us remember that no one can read our mind: we must express ourselves, however imperfectly, with the tools we have at hand.

What I learned on Mr. Jefferson's mountain

Last week I took a trip back in time and visited Thomas Jefferson's magnificent mountaintop home, Monticello. During a lovely tour of the house I become viscerally aware of Jefferson's great appetite for learning as I passed through his collection of books, art and artifacts. Here lived a man who adapted the best of everything he ever saw to his "retirement" home in Virginia. The downstairs "dependencies" --which would be out-buildings at other plantations--demonstrate, perhaps even more clearly, his genius at synthesizing what he learned in his travels. The multi-burner cooktop that his cooks used to make a variety of French sauces was amazing!

But one other thing that jumped out at me: in all the signage around Monticello, in the stories told by all three of our tour guides (in the house, on the grounds and gardens, around the plantation community)  "slaves" were referred to as ''enslaved persons." A quick look at the Monticello website, as well as that of the website accompanying the Smithsonian exhibit "Slavery at Jefferson's Monticello: Paradox of Liberty" shows few remaining references to "slaves." That demeaning term has mostly been replaced with the more accurate "enslaved men, women and children," or "the enslaved butler," etc.

And just like that there is a perceptual shift. The words change and something in our minds changes. We become more aware of the fact that these were people--fundamentally like all of us touring the grounds on a 93 degree day in July, 2013. But when they were forced into slavery, they became enslaved people. An adjective, not a noun.

Thomas Jefferson would have appreciated this, I think. He knew the power of words. Indeed, he requested that his gravestone refer not to what offices he held, what territories he purchased, even to what state capitols he designed. He wanted to be remembered as a writer and a lifelong learner:

Here was buried
Thomas Jefferson
Author of the Declaration of American Independence
of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom
Father of the University of Virginia

Words--what they teach us, where they lead us--can shift our perspective and change the world. We would do well to respect their power.

What's in a name?

I am sure by now you have heard of KTVU anchorwoman who read false names of the Asiana Flight 214 crew that crashed in San Francisco. In case you haven't, here is a complete retelling of the story thus far, complete with video. I was forewarned when I first saw the video on Friday night, as my Twitter feed indicated the names were "phonetically offensive." Who wouldn't be curious to see what that meant? The names are definitely offensive. As we now know, they were confirmed by an NTSB intern. It is unclear where they originated.

After I saw the video and picked my jaw up off the floor, I made a mental note to remind all my clients how important it is to practice all the words you will be saying in a speech event, but especially foreign names. Usually this is because they might be hard to pronounce, but it is also a good idea (as it would have been here) to make sure you are not saying something you shouldn't.  I have read that the anchorwoman in this case did not have time to read the names over beforehand because it was breaking news, and the names just appeared on her teleprompter. But whoever got the names and put them on the prompter should have had a clue that the station was being pranked. And now KTVU may be facing legal action. If only someone somewhere had read them out loud (which you would think is de rigueur for a medium that transmits content by reading it out loud) all this could have been avoided. I am imagining the "Really?!... with Seth and Amy" sketch now.

This incident reminded me of a story told to me by a client long ago. She was slated to give welcoming remarks at a charity event celebrating many generous donors, of whom a disproportionate number were aging male business leaders accompanied by glittering younger women. Though she meant to compliment them on their philanthropy, I believe she said it was good to "see so many philanderers here tonight." Oops!

The lesson is that if you know you are going to be saying a word you do not normally say, that may be a bit of a stretch -- like "philanthropy"-- you need to say it overandoverandover so that it slides off the tongue anytime you begin a word with "philan...." Anything less than thorough preparation can leave you saying something you most definitely do not want to say.  Just knowing the word in your head is not enough. You have to get it in your muscle memory, so that when you are in the spotlight, you don't slip into something that might come more naturally (but less appropriately).

And if you are ever on air reading up-to-the-minute-breaking news, make sure whoever puts the words up on your teleprompter has actually said them, for cryin' out loud!

Lessons from a train wreck

I managed to miss Paula Deen's meltdown on the Today Show on June 26th. I did read about it, though, and caught a few snippets of it online. From what I saw, I felt it would be instructive to share with my current Art of the Interview class. We were talking about crisis communications, and I thought this was a prime example of what not to do. My students, who are just learning about what constitutes a good interview, gave Paula a big thumbs down on this one. She made  "rookie mistakes:" failure to answer the question, casting herself in the role of the victim, not listening to the interviewer, and constantly being on the defensive. Host Matt Lauer tried to keep her on track. He even looked a tad sympathetic at the start, but he became increasingly  exasperated as she took control of the interview and rode it off the rails. It was even worse than the time Juliette Barnes stormed off her Good Morning America interview with Robin Roberts. Oh wait -- that was Nashville, not real life!

I usually don't like watching actual people crash and burn in interviews. But this was, undoubtedly, a teachable moment. My students saw for themselves the consequences of not seeking--or not taking--professional advice. Celebrities and V.I.P.s can be very poor communicators, especially in times of crisis, because they think they are somehow above the rules that apply to other people. So when they get caught using racial slurs, stealing (from stores, their own companies, the government), or sending bizarre text messages and pictures, they expect their "fans" will come to their aid and fight off the "haters." Apologies will be needless, and there will be no consequences. As history has shown us, this expectation usually goes unfulfilled.

Think you're above it all? Think again.

I am sure these celebrities-in-crisis had communications advisers who told them what to do. But the problem is that the egos which got them into trouble in the first place continue to call the shots as they disregard expert advice. And so they dig themselves deeper.

I warn my students and clients not to be lulled into the kind of false security that grows from an overly inflated ego, a more-than-healthy sense of self. They laugh and assure me it won't happen. But I have seen public adoration become a very addictive drug that can turn otherwise quite honorable people into egomaniacs. Then these previously "normal" people become the kind of untrainable, unmanageable beings who know better than their advisers. Who don't listen to anyone but their star-struck supporters/fans. But they need to be careful. Nothing is as fickle as popular opinion. Just ask Paula and Juliette.

Do the write thing

After posting my blog last week hailing the "news" that studying humanities is important to individual development and national well-being, I read this article on a friend's Facebook page. In "Why MBA-bound Johnny Can't Write," columnist and Financial Times editor Michael Skapinker takes on the seeming epidemic of bad writing in classrooms and on campus. He questions whether deterioration of writing skills is, as many assert, a new phenomenon -- one led by reliance on the shorthand of Twitter and texting. He says the origins of this diminution in skill is beside the point: "Whether poor writing is new or old, it is odd that it persists at a time when parents are vying to provide their children with any possible advantage, exposing them to the paintings of Paul Klee at the age of four, as the New York Times recently reported, and teaching them to sing 'Heads, shoulders, knees and toes' in Mandarin."

I agree. In a highly competitive world, I find it amazing that ambitious and gifted young people do not take their use of language--spoken or written--seriously. I have been teaching gifted students this summer. Many of them have taken Honors or AP English. After a while I stopped pointing out noun-verb agreement mistakes, tense shifts, the awful substitution of "less" for "fewer." They did not ask, as student have before, "what does grammar have to do with public speaking?" So I give them credit for perhaps knowing that they should know this stuff. And maybe I should cut them some slack because, well, it is summer! I do wonder, though, if parents who are so eager to provide the enrichment of a great summer program in communications have also invested in the basics of good grammar.

Clear thinking and good writing are essential to living a fully-realized life. I truly believe that, but  may not be able to convince everyone. So let's shift our focus and look at the matter more "practically." Good writing and speaking --"excellent written and verbal communications"-- will continue to be a requirement for most jobs sought by college graduates. Why not give students that training when they are younger? Then they will have a lifetime to develop these skills, and will be that much more attractive to employers.  As Skapinker says,"There’s a gap in the market and the smarter parents and students should get on to it. Good writing is far easier to master than Mandarin."

Xie xie.

English majors are people, too: The Academy report

Margaret Clapp Library, Wellesley College

You may have heard that this week the American Academy of Arts and Sciences released The Heart of the Matter,  a report on the crucial role payed by arts, humanities and social sciences to our nation. This report was requested by members of the Senate in 2011, in response to a spate of reports, symposia, conferences, etc., on the importance of investing in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) education.

I have not yet read the full Academy report (it's 92 pages long!), but did peruse the report brief. I especially enjoyed the Executive Summary which states that non-science curriculum is essential to our global competitiveness as well as national security: "A fully balanced curriculum—including the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences—provides opportunities for integrative thinking and imagination, for creativity and discovery, and for good citizenship. The humanities and social sciences are not merely elective, nor are they elite or elitist. They go beyond the immediate and instrumental to help us understand the past and the future. They are critical to a democratic society and they require our support." (If you don't have time to read the report, watch several Commissioners--including John Lithgow, Ken Burns, Sandra Day O'Connor--lay out its core argument on this video.)

I cheer this report with a resounding "hurrah!" Concentrating on courses within the vast subject area known as Humanities is most definitely not elitist! But those of use who spent most of our educational lives in those departments are frequently written off. How many times I have heard it? "Arts and literature are frills, not essentials!" I was thinking of several recent examples to cite here (e.g., using "cite" not "site"), but they all seemed rather trivial and--well, if you must know, stupid--when typed into a blog. That is part of the insidiousness of the problem.

I agree with Verlyn Klinkenborn commenting on The Heart of the Matter report in today's New York Times: "What many undergraduates do not know. . .  is how valuable the most fundamental gift of the humanities will turn out to be. That gift is clear thinking, clear writing and a lifelong engagement with literature." As I tell my students and clients, you can't communicate clearly unless you can write clearly. No one will "get" what you mean if you cannot express it succinctly to yourself. No amount of dancing around a subject and "waxing eloquent" will hide the fact that your thinking is imprecise.

So, those of you who think we are being snooty or elitist when we wave our Humanities flags, realize that we, too, occupy an important place in the world. And now class, the lecture is over. I'm off to enjoy the rest of the afternoon immersed in Joyce Carol Oates' latest exercise in brilliant writing, The Accursed.

Storyteller gets scoop!

Laura Poitras, filmmaker and MacArthur genius, might seem like an unlikely person to break such a big news story as the one about NSA data-mining. But Edward Snowden thought she was exactly the right person for the job. She describes how he approached her and how she got the "scoop" in an interview in yesterday's Salon. There are many fascinating aspects to this story -- but I am sure you don't need to read one more blog about the relative merits of Snowden's actions, one more blog that places him somewhere on a continuum between traitor and hero. What I think is so interesting is the fact that Poitras was contacted by Snowden in January.

That means months went by before the story actually broke. What was happening during all that time? Poitras won't say, yet. She does say the identity of her source was not known to her "until very, very recently." So there was obviously some work being done to investigate the source, to see if what he was saying sounded credible. By February she was discussing the possibility of going forward on the story with The Washington Post's Bart Gellman. 

But that was February. The story broke in June. In the Salon interview, Poitras offered this response to the unasked question about the time lag, and about her reluctance to disclose how she was investigating: "I’ll tell my story, you know, about my reporting. I don’t need reporters reporting on my reporting. So maybe that stuff contributed to different timelines. But. . . I don’t want to tell the whole story now, I don’t think it’s the right time. And I want to tell it in my own words. I’m a storyteller. I’ll tell it when I’m ready to tell it, in detail."

Poitras knows that even in the news business, you need to take time to get it right. Even when the story screams out to be told now. If you are an investigative reporter, you need to actually investigate. The  difficulty in finding out the truth about any action taken by the NSA makes this a mystery that deepens almost hourly. But Poitras & Co. felt they had enough substance to bring the story to the people. And even after the story has broken, the story behind that story cannot be told in a rush. An Academy Award nominee in 2006 for her documentary My Country, My Country, she knows that each story has its own rhythm, and needs time to unfold. And so this new story will be told in good time. As Ben Franklin so eloquently put it: "Great haste makes great waste." I shudder to think what would have become of Snowden's revelations if they had been careless and sloppy in a rush to publish.

So, three cheers for story-tellers who take the time to get the story right!

Most of us will never, ever be called by anonymous sources who say they have secret info that will rock our world. But if we pass on information we do not know to be accurate, or fill in the blanks with details of our own devising, we may find ourselves quite far from the success we are rushing to achieve. And in our haste, we can waste some pretty great opportunities.

Now you see it!

One picture is worth a thousand words. We know this is true. So do our web developers, who like to point out that our sites could use more graphics, more visuals, fewer words. They base their assertions on some pretty solid research. You may have seen this oft-cited fact attributed to Dr. James McQuivey of Forrester Research: one minute of video is worth 1.8 million words. Another Forrester blogger, Nate Elliot, advised years ago that using video would boost your site's chances of landing upfront in a Google search. And executives searching online for new service providers and vendors have told me that video grabs their attention: they will happily watch a short video to learn about you and your business. Make a positive video impression, and they will likely proceed to your written details: bio, client list, and other content.

OK (you are thinking), I am sure many companies have stories that  lend themselves easily to video. A virtual "tour" of their recently completed projects, cool infographics explaining why their products or services can increase customer ROI. But that's not me. And yet. . .  I am sure many of us carry around the mental image of our perfect video: great testimonials from super-satisfied clients or business partners, B-roll of us purposefully striding through myriad workplaces (underscored by individual "theme music"). Of course this personal business "commercial" contains fun graphics and ends with a killer tag line. Such a 90-second spot is a worthy marketing goal -- but something we really need to save up for!

Meeting you where you are

Your foray into the world of business video need not feel like "one giant leap." Consider a short 60-second biography, a "story of you,"  pitching your expertise and sharing your unique personal approach to problem-solving. Show prospective clients your winning personality and positive attitude. This precious minute will accomplish what those 1.8 million words never could. You will actively engage the viewer, the first step toward turning that viewer into a client.  
 
Sound a bit daunting? Never fear: I have developed Focus on You, a service for creating a compelling, professionally-produced video to put on your website, post to LinkedIn, YouTube, wherever it can generate "buzz." I will use all the tools in my Communications Artist toolbox to help you make a video that shows you at your best. And I guarantee you will enjoy the process.  
 
Take the chance to be the star in your own business story; you'll be glad you did (special introductory rate and returning client discount available)!

Ants and the hamster wheel

"I am soo busy"..."incredibly swamped this week"... "up against a deadline but I'll get back to you you.." How many times do you hear similar responses when simply greeting a friend, or inquiring about her general well-being? It seems to be a default response these days, even surpassing the almost autonomic reply "fine."

Busy-ness is so pervasive, it seems to have become the norm. But it is not particularly new. 160 years ago Henry David Thoreau observed "It is not enough to be busy. So are the ants. The question is: What are we busy about?" 

Good question, HD! Many of us still lead lives that resemble those of insects. Why? Are we really, truly, as Merriam Webster defines "busy," engaged in action: occupied? I suppose to some extent we are: we are always breathing, so are engaging in that action. But on a less cellular level, many of us keep ourselves busy, otherwise occupied, as an act of volition. This way we can shield ourselves from the tough job of examining our actions--and by extension, our life choices--too closely. We are good parents if we are busy shuttling our kids from piano to soccer. We are good citizens if we go to lots of meetings for our civic association and faith community. And we are good employees if we don't have time take a lunch hour, much less sit and actually think about how best to solve the latest work-related challenge! No wonder we have no time to do the housework, cook anything, or weed the garden.

The second part of Webster's definition of "busy" is being in use. I wonder what use we are being as we run along our self-constructed hamster wheels, making a lot of noise and engaging in action. What are we accomplishing? Are we actually getting anywhere? Essayist Tim Kreider named this state  The Busy Trap in a piece he wrote for the New York Times Opinionator blog a few months ago. I have remembered that piece, and have tried not to fall into that trap myself since I read it. But it has been a challenge! I have concluded that refusing to be "busy" is nothing less than a counter-cultural act. It is a challenge you feel viscerally, like trying to swim upstream or walk up a down escalator.

Thoreau tells us busy-ness was the norm in the 1850s, but since his time our level has increased geometrically. Just think: in the past 16 years we have gone from handheld PDAs for a few who apologized "I need this for work," to smartphones that have become lifelines for everyone over the age of 14. These devices are meant to help us organize our small tasks so we don't fall into The Busy Trap. But if we fail to master our tools, and let them master us, we are just creating different ways to engage in busy behavior. More smokescreens to hide what really matters, more reasons to escape to a superficial world where the squeaky wheel gets the oil and the underlying reasons for the squeak go unexamined until the whole thing falls apart.  

As Socrates said "The unexamined life is not worth living." So take time to look at your life. Look for purpose. Check to see that the road you are following actually leads somewhere. And if your wheel is squeaky, get off, oil it--and ask yourself "Do I really need to jump back on?"

Too clever by half

from www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk

Right-sizing. It is something we all need to do whenever we speak publicly. It is also easier said than done.

Many of us fill up more time saying what we mean than we should. Often this is because we have failed to carefully plan what we need to say and end up just spouting what we want to say. Listeners notice. I was at an "intimate meet and greet" for a political candidate recently and noted that I was not the only one checking my watch as the second, then third, speaker went on... and on.... The crowd grew restless, but as it was mostly a group of older (baby-boomer) supporters, we were all polite and listened. Though we did shuffle. And glance longingly at the bar and buffet!

The speech was, for the most part, a list of good things this candidate had done for us. But we didn't need a laundry list or a litany. We had already been inundated with mailers -- real and electronic -- that had a sizable accumulation of facts. And if we hadn't managed to read those, we could surely visit the website. We came to "meet" the candidate because we wanted to get to "know" him: the person, not the policy. We wanted to be spoken to, not talked at. Maybe have our questions answered, or spend some time engaging with him in small group conversation. Really, the last thing you should do in front of people you want money from is bore them. The longer a speaker drones on, listing his accomplishments, the more we disengage, even if we have benefitted from those accomplishments.

This applies to all of us. When we know we will be asked to present, to speak, even to report, we need to boil our message down to its essentials. Be succinct: "short, sweet, and to the point" as one of my clients says. She should know: as a teacher she learned long ago how to engage a captive audience. Take a page from the playbook of expert artists who know when to put the paintbrush down. Listen to Konstantin Stanislavski, who told his actors at the dawn of 20th century Moscow, "Less is more." And to the 17th century Frenchman, Blaise Pascal, who ended one of his Lettres provinciales (Provincial letters) with " I would have written a shorter letter but I did not have the time."

You get my drift. 'nuff said.

Multi-tasking, or feeding our addiction?

Multi-tasking: the bane of modern existence! I have long thought successfully juggling multiple tasks simultaneously was a myth; thankfully, science disproving that myth is gaining traction. There have been reports trickling out for years debunking the effectiveness of trying to do too many things at once. My teen-aged son could probably tell you how exactly many reports on the radio and in the newspaper there have been, because I think I pointed out every one to him! I even blogged about how multi-tasking is eroding our powers of concentration, taking us farther and farther away from the Sherlockian ideal of laser-like focus that can solve impossible puzzles.

Of course, we have always been able to do some multi-tasking: ask any parent. Making dinner while supervising toddlers banging on pots and pans or pre-teens doing homework are examples that leap to mind. But there is a relatively new type of multi-tasking that involves concentrating on accomplishing a specific tasks within a specific time frame, accompanied by interruptions from one or more electronic devices. This is not only dangerous (texting while driving, anyone?) but congnitively disruptive.

Yesterday I was laughing out loud as I listened to NPR's Science Friday story on "The Myth of Multitasking" while making sweet and spicy walnuts. Yes, I multi-task this way, but only if the recipe is simple enough to not demand my undivided concentration. (Before the advent of podcasts and online transcripts, however, I did have a few kitchen mishaps while absorbed in radio stories!)

Dr. Clifford Naas, Professor of Communications at Stanford, and author of The Man Who Lied to His Laptop was being interviewed by host Ira Flatow. Dr. Nass basically said that those who claim to be good at multi-tasking are fooling themselves:  "It's a little like smoking, you know, saying, I smoke all the time, so smoking can't be bad for me."

He said that we know the brain is remarkably elastic, and that it actually changes as we become more accustomed to this rapid switching between tasks (which is what multi-tasking really is). His research had led him to this conclusion: "People who multitask all the time can't filter out irrelevancy. They can't manage a working memory. They're chronically distracted."

As a mom, a teacher, a coach, and a communications consultant, I can vouch for the truth of this statement. People who habitually multi-task take much longer to learn something new and to internalize it to the point where they can really use it. It takes longer for things to stick.

It will be interesting to see how generations of digital natives will deal with this concentration deficit. Many folks are enthralled with their devices to the point of addiction, according to Dr. Nass. This is not good: "We, so far, have not found people who are successful at multitasking. There are some evidence that there's a very, very, very, very small group of people who can do two tasks at one time but there's actually no evidence that anyone can do even three."

So, if you have been telling your children, colleagues, friends, to put down that smart phone so they can pay attention, only to be greeted with "I can do two things at once," you were right. Here's the proof. You're welcome

It's an honor!

This past weekend I was honored to receive the Alice Paul Award from American University's Women and Politics Institute. I teach classes and lead workshops for the Institute, sharing my expertise on public speaking and leadership presence. The Women and Politics Institute's Jannifer Lawless, Anita McBride, and Ann Timmonsmission is to "close the gender gap in political leadership," and I am proud to be a part of that mission. Jennifer Lawless, the dynamic Program Director, has done an outstanding job, inspiring students, faculty and staff. You might have seen her on television as a  "network expert," or read her important research on the issues of women's political involvement in the  United States

And it was my privilege to meet Anita McBride, the Alice Paul Alumni Award recipient. Anita served as Assistant to President George W. Bush and Chief of Staff to First Lady Laura Bush. She has held many other positions in her long and distinguished career. Such an accomplished woman; I was in very good company!

 
If I do say so myself. . .  

I was asked to share some remarks, and so I outlined the type of work I do with those considering a hike up the path to leadership:

I give leaders-in-training exercises to increase stamina and flexibility in their voices and bodies, strength they will surely need if they are to run the distance of a campaign trail. And together we analyze what it takes to craft a true leadership story; we search for words to tell their stories clearly, confidently, standing tall - and taking up space!

And yet, even as I am helping them internalize these very practical elements, I ask them to look outside themselves and consider the larger picture. I urge them to make the distinction between "ego" and "presence." I help them understand that being "authentic" in public requires effort and forethought, and is not to be confused with ease or comfort of private reality. And, at a time when force of personality is often taken as a sign of leadership, I am proud to be a part of this Institute, where we teach that it takes more than just the desire to be a leader to become one. Where we know that even the overpowering urge to fix a problem isn't enough. Where we not only give students a road map, we hand over to them the actual toolbox to keep in the trunk -- the one full of the strategies that help along the long and winding road.

The climb up that leadership trail is hard enough. Be sure to pack good and useful tools you can rely on!

Rx: Storytelling

Like many of you this week I have been asking "what would make someone do that?" in the  aftermath of the the bombing of the Boston Marathon. Acts of terror are always scary. But even more so when we confront home-grown terrorists. We want to know: "How could they do this to us of they are of us?" But as the story of the suspects emerges, we see that though they were living in Cambridge, they were not at home there. The Tsarneav brothers seem to have felt cast adrift, disconnected from the world around them. Certainly they had no family support. And it seems, even though Dzhokhar had friends at school, the brothers weren't all that rooted in their community.

Which brought to mind a very different article I read last month in the New York Times. This article  resonated with me. Though we all experience stress in family situations, most of us cope with it in a very haphazard, ad hoc way. So I was happy to see author Bruce Feilor more closely examining the issue by asking: "What is the secret sauce that holds a family together? What are the ingredients that make some families effective, resilient, happy?" I hoped, for the sake of parents everywhere, that he had an answer we could easily implement. In a world that allows for instant connectivity, it seems to me that true connection--the kind that grounds a young person in a real community--is harder and harder to come by.

The good news is: it's not rocket science or brain surgery. The answer is a strong family narrative, a story of the generations who came before and rode the rollercoaster of life, of the family that has survived and now makes up this generation. The article sites research by psychologists Marshall Duke and Robin Fyvush of Emory University that shows kids who deal well with adversity are the ones who feel embedded in a strong family story: "Dr. Duke said that children who have the most self-confidence have what he and Dr. Fivush call a strong “intergenerational self.” They know they belong to something bigger than themselves..."

They continue to explain that even after suffering the trauma of September 11, the kids who had a strong family narrative recovered from their psychic wounds more quickly. Of course most of us know we need to communicate about problems, struggles, what we may call our "issues." But building a family story involves more that trouble-shooting or reacting to the next bad report card or phone call from the principal. To create this story you need to take the initiative and be proactive. The experts tell us "talking also means telling a positive story about yourselves. When faced with a challenge, happy families, like happy people, just add a new chapter to their life story that shows them overcoming the hardship. This skill is particularly important for children, whose identity tends to get locked in during adolescence."

Your children, nieces, nephews, and younger friends may resist your stories, greeting them with eye rolls and yawns, but it is important to tell them. We all have a deeply human need to be part of some group larger than ourselves. And if we have an empty space inside where that connection should be, we can easily fall prey to gangs and cults that offer to fill it. So we must make these connections by telling those stories to do our families--and our communities--a greater good.

Of courage and connection

I was speaking to a colleague yesterday about our mutual work with leaders/leadership. We were lamenting the disproportionate number of leaders who confuse possession of a large ego for that special quality of "presence." Fortunately, many of our clients do not suffer this delusion; they are not those stereotypical extrovert glad-handers. In fact, as I have written before, many good leaders dwell in that interesting space between extroversion and introversion. So the general assumption that a super-sized ego is necessary to strong leadership is (thankfully!) an idea on its way out.

Henry V: courageous and inspiring When looking at definitions of leadership, one quality jumps out at me. It is often mentioned as if everyone knows what it means and how to cultivate it, but rarely discussed: Courage. An authentic leader, one who can inspire followers, must have courage. This is a deeply personal quality, one not possessed by all who want to lead -- especially if the desire to lead springs from a sense of entitlement. Such leaders manqué try to fool people by mimicking courage with a showy ego, or aggrandized view of self. They fall back on "fake it till you make it", applying what can be a useful technique to their inappropriate circumstances. No matter how hard they try, they will never be the leaders their egos tell them they deserve to be. They lack true courage.

But where does such courage come from? Research of social worker Brene Brown deals with the fact that the best leaders are the ones whose courage comes, counter-intuitively, through the recognition of their own vulnerability. See her excellent TED talk  for a fuller discussion of this.

Dr. Brown suggests that we must not only identify our own weakness, we must embrace it as part of the human condition. That is the only way to achieve what she calls the "whole-heartedness" that allows us to feel worthy of love, belonging, and connection. And without that sense of authentic connection, no one can be an effective leader. Look to Shakepeare's Henry V as an example of a leader who has learned this the hard way. He has grown from the wastrel Prince Hal to King Henry who rallies his troops while acknowledging their mortality. His courage and connection are intertwined and fully expressed in the eloquent St. Cripsin's Day, a.k.a "band of brothers" speech.

I tell clients who are working on their authentic leadership presence  that being willing to draw upon your whole self to communicate in this way is not for the faint of heart. But it is the best way to courageously connect. And inspire your followers.