In last night’s final debate before the Florida primary, Gov. Mitt Romney made an important shift in the way he presents. In previous debates, he spoke rapidly delivering point after point without a pause. This made it difficult to know and recall what is important. But last night in Jacksonville, he paused between key points. It seemed to make him more emotionally connected to his message and the TV audience.
Motivating Audiences to Action
February 16th, 2011| A manager is about to present a monthly status report. While some may view this presentation as “all about the numbers,” it isn’t. It is about telling a convincing story about what the numbers are saying.
But why does the manager have to present? Why not email the status report? Because all communication is about persuasion. And, persuasion is more than simply reciting numbers. We have only to look at the recent Senatorial race for the Massachusetts Senate seat that was vacated by the passing of Ted Kennedy, who held the seat for almost 40 years. Martha Coakley, a Democrat, was a highly respected Attorney General running against an obscure Republican state senator, Scott Brown. In a state with only 12% registered Republicans, and trailing in the polls by 30 points, Brown initially was written off even by leaders of his own party. But Scott Brown won. How did he do it? There are two presentation skills lessons anyone can learn from his success – lessons that will help you whether speaking 1:1, at a meeting, teleconference, or addressing a large group. First, Brown created a clear, concise listener-focused story: “I will create jobs, cut taxes, and end business as usual in Washington.” Coakley’s message, I’ll fight for you...was abstract and didn’t address specific voter needs. Second, at their final televised debate, Brown came across as open and free with his energy. It flowed through him in a natural, not artificial style. He accented his points with genuine emotion. For example, responding to a question about, “Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat,” Brown respectfully, but emphatically declared, “with all due respect … it’s the people’s seat…” Having an organized message seemed to propel Brown effortlessly to refute Martha Coakley, “No Martha, that’s not right … this isn’t a courtroom…” Though far more experienced, Ms. Coakley, unfortunately, spoke in a flat, emotionless tone. Few of her ideas stood out and it was hard to imagine she wanted to be a Senator. At Decker, our executive presentation courses teach that listeners respond to the energy that flows through a presenter. If they feel it from a presenter, they will feel it within themselves. It is contagious, and it motivates them to action. So, you may ask, does this suggest that our manager presenting a status report has to speak with intense emotion? Not necessarily intense, but remember the goal is to persuade the audience our ideas are valid. Our manager needs to present with the energy that motivates listeners to believe the report’s accuracy. This is what persuasion is all about. It’s how Scott Brown, the unlikeliest of winners, won. And, it can help you win too! |
Men or Mission: the Key to Successful Leadership
December 3rd, 2010With a fragile economic recovery underway, enhancing employee motivation and leadership skills are essential to getting more done with less. Leaders want to know is there a key attribute to success.
At Decker we discovered long ago that the key behavior of successful leadership is to gain the trust of employees. Perhaps the most intense example of the need for trust comes from military leaders commanding troops in combat. As with corporate executives, the issue of “job first” (mission) or “employees first” (Soldiers) is constantly debated.
Two combat officers weigh in with their experiences and insights. One led troops in Afghanistan from July ’09 to July ’10. The second lead troops during two combat tours in Vietnam and one in Thailand in the 1960s. US Army First Lieutenant Rajiv Srinivasan was based for one year in Kandahar, Afghanistan. He commanded an infantry platoon through grueling 24-hour patrols, often in 115 degree heat, under constant threat of attack.
Arriving in Afghanistan in July, 2009, I had a vague conscience regarding the age-old military conundrum: mission or men? Our military’s warrior ethos asserts “I will always place the mission first” but also “I will never leave a fallen comrade.” From the security of a West Point classroom, I could rationalize the loss of a soldier at the expense of strategic gain. Moreover, I naively assumed I’d never have to make the call between men and mission. But now, I know first-hand there are many occasions in combat when one’s mission and men are in conflict with each other.
My previously vague conscience has now morphed to a solid conclusion: without a doubt in my mind, men always take priority over mission. No matter what strategic gains are on the line, there is nothing that can replace a human life. But more importantly, there is nothing that can replace a soldier’s trust in his leaders to do everything they can to protect him.
That trust allows soldiers to perform brilliantly in the face of danger; they know they’re in good hands. The moment that trust is compromised in the interests of a military gain, the soldier will protect himself where he feels his leaders will not, and will not perform the mission to the best of his ability. The enemy may escape, he may hold his ground, or may even advance on key terrain. But the soldier who lives to fight another day fights stronger than the day before.
Col. Forrest S. Chilton IV, US Army, served two combat tours in Vietnam and one in Thailand in the 1960s. He retired after 30 years of service. This is his take on leadership.
Lt. Srinivasan’s insight about leadership is outstanding. Many leaders, especially senior officers, are not in agreement and believe only in mission first. I have always felt that if you take care of the troops then the mission will get done — especially in combat yet also true in any organization. Many disagree with me and I often debated the issue over the years. There are those who believe only the mission can come first. In my 30 years I had ten positions as a Commanding Officer, which makes me unusual because many officers only get one or two. I have always followed the path of “troops first.” The “mission first” complexity is clouded by a promotion system that rewards mission success not good unit cohesion or better individual Soldier capabilities or the personal well being of your troops and their families. In the end it is those qualities that save the day on the battlefield.
If Soldiers feel their leaders care more about the mission (and promotion) than them, such a philosophy can create a doubt in their self worth and abilities. Currently at Fort Belvoir I have occasion to work closely with Soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Many felt some, though not all , leaders had a “mission first” attitude and as such they felt their lives were at risk. This is not to say that taking care of Soldiers means being liked. Strong discipline is part of taking care of Soldiers. They need to be well trained and ordered to take care of themselves. Soldiers understand strong leadership if it is for their well being, not the well being of the leader. One can always sense those leaders who care about you. I am glad to see there are those in uniform today who believe that our men (and women) come first. That is the way it should be.
During our corporate leadership training programs, over and over we are gratified to experience leaders reach the conclusion that the best way to motivate employees is ensure they receive the training, direction, and appreciation of being part of a team. As both combat officers write, establishing trust by supporting an employee makes every leader the best she or he can be.