Podcast: Play in new window | Download
In the previous podcast, I talked about the stuff of leadership communicaiton—what leaders talk about. In a very small nutshell, leaders describe a vision for the future that is personally meaningful to followers, and expresses confidence that they can reach it.
All of that is extremely important, of course, but it’s not enough. Suppose you took a group of say 30 people and divided them into two rooms, and then selected one person at random to be the “leader” in the room. You give each leader an identical document that has all the necessary talking points: the vision, the reasons it should be meaningful and important to the followers, and reasons why they should have confidence in its success.
It’s easy to imagine totally different results from the two rooms. One person could deliver a perfectly clear and articulate explanation of all those points, and fail to spark even a glimmer of engagement or excitement from listeners. The other could send people pouring out of the room looking for brick walls to run through—same message, completely different results.
The key question is, what’s the difference? Is it something intangible that you’re either born with, or not? And of course the answer that I’m going to talk about in this podcast is that it’s not something you’re born with—it’s something you do, it’s a skill you can learn, and it’s a skill that you can grow and improve.
It’s not only what you say, but it’s how you say it that also matters. In this podcast, I’m gong to share some of the evidence that proves it’s true, give you a list of verbal tools that you can use to make you sound more like a leader, and then talk about the kinds of actual words you should and should not use if you want to make a mark on someone’s mind.
How I know it’s true
Leadership charisma is one of those things that people have actually studied and figured out. What makes someone attract attention and compel belief? People have actually studied that; A lot of what I’ve talked about in previous podcasts, especially in my Max Cred series, contributes to the effect, but there’s more to it than that.
One example I’m going to use is taken from a HBR article called “Learning Charisma” by John Antonakis, Marika Fenley, and Sue Liechti. They describe work they’ve done to identify and teach 12 charismatic leadership tactics These are both verbal and physical, although I only cover the verbal ones in this episode. They’ve taught these skills in experiments and have seen leadership competence ratings jump by about 60% on average. They also found that 65% of people trained in the CLTs received above-average leadership ratings, compared to 35% for those who didn’t receive training.
Rhetorical Devices
- Contrast
- Lists, Repetition, Rhythm
- Metaphors
- Stories
Word choice
While it’s generally best to use plain direct speech and short common words, you can occasionally choose an unexpected word or phrasing to add strength, style and spice to your speech. The key is to be smart and avoid being perceived as pretentious or too cute by half. You can do this by asking yourself if the word adds value in the form of precision, impact, vividness, or memorability.
If you do, you will find a word that clicks into place as if no other word could have fit in that spot at that time.
There’s a paradox of humility: you have to be truly confident to show it. The weak and insecure will always bluff and bluster, while the strong and confident will expose themselves.
Lieutenant Colonel Chris Hughes was leading a unit of the 101st Airborne on a mission in Najaf, Iraq in 2003, to establish contact with local leaders. Somehow, a rumor spread among the population that they were there to enter the mosque and arrest the cleric, and suddenly hundreds of angry Iraqis surrounded the Americans and pressed closer. The air was tense and the smallest provocation could have set off a massacre. Col. Hughes ordered his troops to take a breath, smile, and kneel down. Within seconds the anger subsided and the troops withdrew without incident. Humility saved the day, but it took incredible strength to show it.[1]
Most of us don’t find ourselves in situations like that, but we have multiple opportunities every day to improve situations by exercising our humility. For example, have you ever been in a meeting where someone said something you didn’t understand, but you were afraid to ask them because you didn’t want to seem ignorant?
I was in a meeting of citizens concerned about airport noise recently, and I saw both sides of the humility equation in one exchange. One chap was deeply involved with the issue and extremely well informed. When the moderator asked him to give us a bit of background, he shot him down, claiming he had worked a lot on the problem so he just needed to share his recommendations. He began by telling us what to do about the “Part 150” project. A woman interjected and said, “Wait a minute, can you tell me what Part 150 is?” I had been thinking the same thing but didn’t want to look stupid. She had the humility to admit her ignorance, and when the guy answered her question it was obvious that the majority of people in the meeting learned something new.
What struck me about that exchange was that by displaying humility she actually projected strength.
What lessons can we draw from both those stories?
It takes a confident person to ask “stupid questions”. In fact, not wanting to appear stupid is one of the stupidest things you can do.
Harry Truman said it’s amazing what you can accomplish when you don’t care who gets the credit, but it takes confidence in your own contribution to live by that dictum.
It takes a confident person to just listen when you know they don’t have something valuable to add to the conversation, instead of trying to show how much you know.
It takes a confident person to find the good in another’s idea instead of immediately trying to show how smart you are by pointing out flaws.
It takes a confident person to seek out honest criticism, and to be humble enough to say, “You’re right. Thanks for correcting me.”
It takes a confident person to have a growth mindset. Carol Dweck’s research has shown that kids who are praised for their intelligence become very protective of their image as “smart” and don’t want to take on difficult challenges that might chip away at it. Kids who know they’re capable of growth have the confidence to be humble and don’t mind making mistakes or failing or looking foolish.
The right balance between confidence and humility may be even more important as a person rises to leadership positions. It took a confident leader like Abraham Lincoln to surround himself with a team of rivals, people who were more experienced and not afraid to disagree. It takes a confident leader to have the humility to let subordinates make mistakes for themselves so they can learn and grow.
So, next time you see someone acting the opposite of humble, hogging the spotlight, claiming infallibility, and domineering others, ask yourself what insecurity they must be hiding.
I think my default writing style is reasonably conversational—until I put it to the test. Sometimes it sounds way different out loud than it looks on paper. This normally would not be a problem, because everyone expects writing to be a bit more formal. But there are times when it is critical that you should write for the ear and not the eye.
It’s especially important when you’re crafting a value proposition to start a sales call, or to leave a voice mail for a prospect that will get them to call you back. It’s not too hard to sound spontaneous, and it’s not too hard to sound clever, but trying to do both at once takes work. That work comprises three activities: thinking, writing, and saying.
Obviously, you need to start by thinking what the gist of your message is going to be. But a lot of salespeople stop right here. It sounds good in their head, so they’re confident they can wing it come showtime.
From my own long experience in personally botching unprepared statements plus coaching thousands of role plays, I’ve come to firmly believe in writing it down, because often you don’t know what you think until you try to write it out, and the process of writing and re-writing helps you refine and improve it. That’s where the clever part comes in.
The next step is to make it sound spontaneous. Why is spontaneity important? Because it’s more believable if it sounds natural and effortless. If it sounds like pre-prepared words read off a sheet of paper, you wonder if the speaker believes them himself. People want to feel like you’re talking to them, not at them.
So the third step is to test it by saying it out loud. Skip that step and you may run into a situation that once happened to me, when I called a sales VP at a prospect company to get an appointment. I gave him a beautifully written value proposition, with an exquisitely crafted sentence that contained a plethora of multisyllabic words, and then waited for his reply. After a few seconds of silence, he said, “I didn’t understand a word you just said.”
I think of that story every single time before I make a sales call, which is actually how I got the idea to write this post just now. Just a few minutes ago I prepared for a call to a prospect, and I wrote out a nice value proposition. Then I read it out loud, and the good news was, it didn’t completely stink. But then I said it again a few more times—not reading word for word, but repeating the sentiment, until it sounded both clever and spontaneous. Only then did I pick up the phone and make the call. I ended up leaving a voice mail, so I’m not claiming victory just yet, but at least I didn’t hang up the phone wishing I could go back and delete my own message!
Moderation is dead! The only way to be heard and to have any influence in today’s world is to use extreme rhetoric. Even if you aren’t comfortable with it, you can’t beat them so it’s urgent that you join them before you get crushed! We’re in a post-truth era, which means that you have to be as forceful and hyperbolic in your claims and expression, or you are guilty of persuasion malpractice. IF YOU AREN’T OUTRAGED, YOU’E NOT PAYING ATTENTION!
Now that I got that out of my system, let me start again by saying:
Judging from our current political climate, it would seem that the use of extreme rhetoric is on the rise. You might even think that it’s the only way to get heard, so you would be forgiven for being tempted to adjust your persuasive approach. Some say we’re in a post-truth era, in which outlandish claims don’t have to be true—as long as they work. That being so, if you’re moderate and measured you will only be ineffective on behalf of your side.
Here’s the problem: the second paragraph is more credible, but the first one grabbed your attention.
That’s why it has recently been common practice in our national discourse toward extreme claims and excessive fear mongering. The other side doesn’t just disagree with us, they hate us. Their policies aren’t just misguided, they will cause an irrevocable disaster. The world is falling apart, so we have to be as forceful as possible to save it.
After a while, you just get numb to it, so they ratchet up their rhetoric even more to get past your filters. When they cry wolf so often, the townspeople put on earmuffs and go on with their lives. The problem is that when a real wolf does appear, who will listen then?
I’m not sure anything can be done about it; I certainly don’t have any answers. But it’s critical to your credibility and influence in business that you don’t let it affect the way you sell your ideas.
In fairness, there are some benefits to making extreme claims. Forcefulness grabs attention, which is why talk shows keep inviting back hedgehog pundits even after they’re proven wrong. The fox who keeps saying “on the other hand”, is politely thanked and then promptly forgotten. Plus, if you think of a proposal or an argument as the start of a negotiation where both parties eventually meet in between opening positions, an extreme claim can set an anchor that will make you look reasonable when you back off. Finally, hedges and hesitations can act as “power leaks” that detract from the forcefulness of your speech.
Yet, in negotiation an extreme opening position risks chasing away the other party by insulting them or convincing them you’re not serious. Even if they don’t walk away, they will automatically consider anything that comes out of your mouth as a worst-case or best-case scenario, and will look for contradictory evidence. The biggest risk of an extreme position is that it can trap you: once you crawl out on that limb, you’re a “loser” if you try to come back to the middle.
And there is evidence that others find a moderate level of confidence more credible. In a study done for the legal profession testing mock juries, jurors found witnesses to be more credible when they were in the middle range of confidence about their testimony. In another study, it was seen that people who are already perceived as experts actually seem more credible when they hedge their opinions a bit; it makes them appear more thoughtful.
Another piece of evidence that moderate speech may be more persuasive is the Sarick Effect, which Adam Grant discusses in his book Originals. In effect, it’s the idea that bringing out the negatives of your own idea can paradoxically make it more attractive to others, because it lowers their defenses and makes you appear more honest, among other reasons. I would think that an audience grown cynical by extreme rhetoric would at least find it refreshing.[1]
On the other hand (there I go again) , it may depend on your audience. Research shows that in general, unsophisticated audiences prefer one-sided arguments, but sophisticated audiences prefer two-sided arguments.
Moderation isn’t just about how you say it; it’s also about fairly presenting evidence. Hans Rosling ,in his excellent new book Factfulness (which incidentally sparked my idea for this post), says that you should always present a mid-forecast with a range of possible scenarios, rather than simply selecting the most extreme position As he says, “This protects our reputations and means we never give people a reason to stop listening.”[2]
So, here’s my mid-forecast: go easy on the extreme rhetoric, use only credible data, and over the long term you will protecting your reputation and ensure others keep listening. And yes, I strongly believe that!
[1] Actually, Grant made up the tern “Sarick Effect”, to make a point about how familiarity makes things more believable. That’s a topic for an upcoming post.
[2] Factfulness, by Hans Rosling, Ola Rosling, and Anna Rosling Ronnlund, p. 231.
