If this works, we’ll do the same thing with our sales force
In the early days of the space program, NASA engineers originally planned to make their space shots so highly automated that they could send monkeys and dogs into space. Yet when they began recruiting astronauts for the Mercury program, these independent-minded and intelligent test pilots rebelled and insisted that they be given control of the capsule. Otherwise, they were just “spam in a can”, as Chuck Yeager described them. When Gordon Cooper’s Faith 7 ran into technical problems on his mission, he manually took over the re-entry process, vindicating the decision to put the person on the scene in control.
While NASA made the right choice then, many companies insist on taking the wrong approach under similar circumstances. They insist on tightly controlling the delivery of the message by leashing their best reps to corporate-approved presentations. Because they don’t want to take the chance on a salesperson going off message, they make sure that the presentations contain every detail they think is important.
What’s the result? You take an intelligent and articulate sales professional and turn him or her into a walking soundtrack for a presentation that was written by someone who has no relationship with or knowledge of the particular audience members. They may spend months developing a personal relationship with individuals in the decision process, only to turn into mechanical projector operators when they make the big presentation at the end.
The problem with this kind of thinking is that you can’t have it both ways. You can’t expect your salespeople to be consultants and trusted advisors to their customers, if you’re sending the message that they can’t be trusted to speak for themselves. Authenticity is a key ingredient in creating trust, but there’s no authenticity at all in mechanically parroting someone else’s message.
Various studies have highlighted how important the individual sales professional is to the purchase decision and to customer loyalty. This places a premium on the sales rep’s ability to connect authentically, to have a meaningful dialogue about key customer issues and economic drivers, and to confidently answer challenges from the audience. That’s why they have to be in control of their own message delivery.
But let’s not only blame corporate; salespeople themselves are often to blame. They may turn themselves into projector operators through the way they design their presentations.
Speakers use slides as memory aids, to keep them on track and remind them what to say next. So they want to put in everything that they could possibly say on the subject. Or, they may think that redundancy—reading and hearing the message—is more effective than merely hearing it or reading it alone. So they put up walls of words that they then read to the audience. Children love to have stories read to them, but it’s not so much fun once they master the art for themselves. So why do so many presenters insist on reading slides to their audiences?
What does this mean to you?
Control your message and how you deliver it. Of course, you have to stick within guidelines to ensure your message is consistent, and you often get good ideas from the marketing folks, but the way you deliver the message should always be in you control.
Learn your material and your message so thoroughly that you could deliver it without having to read off the screen to remind yourself what to say next. By the same token, limit the number of slides you put in and make sure your slides are clean and simple enough so that they are easy to learn. That way you can concentrate your entire attention on the audience as you deliver the message, with the screen behind you as a visual aid, not as the central attraction.
Remember, if the presentation can speak for itself, what do they need you for?
I’ve often wondered how many fine speeches go undelivered, and how many smart people go unnoticed because they fear getting up in front of a group to speak. In this post, I’d like to point out some misconceptions that may be holding them back from their true potential.
Mistake #1: You think you get more nervous than everyone else before a presentation or a speech. Sure, it’s common knowledge that public speaking is the top fear in America today, just behind death. (As Seinfeld said in one of his sketches, that means that if you’re at a funeral, you’re better off being in the coffin than delivering the eulogy.) But that common knowledge does not comfort you; you see others confidently taking control of the stage and compare yourself unfavorably. They might get a little nervous, but they don’t suffer the pangs of anxiety that fill your mind in those excruciating minutes before it’s your turn to speak; they don’t know the doubts that bounce around in your brain the night before the big presentation; they’re not wrestling with the real possibility that your throat will constrict and squeeze the first words out of your mouth into a high-pitched squeak.
The real truth is that everyone does get nervous. I’ve made my living speaking to groups for 20 years, and I still get nervous. Some of the best-known actors and performers have struggled with stage fright throughout their distinguished careers, among them Barbra Streisand and Harrison Ford. Cicero, one of the greatest orators in history, said: “I turn pale at the outset of a speech and quake in every limb and in all my soul.” Mark Twain said “There are two kinds of speakers: those who are nervous and those who are liars.”
Mistake #2: Everyone will be able to tell how nervous you are. Because you’re the expert (otherwise, someone else would be the speaker that day) and you’re well prepared (right?), you may be more concerned about appearing nervous than about flubbing your material. They will notice your rapid shallow breathing and hear your heart beating right out of your chest, and that will make them doubt you and mistrust your message.
The real truth is that you seriously overestimate the extent to which others can tell your internal feelings. Your feelings are perfectly obvious to you, but they are hidden inside your mind—they don’t leak out nearly as much as you might think. It’s called the illusion of transparency, like when you look through a mirrored window—although you know you can see out but others can’t see in, it still feels like they may be looking right at you. Studies show that speakers rate themselves as more nervous than the audience thinks they are. In some of those same studies, researchers have found that merely informing speakers that their nervousness is not visible, often makes them feel less nervous. Consider yourself informed.
Mistake #3: Nervousness is bad. You think that your anxiety will keep you from performing at your best, which makes you even more anxious about your performance, which can lead to a vicious circle of doubt.
The truth is that your nervousness is a normal feeling of arousal in your mind that is helping you gear up for extraordinary performance. It’s a manifestation of the fight or flight syndrome, which turbocharges your body and primes your mind to perform at greater than normal levels. Nerves show that you care, and in fact, if you’re not nervous, that’s when you should be worried. Self-confidence may lead to complacency, which may have contributed to President Obama’s flat performance in his first debate. Embrace the feeling of nervousness before you get up to speak, be glad that you have that extra fuel that’s going to add energy to your speech and your gestures, and will actually make you look even more confident than you feel.
To sum up, your nervousness before a presentation is a secret asset that will make you a more forceful and dynamic speaker, as long as you view it properly. If this short post can convince one person to deliver a speech in site of their fear, it will be more than worth it.
Still relevant
What possible use does the ancient art of rhetoric have in the twenty-first century? Although rhetoric was once an indispensable part of any real education, it began to go out of style in the 19th century, and is rarely taught in colleges today. If fact, the term itself has become mostly derogatory, signifying ornate, empty and manipulative language.
Fortunately, there are still a few people such as Sam Leith keeping the flame burning. His book, You Talkin’ to Me?: Rhetoric from Aristotle to Obama
Aristotle was the first to give us a written definition, and you can’t get any more clear or comprehensive that it: finding the available means of persuasion.
Rhetoric covers five major subjects, and they are still useful today, whether you are selling a product, trying to get an idea approved internally, or running for President.
Invention: Finding the right arguments. What is the approach that is likely to work for this audience, for this particular decision at this time? As you can see, it’s not just about what you see as the best reasons, but about what will resonate with the other person. The right approaches usually require some combination of ethos, logos and pathos. In more modern terms, we might use Daniel Kahneman’s System 1 and System 2 thinking, but we have to appeal to both. When candidates try to encapsulate their campaign into a slogan, that’s invention.
Arrangement: There are various ways to arrange your material for best effect. Aristotle preferred the simple approach of just two main parts: in the narrative, you lay out the issue at question; then in the proof you give the reasons why your idea is superior. Other manuals recommended up to six parts, but the main thing is that a clear structure helps you think clearly and makes it easy for the audience to follow.
Style: How do you say it? Style seems to command most of the attention today. Most of the negative perception around rhetoric applies to the grand style, with big words and flowery sentences. Most of us prefer speakers who are authentic and use clear and plain language. But Barack Obama showed that we can still respond to the high style on the right occasion. The most effective speakers match their style to the audience and the occasion.
Memory: in ancient times, speakers were expected to speak at length without notes, and had to learn mnemonic techniques to make sure they could remember it all. Of the five subjects, memory may seem to be the least relevant today, but the way that speakers so often use slides as a crutch suggests that they may benefit from it.
Delivery: In today’s attention-deficit world, delivery is extremely important, because it’s the only way to maintain an audience’s attention long enough to persuade them. We no longer have to worry about projecting our voices to be heard by hundreds, but we still have to appear confident, open, and in control.
I suppose you don’t have to study formal rhetoric to be an excellent speaker and persuader, but why not learn from the best?
Memory is the forgotten asset of persuasive presentations.
Throughout Western history, a strong memory was a crucial part of a speaker’s tools. Educated people have learned to influence others through the formal study of rhetoric, which is basically nothing else than the art of persuasive communication. Even though very few people formally study rhetoric anymore, its lessons are just as relevant today as they have been for the past two millennia. The study of rhetoric generally focused on five major areas: discovery of the right arguments, arrangement of your material, your style, memory, and delivery. Four of these are clearly relevant to speakers today, but memory seems to have been discarded as an asset. I believe this is a serious mistake.
No one memorizes anything anymore. Why should we, when we have so many terabytes of data instantly available to us when we need it? Why remember phone numbers when we can store them in our phones? Why learn anything when we can pluck it from the cloud? And—to kick everyone’s convenient scapegoat—why remember the material of our presentations when we can store it in our slide deck?
Why, indeed? Picture this scenario: The presenter has grabbed your attention; he or she has made a compelling case that you need to change your ways, has shown a clear path to a bright future for all, and is just about to clinch their argument through a masterful and passionate call to action. They look their listeners squarely in the eyes, and say: “For these three reasons, uh…(pause to look back at the slide showing behind them, then proceed to read the bullet points) first,…”
It’s hard to be convinced of anyone’s command of their subject matter if they are clearly relying on a crutch to help them remember it. Remember Rick Perry? I didn’t think so. He could be the Republican nominee today if he had not had his famous memory lapse, when he said he would eliminate three federal agencies if elected, but forgot the third.
For a spectacularly positive example of what memory can do for a speaker, you only have to think of one of the greatest speeches in American history, King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. He didn’t call it that, because those words were not even in the original script. However, as he gauged the mood of the audience, he decided to use those lines, pulling them out of memory because he had used them in speeches before. Now, no one will ever forget those words.
When I advocate memory, I am definitely not talking about rote memorization of your material. That’s the surest way to appear mechanical and insincere, and if you blank out on just part of it, you may derail your entire presentation. What I am referring to, is knowing your material so deeply and intimately that you can speak about it off the cuff if necessary, without slides.
Want to be spontaneous? Know the material so well that you can focus on the audience’s reactions and be able to make adjustments as needed, secure in knowing exactly where you are and where you want to go next. When you obviously know your content so well that you can be interrupted by an off-topic question and return to where you were; when you can blank the screen and speak directly to your audience and focus your full attention on them; when you can reel off facts and details as needed, or hold them in reserve; imagine what it does for your credibility and your personal confidence.
What can you do to improve your memory?
The ancients learned mnemonic techniques that are still taught today by memory courses, but you don’t need rote memorization; you just need to know your message and material deeply enough that you can reconstruct the parts you need at the speed of real time conversation.
How do you know that your grasp of the material is strong enough? Even if you plan to use slides, you should always rehearse your presentation at least once without them. It will help you figure out where you need to embed some of the material more firmly, and it might even point out some spots where you can eliminate a slide or reduce some of the text on it, either because it’s unnecessary or because it disrupts the flow. By all means, practice like you’re going to deliver it, using your slides, but as a final exam, rehearse at least once without slides. In fact, testing yourself in this way is actually the best way to learn it.
Another technique is to put your main points on individual index cards. You can keep them in a pocket and only refer to them if you get stuck. All the times I’ve done this, I’ve never once had to pull them out, but it definitely helps personal confidence to know you have them.
Don’t be afraid to try it. Although it doesn’t relate directly to knowledge of your content, about ten years ago, I was very impressed when another trainer quickly memorize the names of everyone in the class of about fifteen people, and that was the last time I’ve ever used name cards in a session. It only seemed tough until I tried it.[1]
The nice thing about learning your subject matter thoroughly and in detail is that memory is cumulative and compounding. For similar types of presentations, you will already have a strong base to begin from, and learning new things is easier because you have so much more in your mind to connect it to.
I hate to close on a negative, but if you have trouble being able to deliver your presentation without memory aids, that suggests either that you don’t know the material that well, that it’s too long, or it’s just not that clear. It also implies to the audience that you didn’t care enough to prepare for them. As the song says, “every way you look at it you lose.”
[1] It’s very situational, though. If I learn your name in a class, don’t be disappointed if I see you the next day and have completely forgotten it.
