Usually when we have an opportunity to make a presentation, we get busy thinking about what we will talk about. The organisers may have set some rails by specifying the theme of the event or they may have asked us to speak on a particular topic. We are busy and often we start with creating new slides and scanning previous presentations for slides we can recycle. This is a poor strategy. What do we bang on about to our staff – plan the event or the project before you get started on the nitty gritty details. However, we neglect our own sage advice when it comes to presenting.
Part of the planning process should involve boiling the key message down to a nub that cleverly, succinctly and concisely summarises the whole point of the talk. Before we go there though we would be wise to consult others for ideas. It is a bit odd isn’t it, because we are always recommending collaboration and crowd sourcing of ideas for projects. How we seek those ideas though is a bit tricky.
Bounding up to someone for your presentation and suddenly saying , “do you have any ideas for this talk I am going to give” may not work all that well. Teamwork featuring excellent levels of collaboration is a concept, a sacred concept in most firms, but rather undefined. What is the environment for collaboration? Are people’s ideas welcomed in your workplace? Are we able to go outside the workplace and source broader networks for ideas? Do we have trustworthy networks in the first place?
I had to give a keynote speech to a relocation industry conference in Osaka. I called my contacts working in that industry and asked them about their issues, headaches and challenges. I have never worked in that industry and neither had anyone in my company, so I needed that broader network to help me. The irony was that after all the work I had put into crafting that piece de resistance , Covid put the whole event to the sword. I never did give that talk. It would have been brilliant of course!
Jokes aside, the idea of involving others is a good one, because we only know what we know. “Two brains are better than one” is ancient wisdom, but how often do we avail ourselves of outside input. I was getting my book “Japan Sales Mastery” translated and was struggling for the best title in Japanese. My friend Tak Adachi and I were having lunch and I mentioned my problem. He said why don’t you just call it “Za Eigyo” or “The Sale”. My son, later said to me why don’t I drop the katakana for “Za” from the title and just use “The” from English, to become “The Eigyo”.
This was a smart idea because I am an Australian writing in Japanese about selling in Japan, so the title combines both languages, to differentiate the book as a how foreigner would look at the world of sales in Japan. I would never have come up with those ideas on my own, so it demonstrated the value of collaboration.
The problem is we all recognise this in theory and we should be applying it to our presentation preparations, but we turn the whole thing into a solitary affair. We emerge from our cave, brandishing our slide deck and away we go. Getting more input is a better road to take, but there are some caveats. People we consult on the spot, will give us the very shallowest of ideas. We need to set this up, explain the theme and then fix a date a few days later, to allow them to digest the theme and work on some ideas. We are looking for diversity of views here and are not going to make any snap judgments. We should listen quietly – no interrupting, jumping in over the top of them or ending their sentences. We then thank them and privately reject, modify or incorporate their ideas.
If we ask them to give some feedback on our ideas, always frame the response. We want them to tell us what they like about it first and then tell us how we could make it even better. Confidence is a key aspect when presenting and that includes the preparation phase as well. This whole effort doesn’t have to take a lot of time, so we are not going to be caught in a time crunch and have to rush things, to be in time for the talk. More ancient wisdom says we don’t plan to fail, but we often fail to plan. We can incorporate more ideas into the preparation phase, if we simply plan for it.
The end is near. The end of Covid that is, as we see vaccinations increase and get us all closer to herd immunity. When will it end? There probably will never be an exact end, but it will diminish and our lives will get back to something approaching normality. That means we will be back in the meeting rooms and speaking venues to give our talks to live audiences. We have gotten used to online talks, which are the supreme example of impersonal presentations. The audience are a series of tiny boxes on the screen, some without their cameras on and there is no particular sense of interaction. We are talking to a camera mounted 10 centimeters or more above where the faces are positioned, so we have little read on the audience reaction to our talk.
Using body language on screen is difficult. In fact, it is so difficult that almost 99% of speakers don’t use any when they speak online. They sit there talking and talking, but not involving their hands for gestures or using any facial expression. Fake backgrounds have taught everyone that if you start waving your hands around they will disappear. The secret here though is to use gestures, but just don’t wave them around like a pirate captain. When you do move your hands, move them slowly and keep the gestures in the upper shoulder to around ear height range, in order to be easy to see.
When we are live in person, we can rediscover all the benefits of using our full body to emphasise our messages. When I see speakers standing behind a podium, so that they can operate their laptop or read from their notes, I always think what a waste. A waste of energy, which could have been distributed to the audience through our full body. We should move away from the podium and face the audience, so that we can draw on the power of our total body speaking techniques.
This includes using the three distances technique with the audience. When we want to make a macro point, we can move slightly back from the audience, lift our chin up slightly and employ very large gestures. When we want a neutral power position, we can be mid-stage and hold our chin level, while employing normal gestures. If we want to make a micro point, we can move as close as possible to the audience, drop our chin down ever so slightly and use rather smaller gestures.
If it is a big venue, we can cover the left and right sides of the stage too. When we move though, we should try to avoid speaking while moving. Walking is a distraction, so we want to minimise this as much as possible and have the audience completely concentrated on our words alone. We should walk naturally to the very stage apron on the left or right side, so that we are as physically close to that part of the audience as possible. This physical positioning gives a greater sense of speaker and audience connection. This is because we are showing we want to move to be with them, rather than remaining a distant, remote speaker on stage, clearly separated from the attendees.
Being in the room, we can now really use our eye power. Online, we have to train ourselves to look at the camera, but it is a weird experience. The way it works with the technology is such that we cannot see the reactions on the faces below, because we are looking up at the camera lens. Our talk may as well be delivered by phone, because we are not getting any feedback on the content of what we are saying. In a live venue, we can see the faces of the audience and can make contact with their eyes. We should be seeking to hold each person’s gaze, one by one, for six seconds. This is enough time to make a connection, make the talk feel more personal, yet without the eye contact feeling too intrusive.
Keeping the lights up, if we are using slides is key, because we want to see their reactions and we want them to see us too. If any “helpful” individual decides to turn the house lights down while you are speaking, then stop speaking. Pause to build some tension in the room and then release the tension, by asking for the lights to be brought back up again.
We don’t have a chat function live, but you can ask your audience to raise their hands if they agree or disagree with some point you want feedback on. It sounds funny, but when I have taught classes live, I miss that chat function. It gives you instant feedback from a large number of people and you can comment on their contributions and recognise them, as the chat input pops up onscreen. Constantly asking the live audience to raise their hands or to all speak up is going to be a shambles. Of course, we have the live Q&A to deal with enquiries and further clarifications, so all is not lost.
At some point soon we will back live. I found there is a transition from the computer screen to the big stage and it takes a bit of adjustment to get back in the saddle. We need to dust off our basic techniques for speaking and be ready to boost our personal and professional brands. Show time folks!
246: How to be a Star in Business Interviews
Being interviewed by the media can be a high risk affair, depending on the publication, the journalist and the business zeitgeist of the moment. These types of interviews come up relatively rarely in business. More common are panel discussions at business events hosted by Chambers of Commerce and more recently interviews on podcasts. I have been on both sides of the microphone, so let me share some observations which may help you prepare for your interview.
Chamber panels and podcasts are usually not “gotcha” interviews, as we will encounter with some journalists doing media interviews. Generally, we are going to be treated well and it would be rare that the interviewer really went after you. Having said that though, we have to expect the interviewer to want to dig down deeper into something you have said. This can be of two basic varieties.
One is a high level statement you made where the context and detail is obvious to the speaker. This may not be obvious to the audience though, so the interviewer will seek more detail and clarification. In this case, that is not a problem, because we have the depth of mastery of the subject. The other variety is a statement that may be accepted wisdom or it might be something we have said without giving too much thought to it. This is when we will get into trouble, because as soon as the interviewer starts to dig in, it becomes plainly obvious we don’t know all that much about it and out pours fluff instead of substance.
The answer here is to talk about things you have experienced, read about in detail, have researched deeply or where you have listened to experts. This sounds obvious, however we don’t know where we will go with the questions and we can be drawn to stray into areas where our intellectual coverage is pretty thin. There is nothing wrong with honesty. Just say, “I don’t have much to say on that subject because I am not an expert in that area. However something I do feel passionate about is…”. Don’t just end it with telling the audience you don’t know much, because we are starting to damage our personal brand. Avoid leaving the conversation hanging in the air with us having admitted we are babbling on about stuff we don’t know too much about. Immediately segue into an area where we are knowledgeable and talk about that.
Always seek the questions in advance. With media people they will do that, but often they have a couple of silent assassins ready which they will hit you with unexpectedly, to throw you off balance, to gain their “scoop”. Business panels and podcasts are usually not like that. Generally, for panels, they will let you know, in general terms, what is the broad discussion they are looking for. In the case of a panel, it is unpredictable where the conversation will move, but at least there are broad rails bounding the subject matter. Again, it always better to say you don’t know, than trying to snow the organisers or the audience. Instead make a comment about some aspect you do know well and preserve your expert status.
For podcasts, you should expect they will have a set list of questions and you should get those in advance. If the interviewer says something like “I let the muse guide me”, then I wouldn’t recommend joining that podcast, unless you are massively confident about the subject matter. Generally, there will be prior episodes, so you can get a sense of whether you are in the presence of real genius or a total nutter. Often there will be a pre-meeting, to go through the episode theme and for them to get a sense of what sort of a guest you will be. You can also get a sense of who they are too.
Prepare for the questions, but understand you won’t be able to read from notes. The pace will move too fast for that. You can glance at your notes, so it is better to have them arranged for easy reference, if you indeed need to do that. Just having mentally calibrated the questions is usually enough. Remember you are there because you know about the subject, so it will be easy for you to speak about it.
That is often the real problem. We do know a lot about the subject and we talk for too long and say too much. Media interviews are an area where the more concise you are the safer it is. Panel discussion hosts don’t like guests who want to hog the limelight, so they will unceremoniously cut you off, effectively signalling to the audience that you lack self-awareness. Podcast hosts may just edit the hell out of you. There is a balance, but being concise comes across a lot better than rambling. If what you say is a bit too circumspect, the interviewer will draw you out further. If you hear yourself talking too much, then you probably are, so you need to conclude your remarks on that point and stop.
Rehearse your remarks based on the questions. Remember these are public occasions and just as you would rehearse for a public speech, you need to do the same for the interview. This will help you to trim the fluff from your answers and polish them into succinct, clever responses which will shine a positive light on you. This is just as much your personal brand as giving a keynote speech. Your fellow panelists or rivals on other podcasts, won’t take this step. Think of these occasions in this way and you will definitely come across as a star.
One consistent issue which often pops up within companies requesting our training is achieving persuasion power with colleagues, bosses and subordinates. Being unable to convince others to follow your requests, ideas and suggestions is highly frustrating. Often the issue is how the topic is approached. In this “time is money”, no patience, miniscule concentration span, twenty four/seven scramble, people drive you to get to your point. If you are giving a presentation the big boss might bark out “Story, get to the point”. We are taught at business school to start with the punchline and get that into the Executive Summary, right at the front of the document. That is fine except it is ineffectual when presenting in person.
The punchline may be an excellent idea – “let’s increase the marketing budget by $1 million to fund campaigns to coincide with the end of Covid”. The problem though is that the punchline is naked and has no protection attached. As soon as we offer a statement, we suddenly transform our neutral audience into a raving band of doubters, sceptics, naysayers and critics. Fair enough too, because we didn’t land the punchline properly. Comedians don’t start with the punchline. They set it up, they build the mental pictures for us so we can see the scene in our mind’s eye. They plug in plenty of context, add interesting characters, nominate a location and secure the build up in a temporal frame for us.
When the punchline is unveiled it is congruent with the set up, makes a lot of sense and we laugh. Why on earth serious, well educated business people would imagine they can just throw the punchline out there, with no context, background, proof, evidence, data and statistics is a bit of a mystery. But they do just that and then get cut to ribbons by the baying crowd of non-believers.
Our communication skills have to be good enough that briefly, we can build the basis for the punchline. If we do a good job, the members of the audience are all sitting there thinking “we should fund a campaign to coincide with the end of Covid”, before we say anything about it. The lead up has been so well constructed that given the background, the best way forward occurs to everyone as the most obvious thing needed.
We have to keep it brief though. Storytelling is a big part of this, but these are “short stories”, not War and Peace tome like equivalents. If we labour the point or go too long with the background, some grumpy attendees are bound to tell us “get to the point”. So we need to have enough context, supported with tons of evidence, which draws out the needed next step. When we explain what comes next, everyone feels they already thought of that answer by themselves. This is guaranteed to get agreement to the proposal.
The way we get to the structure of the talk is to start with the action we want everyone to agree to. Having isolated out the action we investigate why do we think this? What have we read, heard, seen, experienced something, which tells us this is the best solution. There must be a reason for what we are recommending. All we need to do is capture that information and add in the people they know, a place they can see in their mind, put it all in a time frame and definitely add in data, evidence and proof to back up what we are saying.
We start with the background and then we reveal the punchline but we don’t stop there. Recency is powerful, so we want to control what is the last thing our audience hears. We top it all off with stating the benefit of the action. The action/ benefit component must be very short. There needs to be one clear action, so that everyone can understand what we need to do. Also, while there may be many benefits, we only want to mention the most powerful one. If we keep piling on the benefits we begin to dilute their power with too much detail. Clarity must be the driving ambition here. If we put it into mathematical terms then 90% of the time we speak should be devoted to providing the richest context possible and 5% each for the action and benefit.
If we are doing a good job then by the time we blurt out the punchline the audience will be thinking “that is old hat, I knew that, that is obvious”. If we can engender that reaction then we have done our job well. Brief but powerful, clear and convincing - these should be our objectives.