Rules? What Rules?

Every so often I hear about my clients' previous public speaking training—usually an onsite workshop or a long-ago college course. And far too many of them were told that there are Absolute Rules They Must Always Follow. 

I sigh, and say it's time for them to forget those rules! Sometimes I encounter resistance to that statement, but generally I see relief in their eyes.

Since we are all individuals with different strengths, talents, and—most importantly—learning styles, we need to find out what works best for each of us. The Rules can serve as a starting point before we have developed skills in this area. But as soon as we can devise our own strategies we should loosen their grip on our speaking technique.

Once you become an energized, dynamic speaker no one ever really challenges you on your use of notes or hand gestures. But I have had many mid-career professionals and even senior executives tell me they dare not break The Rules. They hold themselves back on many levels. For example, their bodies are stiff and inexpressive because they were told long ago to stick to formulaic hand gestures. I recently blogged about the silliness of this sort of advice on what to do with your hands. 

And as to the notes/no-notes issue, I have written about this as well. This is a choice that depends very much on the situation. You often do need your notes because it's a colossal waste of time to commit a speech to memory, and it is better to use that time on preparing content and delivery. But The Rule makers say "Don't read, but don't memorize it,either. You should be able to speak off the cuff." I have long considered "off the cuff to be over-rated; think of all the boring, meandering wedding toasts, team briefings, or panel presentations you have endured. You have seen firsthand how "off the cuff" can alienate and bore an audience. 

Furthermore, making people present without the notes they need is just cruel. And counter-productive. I know of no surer way to undermine a colleague's confidence than to imply she does not "know her stuff" if she needs more than a few bullet points. We each build our speeches in different ways. Some of us rely on specific word choices more than others. So if you are a bullet-point person, do not assume that your way is the best way for everyone. Most formal, high visibility speeches are delivered as written because every word counts. Many speakers feel that way about even casual public speaking occasions. Reading a speech without making eye contact, of course, should never be encouraged. But I, for one, would rather hear a well-thought-out speech read than watch someone hunt for phrases and fill the air with jargon and non sequiturs.

Start out with The Rules if you must. But give yourself permission to discover your own technique, perfect it, and use it proudly. If anyone objects, send 'em my way!

Digging out from winter

Spring is finally here! Where I live in Northern Virginia the daffodils are dancing and the hyacinths will join them soon. Dogwoods are flowering and the cherry blossoms are about to burst forth with a "better late than never" attitude. It was one tough winter. And we are exceedingly glad to wave it good-bye.

Much of the winter I was working on a new project: developing content for an e-learning course. I am putting this course together with my partners at AQQOLADE. Since they are in the business of providing communications and leadership training, they asked me to design a course we could distribute to a wider audience than we reach with in-person events. Last week we traveled out to Oregon to tape video segments at the headquarters of Choose Growth, the media company building our e-learning course. The whole experience has been quite an interesting one for me, especially as I converted the content of my interactive workshops into easily digestible units. There were a few technical hurdles to overcome as well. Those of you who have worked with me can imagine the conversations we had about filming the Stretch/Whoosh exercise with a single camera!

We are aiming for a soft launch by the beginning of May, so watch this space for more information.

Spring tune-up?

As spring gets into full swing, I know we are all doing seasonal tune ups and repairing things that may have gotten a bit beat up by winter. But it's not just homes and "stuff" that need to be checked for wear and tear. Your speaking style may have gotten a bit rusty over the long winter. You may have started dreading your regular presentations, or at least found them boring to do. That is not good! Even—or maybe especially—at internal meetings, you need to be a dynamic communicator.  

And if you spent the winter noticing one of your colleagues could use skill development to become a clear, effective speaker, please feel free to recommend my services. I work with people at all skill levels, meet them where they are, and offer expert help with content development as well as delivery issues. Have them give me a call and you might just enjoy your next six months of meetings!

Why TSA can't "read"

I did a little dance of joy when I heard this news on NPR today: The ACLU is suing the Transportation Security Administration over its one billion dollar "Behavior Detection" program, SPOT. You know this one--it's the program that trains TSA officers to recognize potential terrorists by assessing their behavior. Yes, trying to pick out "threats" from the masses of people going through an arduous screening process at a crowded airport, usually while they are either pressed for time or in desperate need of a bathroom (or is that just me?). The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request last October, and, according to USA Today, filed the lawsuit on March 19th, after that request received no response.

Why does this make me happy, aside from the hope that someday my airport wait will be shorter and less fraught? As a communications coach, I have been counseling my clients for years not to waste their time trying to "read" their audiences (see blog post from last March). The junk science such a belief is based on is just that - junk! And our tax dollars have been thrown away on variations of this behavioral detection since 2003. Wasteful, not to mention needlessly disruptive for countless travelers. As Behavioral Science Professor Nicholas Epley at the University of Chicago says in the NPR story, "The data that comes from experiments that test whether people can detect these subtle kinds of cues suggests that it can't be detected very well. . . a lot of those kinds of claims come without data to back them up." 

But TSA isn't the only government agency who does this: an acting student of mine years ago argued with me that she had learned this "skill" working for one of our more . . . secretive agencies. And you know that businesses have jumped on this bandwagon and are paying big bucks for it.

The truth is you cannot know what someone is thinking by looking at facial expressions, behavior, or body language out of context any more than you can read someone's mind! But Hollywood loves this plot line (the example that springs to mind is Fox's 2009-2011 series Lie to Me), and people love to think they can become "expert" at something that could be so useful in their personal and professional lives. Just think what an advantage you will have every day when you, too, can "read" your new boyfriend, your workplace nemesis, your industrial competitor!

But here's why this does not work: even if you succeed in correctly identifying fear or anger on someone's face, you can never be sure what has caused that emotion to flutter or flare. If you assume it is necessarily due to something you said or did. . . well . . .  you know what happens when you assume. 

As an acting teacher I know that even amateurs can convincingly channel emotions they do not really feel. And at airports, in workplaces, and on first dates we often choose which role we will "play." And when we do not do this consciously, it may be because we are preoccupied with different concerns that have nothing to do with our present situation.

Hoipefully SPOT will go by the wayside, my tax dollars will be better spent, and my clients will stop thinking they need to learn the trick of "reading" their audience. So a tip of the hat and a "thank you" to you,  ACLU!

"Demonstration of a proposal for automated detection of suspicious persons" training photo from Science and Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

In your own voice

Recently a friend shared a link to a TED-Ed video purporting to prove that the plays of Shakespeare were, in fact, written by a playwright named William Shakespeare!

Guessing the "true" authorship of Shakespeare's canon has been an odd sort of obsession for the last century and a half. But those of us who have had the privilege to act in Shakespeare's plays onstage know who wrote them: a man who had a genius for creating living, breathing characters speaking truth for the ages. His varied, complex, unique point of view is evident in every character and every situation. We know these plays are his because they are all written in his distinctive voice.  The TED-Ed speakers discovered this same thing by applying linguistic tools, and share their conclusions in the video. But if you have ever studied the works of Shakespeare's contemporaries—many of whom are brought forth as possible authors of his works—you will find none that look and sound like The Bard of Avon.

I'm no Shakespeare, not even a Thomas Kyd, but in my work I often help clients write speeches. We brainstorm together, and I help with organization, structure and flow. Then they draft a speech, using their own words, their own idiomatic expressions. It is tremendously important that the speech is written in the client's own voice.

Recently, a client asked another communications professional look over her speech. Fair enough: if you have time, it is often a good idea to ask multiple readers/listeners for feedback on the clarity of your presentation. But this "feedback" took the form of editing that scrubbed all the personality from the speech. I really deplore that particular kind of wordsmithing, when someone else "fixes" your content. When a speech is constructed this way, it ends up sounding very much like a boring pronouncement written by committee.

The best way to gain and hold an audience's attention is to sound fresh and genuine. No one wants to hear the same old words describing the same old positions. If your content is not earth-shatteringly original (and who is always that lucky?), you can at least speak with an original, authentic voice.

Good speechwriters study their principals' every public utterance, and are aware of how they speak in private, too. They catch the rhythm, the turn of phrase, the vocabulary that is unique to the speaker. That is not always an easy task, but it is essential to the writer's success. While most of us don't have our own personal speechwriters, we do have something even better: our own voices. Use that voice to share your uniqueness and your authenticity with others.

No one else will ever be Shakespeare. But no one else will ever sound exactly like you, either!

Shakespeare, after the Chandos portrait, courtesy Folger Shakespeare Library

Just a gesture

A little gesture can mean so much. 

We all know that. And when we speak, we can get hung up on what our gestures are saying. There are, in fact, a lot of people who make money giving advice to speakers about using appropriate gestures.  That makes us all doubt ourselves. Are our gestures "giving us away"? 

This micromanagement of gesture is very old. Back in the days before microphones, speakers did have a specific gestural vocabulary that they employed. One of the reasons they needed to use it was so those in the back could at least "see" some of what they were saying. This practice was called chironomia, and it traces its origins to the ancient Greeks and Romans.

Today, body language and gesture are used to convey confidence and focus. If a speaker is using gestures that are not congruent with her message—for example, if she is very inviting with her words and has a warm tone, but is gesturing with downward hand chops—we wonder if she really believes what she is saying. Or if he is presenting a stern ultimatum using open palm gestures, maybe he is not really feeling as committed as his speech indicates.

And then there are the "empty" gestures that someone decided looked like they meant something but really don't. Politicians have a big vocabulary of these! My favorite is the "politician's thumb"—the gesture JFK is thought to have originated that Bill Clinton perfected. It is intended to be a polite gesture of power (which in itself is contradictory), unlike straightforward finger-pointing. So it has won a permanent place at the political podium. The mythical President Frank Underwood uses it a lot this season on House of Cards. I have noticed, though, that his usage of this thumb thing increases as he feels his power slipping away.

There are other specifically political gestures that my candidate clients have been told (by others) to use, like steepling fingers together, or "holding the melon" in front of you when standing. When I ask them what these mean, they usually reply they are trying to "show" something. I don't doubt that is what they were told. But my acting training has taught me that "showing" is never as effective as "being." In fact, "showing" usually conveys some falsehood or pretense. In this case, it means you feel a need to use your hands to convey a confidence you don't really feel, and are not sure how. So you fall back on something you have been told has worked. For others. In the past. If you can't own these gestures, and know what they mean to you, they are less than useless. If you don't know what to do with your hands, don't use 'em. Gesturing for the sake of gesturing just calls attention to your discomfort in the situation.

The goal, whenever you are speaking, is to be open, relaxed, confident. You get that way by being centered and physically grounded. So you stand tall and gesture appropriately. Don't slap some random, inorganic, impersonal gesturing on top of your speech and think it will work. No matter how many experts tell you it will, when you have real people watching—it won't.

Illustration from A Manuel of Gesture by Albert M. Bacon, 1875

When the clock is ticking

I am reading a wonderful book for my book club, The Lost Child of Philomena Lee. You may recall the story from the movie Philomena starring Judi Dench that was up for four Oscars just last year. Thought it does not have Dame Judi's stellar performance to keep you glued to its pages, the book is every bit as interesting as the movie. Maybe even more so, since it gives us more detail about the life of Philomena's lost child Anthony, rechristened Mike Hess by his American parents. Martin Sixsmith, the journalist who uncovered this gripping story and retells it like a good detective novel, drops in a few moments of comic relief when he can. I laughed out loud the other day when I read this sentence, describing the 1979 American Bar Association Christmas party in Washington, D.C. : "At around ten o'clock the MC tapped a glass and called for silence. The speeches were the usual mix of pomposity and bad jokes and Mike noticed a few people looking at their watches long before. . . the closing remarks." Chuckle, chuckle, cringe. I have been to events like that. And I am sure you have, too.

But it doesn't have to be that way! Just because this has become "the usual," as Sixsmith says, doesn't mean it is the only way to handle special occasion speeches. Celebrations, holiday parties, awards ceremonies, business social events of all types call for a "few words" given by senior staff and honorees. But so many times those people kill their own credibility, or reduce their own stature by trying to be something they are not—entertainers! When you get a platform, as on a festive occasion, the rule of thumb is short, sweet, and to the point. You can use the opportunity to make a point, of course (because every speech needs to be about something) but plan ahead and say it in a few well-chosen words for maximum impact. Don't hold your audience hostage just because you are having a "starring" moment.

People who actually are stars know the importance of preparation—partly because they know their speeches will be filmed, replayed and scrutinized, and partly because they know they will be "played offstage" if they drone on too long.  Last night's Oscars ceremony gave us a surprising number of speeches that made an impact and stayed within the allotted time limit! My favorite performer this year, Patricia Arquette, rallied the troops with her cry for women's equality, and Graham Moore encouraged those who feel like outsiders by pointing out that difference can lead to great achievement.  John Legend used his acceptance speech to powerfully call out pervasive racism that lingers decades after Selma. In fact, most of Hollywood's finest seemed to have gotten the message last night and actually prepared their remarks beforehand. That is something I always urge clients to do, so I was quite pleased.

I rarely hold up Hollywood as an example of How To Do It Right in Real Life, but Oscar 2015 gave us many strong examples of classy people delivering powerful messages. And it's always fun to see The Beautiful People being . .  . well, beautiful!

Time Totem by Peter Pierobon, 1993, ebonized mahogany, mahogany, and steel
courtesy Smithsonian American Art Museum

Can we agreee to disagree?

 These days it seems no one can agree on anything. In fact, compromise and concession have become dirty words. They imply weakness, frailty. What is needed is a thick skin, a strong backbone, and a loud voice. No statement, no matter how benign, or even factually true, can go unchallenged. Public figures of all stripes are wielding arguments like weapons, beating their opponents into submission at every turn. And it has leached into our private discourse as well. The level of incivility on social media often tempts me to turn it all off, shut it down.

Several recent online and real life screaming matches reminded me that things have only gotten worse since this article, "For Argument's Sake; Why Do We Feel Compelled to Fight About Everything?" was written 'way back in the last century. It's by Debora Tannen, the brilliant linguist and author. Tannen sums up the way such discourse limits our capacity to communicate: "Staging everything in terms of polarized opposition limits the information we get rather than broadening it. For one thing, when a certain kind of interaction is the norm, those who feel comfortable with that type of interaction are drawn to participate, and those who do not feel comfortable with it recoil and go elsewhere." Her book The Argument Culture expands on this point, and provides much insight into why this kind of miscommunication leads us to situations where everyone loses.

I work with clients who often need to manage tense, adversarial situations. And in those situations, the way to show true leadership is to actively diffuse any confrontation. It can be a tricky maneuver and takes some skill. But it has to be done: fighting "to be right" stands in the way of making progress. Oh sure, one person may think some sort of victory has occurred if her "side" has scored more points. But what has really been accomplished? Not much. The fact is, our workplaces, committee rooms and homes are not sports arenas or battlefields. If you want to move forward and achieve your goals, connection and compromise are the way to go. The compulsion to always be "winning" only gets you so far. Just ask Charlie Sheen.

Battling Bolo, full length portrait as boxer, courtesy Smithsonian American Art Museum

Trans-parent language

Lately I have been watching and enjoying the Amazon television series Transparent. I was thrilled when it won the Golden Globes for Best TV series as Best Actor in a comedy. And now everyone will have have a chance to watch it when Amazon streams the entire season for free on January 24th.

Much has been written about this ground-breaking series since it debuted in the fall. I really do love Jeffrey Tambor's lovingly humorous portrayal of Maura, the transgender parent of the title. He is an actor that I have become familiar with over the years. He has triumphed in countless roles before; he outdoes himself here. And series creator Jill Soloway is acting as a positive disruptive force in the world of formulaic, often sexist Hollywood sitcoms.

So watch it if you like comedy, if you like good acting with smart dialogue, and if you like gorgeous California real estate. If you are squeamish about sex scenes or gender-questioning, this isn't the series for you. But you probably already guessed that!

I also really appreciate how the series, and the growing visibility of the transgender community that it reflects, demands that we examine the powerful role language plays. Maura's family has many questions, but they are summed up by his daughter Ali, who simply asks, "What do we call him now?" The name she settles on, "Moppa," is a lovely compromise, one that Soloway used with her own trans-parent. But personal pronouns remain problematic, and cause some confusion, notably in Episode 5.

I welcome this examination of the power of these words. For too long, many of us protested the offensiveness of using "men" or "mankind" for "people" and "humankind." And were told "oh, you know what I mean." Unfortunately, we did. But refusing to acknowledge the power imbalance implicit in this terminology seems laughable to most of us today. Pick up an old textbook or newspaper, though, and that language propels you right back to the days of the unapologetic patriarchy. So I understand the importance of getting this right. Identity is tied up in how we label ourselves, and how the world labels us. If transgender people, or those who identify as genderqueer want to be referred to as ze, why should we fight it? Nouns and pronouns influence how we see ourselves in relation to society. I grudgingly admit that the growing use of "they" might just solve this problem, though it is extremely hard for my grammar-loving heart to embrace this term. But logic (and the very clever columnist Steven Petrow) convinces me I may have to.

Who knows? If we keep going down this path, someday I may realize one of my wildest dreams, when once and for all we bury the boorish  "you guys" in favor of the simple, elegant "you."

Here come the awards!

Happy New Year and welcome to Awards Season! The Golden Globes were Sunday, and the SAG Awards are later this month. As a member of that union, I get to vote, so I have been preparing: watching movie screeners and video links sent by movie studios. There are some terrific performances this year, even in movies that weren't that strong (Julianne Moore is heart-breakingly brilliant in Still Alice, though the movie is rather predictable). One movie I loved months ago when I saw it was Boyhood. And I was thrilled that Patricia Arquette won the Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actress Sunday night. Her performance was so nuanced, so true. It never felt forced, or "acted." Director Richard Linklater, filming the same actors over 12 years, created an extraordinary film. And for that, he won Best Director at the Golden Globes and Boyhood was named Best Picture-Drama. The movie focuses on Mason, the titular boy growing to manhood, but it is the character of his mother, Olivia, who provides the strongest anchor.

Arquette plays Olivia with an ease that I rarely see onscreen. And I know that it takes incredible trust to let yourself just be the character so completely. Of course, as actors, we don't have some sort of personality transplant to actually become someone else. But each of us constructs an inner life for our character, based on what the writer and director have given us. During production, we go live that life. It takes tremendous courage to trust that creation, to just let go. To ignore the nagging fear that we will be judged on our performance. Yes, we likely will be—but such thoughts intrude on the character's reality and make it hard for us to fully be there. We need to live in the moment; react to others around us. Be sensitive to what is going on. And pick up those unexpected treasures we happen to stumble across.

If leadership is in the script 

When my clients come to me for help giving speeches, making presentations, or leading meetings, I give them similar advice: "stick to your script," i.e. your preparation—the structure built on your intention and how you will achieve it. The paradox here (as in acting) is that when you are sufficiently grounded in that script (or game plan, agenda, etc.) you are able to let go and just be. You are a better listener, your answers are clearer, your reactions more strategic. You even feel free to improvise a bit, as long as you keep the foundation of that script in mind.

Most of us won't win any acting awards during Awards Season. But we can genuinely be there for our audiences the next time we engage in leadership conversation.

New Year's Day with NPH

Neil Patrick HarrisHappy New Year!

If you want to read yet another blog about New Year's resolutions or predictions for what 2015 has in store for us, I apologize. This is not that blog. But you are welcome to look at what I have written about resolutions in the past. I also have an astrologer friend who makes some interesting predictions based on what the sky tells us is happening now and in the coming months.

No, this first column of the New Year will highlight a wonderful episode of NPR's Fresh Air I heard on New Year's Day. The incomparable Terry Gross rebroadcast an interview with actor/singer/author Neil Patrick Harris from October 13,  2014. Somehow I missed its original air date but am glad I caught it this time around!

Harris is an incredibly wise and grounded (not to mention talented) performer, and he gave a warm and funny interview: I recommend it to you. In conversation with him, Gross covered many intriguing topics. NPH (as he is known to his fans) has had an interesting career as an actor, recently playing a trans-gendered German rock singer in the musical Hedwig and the Angry Inch on Broadway. It was a challenging role, to say the least, and he won a Tony Award for it in 2014. Gross asked him about his approach, specifically about how he transformed physically and vocally into the female rock-singing persona.

As readers of this blog probably know, I coach clients to be better speakers by using the vocal production technique I learned as an actor. So I was particularly fascinated by what Harris said about his vocal routine, and his work with veteran New York voice coach Liz Caplan. She engaged him in detailed work on breathing and posture habits affecting his vocal production, just as I do with my clients. And, like most of the people I work with, NPH had a few things to learn: "As it turns out, the way I carry my personal body is a little neck strained... meaning that I don't stand perfectly tall, I jut my neck forward a little bit. And instead of using my diaphragm and my full breath, I tend to sort of clench my breath right around my throat and allow the sounds to come through... that compression is not so good on your cords because  ... [it] causes some kind of vocal problems later, like nodes or losing your voice". Caplan also gave him exercises for tongue tension, which can add to that vocal stress. Gross, apparently as fascinated by his technique as I was, asked NPH to demonstrate several exercises. They weren't exactly the ones I use, but I would guess any clients of mine who happened to catch the show recognized the similarities.

It was a rewarding episode for me to hear. To know that I teach a technique that works (even for such pros as NPH!), that I continue to share with others who can really be helped by it: what a wonderful way to start the New Year!

Time to light the candles

Ah, December!
The days grow short and there is much to be done to "get ready."  I know the holiday frenzy can set in any minute, so I have taken some time recently to reflect on the year as it draws to a close. I did try to keep a mental tally, but lost count of my many blessings. I do know, though, that right up there on the list is fulfilling work with wonderful clients. I am blessed with many talented, creative people who ask me to help give them a boost to more clearly communicate their visions to others. They are from all walks of life; they work in education, corporations, political organizations, government agencies, non-profits--you name it, I've trained 'em! But this time of year I think a lot about my clergy clients, many of whom are in their "crunch" season.

One of them, Casey FitzGerald, has a podcast series, Tales from the Jesse Tree, designed to offer a new spin on an age-old way to mark the holiday season. Casey is a Master Biblical Storyteller, and has worked on using storytelling as a communications tool for years. I am "guesting" on this season's podcast for Advent, sharing my techniques for speaking and presenting. I demonstrate breathing and centering exercises, and offer tips for dynamic delivery. Check it out!

Even if you aren't especially interested in telling Biblical stories, I think you will find Casey's overall approach instructive. Because when we use a "story learning" model for internalizing important messages, they really stick! When we are truly inside our stories, sharing them, we use our words, our bodies, our energy to connect. We are not judging, we are doing. And we can clearly communicate what is on our minds--and in our hearts.

Happy Holidays to you and yours.
See you in 2015!

Short and sweet

Last Friday I began my holiday baking (first up...rugelach!) while enjoying the annual broadcast of the Ig Nobel Prize Awards on NPR's Science Friday. These two activities signal to me the beginning of the Christmas season! The Igs (as they are known to their aficionados) are given every year by the Annals of Improbable Research, a magazine whose stated goal is to publish "research that makes people LAUGH then THINK." I always learn fun new facts, and get a few good laughs out of Black Friday's hour-long reprise. Last year I blogged about the ceremony's ingenious use of a young girl by the name of Miss Sweetie Poo who calls the speakers out when they wander "in the weeds."

This year I was struck by another element of the Igs that we could do well to incorporate into our thinking--their 24/7 Lectures. When we prepare speeches, comments, or meeting recaps for any kind of presentation, we could benefit from remembering the rules: "Each 24/7 Lecturer explains their topic twice: First, a complete, technical description in 24 seconds. Then, a clear summary that anyone can understand in 7 words" (italics mine).

It sure would take a bit of doing, but what if we set that goal for ourselves? What if we could boil down our main talking points to a succinct 24-second explanation? And then, provide a short, clear summary? I am sure such a thought exercise would clarify our thinking, maybe even direct us to what we can cut out of our presentations that is unnecessary or obfuscatory.

Succinct messaging takes time; well worth it.
7 words!

Giving Thanks for NaNoWriMo

As Thanksgiving week rolls around I am thinking of the many things I am thankful for this year. Many are the wonderful people I have in my life and experiences I share with them. But there is also something new: this year, for the first time, I am participating in NaNoWriMo and am very thankful to Chris Baty for starting National Novel Writing Month in 1999. It grew from 21 friends who thought being novelists would help them get dates to a non-profit that last year propelled 310,095 writers world-wide to create novels. Of  50,000 words. In a month. Since I am a playwright, my "novel" uses fewer lengthy descriptions, so 50,000 seems like a lot. But I will edit out all the superfluous bits when I am done and hopefully something will take shape!

I have written plays before, but most of them had built-in deadlines. This one has been waiting months - no, years - to be written. And I just could not get it started. Until NaNo. Once you commit to doing the month of writing, you get online support in the form of pep talks from successful authors, writing prompts, online writing sprints, and most of all, a sense of community. My region, Northern Virginia, has 8,174 members, many of whom have met up at coffee shops and libraries to write, bond and offer encouragement.

Writing is, by nature, a very solitary pursuit. It has been a great comfort this month to see so many fellow Nanites writing on the Forums or on the regional Facebook page about their own frustration at staring at the blank computer screen, or feeling they have run out of things to say, or knowing - absolutely- that everything they have written is rubbish! And to see others rallying round with words of encouragement. "Just keep writing," they say, "Edit later. Get it all out." Of course having a huge number of words to write every single day means that you can't do much editing or self-censoring as you go along. I have found that very liberating!

Support and accountability are things we all need. Creative artists who toil at their computers and live in their imaginations often don't much of either. Sometimes you just need a teensy bit of incentive to get it all out and put it all down. Later you will revise and revise and revise, and share those versions with your writing circle for them to critique. But first you need something to revise!

I have about 6,000 words to go and know I will finish. Might do it next year, as well. Think about joining me. We could be writing buddies! What's the worst thing that can happen? You write 50,000 words; some of then have to be good!

What's cookin'?

"Why do I need a coach to learn how to speak in public? I have been talking almost my whole life." To answer this question I often use a cooking analogy: Early in life you learn what sounds to make, and later what words to use to get what you need. Survival communications. Some people never need to learn more. But if you find yourself pursuing a career where "excellent oral communications" are required, or just want to make yourself heard above life's everyday static, you will need to work harder at it. That's where expert advice comes in, whether it is reading books or articles, watching webinars, or working with a communications coach. Each level of learning brings you closer to development of your own solid speaking technique.

So with cooking. Most of us learn survival cooking skills fairly early in life: scrambled eggs, mac 'n cheese, pb & j. But at some point we need to step up our game--to impress someone, to rescue ourselves from boredom, to cut down on take-out and restaurant expenses. And so we read a cookbook and watch some cooking shows. Those of us who really want or need to excel study with the experts.

Every Saturday one of my delights is listening to The Splendid Table, a radio show from American Public Media, hosted by cooking expert and food journalist Lynne Rosetto Kasper. Lynne has a great way of making absolutely every dish she describes on the show sound mouth-wateringly delicious. And "doable." When she broadcasts interviews with guests, she has them break down complicated recipes and explain the culinary process, demystifying cuisine that might seem complicated. Even an elaborate Tourbot soufleé . She also gives a lot of really solid cooking advice to listeners who call in.

Saturday before last a caller said he wanted to become a better cook. He had trouble following recipes, and wanted some hints on other ways to improve. Lynne urged him to step away from the individual recipes, and really understand the underlying technique used in creating the dish. "Don't learn recipes, learn technique," she said. "You are more in control when you know the how and the why of what you are doing."

Back to my analogy: I work with clients to discover techniques that work for each of them. While these are similar, they vary from person to person. Much as cooking will vary according to pans used, oven temperature, quality of ingredients, etc. But when you break everything down and come to an understanding of how things work, you are able to develop a solid technique. Which you can then apply to many different situations. For example, once you have mastered a basic bechamel sauce, you can make dozens of French and Italian sauces. Once you know how to embody and embrace your own authentic presence, you have the ability to speak successfully anywhere, any time!

And doesn't that sound delicious?

Solving the maze

Patterns. They are all around us. They are a big part of our everyday   lives. We use them as as organizing principles, to provide structure.  Patterns help us know where we are in our journey and show us where we  fit in. Patterns place us in  the now of the framework of our lives and the lives of those around us. But this is a paradox, because when we are inside the pattern, we cannot really see where we are. Then patterns become  puzzles we have to figure out, which is why walking through a maze for  the first time can be so destabilizing and disorienting. Little wonder,  then, that books and movies use mazes to  symbolize terrifying journeys  into the unknown! I think "maze" and see  Jack Nicholson in The Shining chasing   Shelley Duvall and Danny Lloyd. Or I anticipate the  tragedy awaiting  Cedric Diggory and Harry Potter inside the Triwizard  Tournament Maze in  Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

Every time we get up to speak, we find ourselves in that very  place--experiencing  the journey, telling our story, choosing where to  turn so we can follow the  path to its logical conclusion. BUT we also  need to be standing on the bridge above the  maze, seeing the pattern,  so we won't get lost by taking a wrong turn, going down a rhetorical  dead  end, or ending up somewhere other than where we planned to be. <Br>
Of  course when we practice  before we speak, we become familiar with the  best way to navigate the  maze, to solve that puzzle. And we become  comfortable ignoring those little nagging voices  that urge us to "step  off the trail, go this way, it will be a shortcut,  what can it hurt?" But  even before the  practice session begins, we need to be mindful of the  pattern we are creating. We need to  use its structure when developing  our thesis and main  supporting points. We may be tempted to go into  great detail to  tease out an intriguing but non-essential sub point. Or  tell an  entertaining but digressive story. But that sort of detour  from the speech's  overall plan does nothing to further our argument,  and can be quite  confusing to our audience. So we need to stay on the  path in order to  reach our goal Patterns are comforting. And mazes can be  mastered--with practice and a clear head!

photo credit: odolphie via photopin cc

Small talk vs. large talk

Autumn at Union CollegeThis past weekend I was sitting in my son's college dorm room (we were up for our first Family Weekend) when I heard two of his friends pass one another in the hall: "How was it?" "Awesome!" "That's great, dude!" Their tones of voice conveyed that they knew exactly what they were talking about, even though I hadn't a clue. Sounded like a casual conversation between buddies. But it was really a classic example of the glue of private conversation. And it is pretty much the only type of speech that is not public speaking.

Two weekends ago I was giving a talk to Fulbright scholars from abroad who are here in the U.S. for graduate and post-graduate research, teaching, and study. My focus was on public speaking and presenting. The sponsors of the event were concerned that I was spending too little time on "interpersonal communications;" they felt their visiting scholars might be having some cross-cultural communications problems with fellow students and faculty. Of course I had planned to cover this in my session. "Interpersonal communications" was, in fact, one of the bullet points on slide #2. But it was under the heading "Public Speaking" so I guess that threw them off. I am not a fan of PowerPoint, so only essential topics (and a few choice graphics) go up on my slides. And interpersonal communications was definitely on the agenda. But I saw their point. Most people do not think of quick chats in a professor's office or study group meetings in the food court as public speaking. But they are! So are those quick exchanges with co-workers on your way to a meeting or conference calls with your best client. Anytime you are not engaged in private conversation you are speaking publicly. You are representing whatever business/party/ethnic group/nationality you bring to the table. Be aware of that. Unless you are connected through kinship, or well-established bonds of trust (which can form relatively quickly when you are all in the same boat, as in a first year dorm), your words matter. Organized thought matters. Articulation and clarity of speech matters. People will judge you on what you say and how you say it. Even in--or maybe especially in--those small group and one-on-one encounters. So do not take these exchanges as casually as two good friends meeting in a dorm hall. Unless you know someone well enough to engage in the relationship-maintaining communication often derided as "small talk"--where non-verbals are so strong the words almost do not matter--you are speaking publicly. Breathe. Think. And speak accordingly.

Just calm down

Francisco Goya's "The Folly of Fear," National Gallery of ArtI grew up in Northeastern Ohio (in fact went to the same high school as Amber Vinson) and now live in Arlington Virginia, not far from the Pentagon. So I was closely following news reports of events as they unfolded this past week. I was not in any danger, and I was amazed how many people felt they were. This brought to mind a statement I often make to my clients and students: you can't listen when you're in panic mode.

When I say this to them in a training session I am referring to situations when they are "put on the spot" in a meeting or during Q & A following a speech. You know that feeling--when all of a sudden your adrenaline kicks in, your palms sweat, your face flushes and your words stick in your throat. Not only are you rendered inarticulate,  you become functionally hard-of-hearing as well. Fear is a powerful blocker of both incoming and outgoing messages!  

All the chatter about Ebola this past week reminded me of that state, that inability to listen because we are in too much of a panic mode to focus on what anyone is really saying. The truth of the matter is, of course, that Americans still have a far greater chance of dying from the flu this season than from Ebola, but that truth was hard to hear. It was being drowned out by the irresponsible media outlets who thrive on manufactured crises to increase their viewership/readership. And once people started to panic, they couldn't hear the voices of reason assuring them those "news" reports were bogus. Because when you stop breathing you stop listening. Think about it: have you ever really heard what someone was saying while holding your breath? I doubt it. You tense up in anticipation of BIG news (good or bad). You enter into a physiological state of altered awareness. Sometimes you hear part of the message, but not all of it, and not with all its nuance. You have doubtless noticed this when you try to deliver a message to someone who is in anticipatory panic mode. Your listener never hears the whole of what you have to say.

Yesterday's news about the quarantine in Dallas should have laid much of this fear to rest. But you know the fear-mongers will be back with another chapter. We must remember that they perform the same function as our inner voices of fear. They both stop us in our tracks when we panic. And they keep us from moving forward. Don't let that happen. Be clear-headed. Listen to what is really being said. See what is really there. And for all of our sakes--breathe!

Don't worry; it'll be good for you!

The Meeting by Man Ray, from the Smithsonian American Art Museum

Has this ever happened to you: You are given a "golden opportunity" to join your peers and superiors in a meeting to present work with which you are very familiar--largely because it is your work or your team's work. You try your best to prepare, but it's hard because you don't get an agenda on time. You figure you will just "follow the lead" of others who attend this meeting regularly. You gather your notes and talking points. You breathe. And then you are asked to go first. No hint of where to start. No indication of what your colleagues want to know. No guidance, no direction. What do you do?

I have heard variations on that story from a few clients. And I tell them: It's OK to ask. Really. Instead of guessing what your focus should be in that meeting, ask: "What, specifically, would you like me to address?"; or "What are you most interested in hearing about first?" How else are you going to make the best use of everyone's time? You may not need to unpack the whole process or walk them through all the details. They may just want to know the results.

It's really OK  

But asking seems "awkward" for most of us. We don't want to do it for fear it will show we are out of our element, that we don't belong. That we are not "up to the challenge." Which further confuses us. Most of this stems from our bodies' instinctive response to the physiological stress of being in the Speaker's Bubble. You know the feeling: you are in an alternate reality, in the spotlight, under the microscope.

The fact is, no one knows it all. And remember, you are at that meeting in the first place because you likely know more about your topic than anyone else. Last week I blogged about how important it is to trust yourself when put on the spot. Extend that trust to this situation. Asking questions when you need clarification or guidance is certainly preferable to muddling around in the weeds until you get to what people really want to know. A secure person is fine with admitting she does not know where to begin her explanation, that she needs to know just which questions her listeners want answered. That is not an insurmountable obstacle.  

Ask any successful leader: knowing all the answers is not the key to leadership; knowing the right questions to ask is. So, when you are put on the spot, unsure of where to start, think like a leader. No one has all the answers all the time. But ask the right questions and you'll be well on your way.

Trust issues

One of my clients occupies a senior management position, is an expert in her field, and really knows her stuff. But she confided in me that she had trouble answering questions in meetings with her peers and those at the top of her organization.

She is not alone. Many people have difficulty when put "on the spot" around the conference table or in the boardroom. I call it the "hot seat effect" and it is one of the manifestations of being trapped in the Speaker's Bubble (see my explanation of that peculiar place here). I work with clients to climb out of that trap by practicing breathing to stay centered and focused. The insidious thing about the hot seat, though, is how unexpectedly you find yourself on it. You're not standing under lights at a podium in front of a group of thousands, for heaven's sake; you're doing something fairly routine. Sitting in a chair. Having a meeting. But when the stakes are high (i.e. Very Important People listening to your every word), the heat is on.

The way to turn it off is to slow your heart rate by breathing fully and deeply. By doing so, you re-energize while you decrease your level of nervousness. The added bonus is that you regain your focus, and with it, your confident posture and vocal tone. You have the tools to climb the mountain.

My client, however, was worried that, though she could regain her composure, she had lost her way. Her destination seemed oddly distant on her mental map. She "went off on a tangent" while answering questions. She did give definite answers, eventually. But she feared her roundabout way of arriving at them would diminish her in others' eyes. Her misgivings were well-founded: confusing or long-winded answers can make those aorund you question your authority.

I have worked with her for a while now, and knew exactly what the trouble was. I prescribed a simple mental shift: she needs to trust herself. Trust her knowledge. Trust her clear, simple answer. Because the people she speaks to trust her. They regard her as the expert in her field. So her desire to explain her answers, to make a strong case for them, is simply unnecessary. Her straightforward opinion is all that is needed. I reiterated: "Trust yourself. Your peers respect your judgement, your expert opinion, your guidance. If they need you to back up your pronouncements, they will ask. . . " But I doubt it. When she trusts herself and gives a clear answer, they will be more than satisfied.

Trust yourself: simple to say; hard to do. Get started!

Check out the actors' playbook

NYC cast of "Becoming Calvin"--Spetember 21, 2104This past weekend I had the pleasure of seeing and hearing my play Becoming Calvin performed in a staged reading by some very talented actors in New York. We were not quite on Broadway, but almost, in a lovely church space just off of Times Square. Some of the actors have been with this play from its very first readings, and performed in its 2012 run in Washington, D.C.  But others, mostly NYC-based actors, heard the script aloud for the first time on Friday night. I reprised my 2012 role as director, and worked through each scene briefly. By Sunday afternoon the cast was ready to present it. They were already starting to inhabit their characters, and the play came alive. As a playwright, it was quite a gift to see and hear the script work while being read by new voices!

When I wasn't in rehearsal (which was most of the weekend) I had chance to catch up with friends who have interesting jobs in New York working with some Very Important People. One of my them was telling me about a boss who had a reputation for being a poor public speaker. This boss speaks a lot, in very high profile situations. "What makes her so appalling?" I asked. It seems she reads what has been prepared (in her case, by a speechwriter), then, feeling her point has not been made sufficiently, goes on to extemporaneously restate everything she has said in the speech. So of course her speeches usually run twice as long as they should. And her audience is always either bored or confused! Certainly not the desired outcome.

In my speaker-training business, I hear variations on this complaint all the time. Often I am brought in to help clients climb out of this trap. I advise them to follow my actors' example and trust the text. Actors learn very early on that their job is to interpret the work of the writer, to clarify it, share the underlying meaning with the audience. They never, for example, would stop a scene to explain to the audience what just happened. Their job is to embody the playwright's vision so clearly that the audience experiences it, too. The only way they can do this is to start with the assumption that the text is their primary tool. 

Speakers need to take a page from my actors' playbook and trust the text. Even if a speaker prefers to be less scripted, looser, more like a stand-up comedian, preparation is key (see my post Giving Thanks for Sarah Silverman. Comedians have a rhythm to their sets, have rehearsed, have chosen what to do when. They gifted ones make it seem "spontaneous"--just liked gifted actors--but very little has been left to chance.

If you are going to be speaking, the time to revise a text or script (to simplify it, or put it in your own words) is not at the moment of performance or presentation. That is work done well before you share your message with the audience. You need to make sure your text says what you want it to, yes, but before you step up to deliver it. Then, trust your text, let its message filter though you, and let the audience be a part of that experience. Otherwise, why are you there? You'd be better off just passing out a copy of your speech and freeing your captives.