Karen's Blog



The Revolution Will Not Be Delivered On PowerPoint: some reflections on feminism, presence and communication

Author: Karen
Comments: 0

Is there a correct way to use feminism to improve women’s lives? There seems to be no shortage of theories, role models, mentoring schemes or coaching programmes, all jostling for prominence. Some even claim to offer the definitive analysis of what’s wrong and to promise a total cure.

I have twenty years’ experience as a training consultant in communication, influencing and public speaking for clients of many hues and flavours. I pass on insights, skills and practices to enable them to persuade others, and to have choices about the impact they make. Much of what I teach has its origins in the other side of my double life – theatre-making. The approaches are to do with performance and creativity. Although the techniques themselves are genderless, the people deploying them are gendered, of course, as are their audiences. Their relationships are conducted within particular cultures with particular ways of doing things that often appear – to their natives, at least – immutable.

As a feminist myself, my values inform my own practice as a coach and tutor. There are many occasions, whether with single sex or mixed groups, that I have to admit that I have sneaked in a little bit of feminism under the radar when the stated purpose of the workshop was simply to equip people to be better public speakers. At other times, it’s been easy to be explicit about my agenda.

Coaching to develop voice and presence may be a pragmatic, individualistic response to the challenges thrown up by gender and culture. It has recently come in for some stick from a few Ivy League academics; Hermina Ibarra, Robin J. Ely, and Deborah M. Kolb take a dim view of me and my ilk in Women Rising: The Unseen Barriers in the Harvard Business Review, 1 September 2013.

Their piece investigates why women are still held back in their careers despite the good intentions of companies. They recount how many women are caught in a double-bind, damned if they do conform to stereotypes and damned if they don’t. The authors try to maintain a distinction between how women are perceived and their actual identities as people, speaking carefully about “conventionally feminine style”. Despite all this tightrope-walking, they don’t altogether manage to avoid generalisations themselves.

They critique the work of communication coaches by claiming that attempts to give women support in career advancement is based on “the premise is that women have not been socialized to compete successfully in the world of men, so they must be taught the skills and styles their male counterparts acquire as a matter of course.”

I don’t teach women to behave as men. Moreover, I disagree that the non-verbal expression of informal power (or ‘status’) – if this is what they mean by the vague phrase “skills and styles” – is an intrinsically male attribute. I also take a nuanced view on how status should be deployed when influencing others; dominance is not always best policy – for anyone.

My contention is that everyone benefits when there’s equality of contribution from the most diverse range of voices. My role is to empower my clients, whoever they are. When individuals are relaxed, they have choices about how to communicate. Rather than finding themselves driven by fight or flight mechanisms into behaving according to what they might consider culturally acceptable modes, they can pick what works in the moment. If anything, as communication coaches we are de-socialising people.

Ibarra, Ely and Kolb follow up this misconception with another claim for which they provide no evidence:

“Overinvestment in one’s image diminishes the emotional and motivational resources available for larger purposes. People who focus on how others perceive them are less clear about their goals, less open to learning from failure, and less capable of self-regulation.”

How does one quantify “overinvestment”? It seems that, for the authors, any focus on perception is suspect. Yet, perceptions do count. My clients and I manage to work together on clarifying purpose and crafting the message itself as well as influencing the audience’s perceptions of the speaker, not just through language but also non-verbal signals.

I’d like to relate some case studies from my professional life as a coach and trainer when I’ve worked explicitly with women in their aims to empower themselves. I’ll demonstrate that the coaching/training approach can accommodate discussion, practice, personal reflection and the test of the real world.


The corporate HR vice-president

“I remember when I started out in the late 1970s what things used to be like in the workplace for women. There was a senior guy who used to regularly toss a 50p coin across my desk and leer at me. ‘Go and get my fags, Blondie!’ he’d say. This was in spite of my having a post-graduate qualification in employment law.”

“Blondie” is now the HR Vice President of the EMEA division of a major multinational corporate. She is an energetic woman, with a warm sense of humour and a stylish taste for sharply-tailored, jewel-coloured dresses. Attitudes have shifted since the seventies, and cigarettes are a lot more expensive. Blondie is not the VP’s real name, of course.

The VP had identified that her mainly female team of HR managers were struggling with influencing upwards, and she wanted them to be equipped with non-verbal communication techniques to manage better. I’ve collaborated with her on several occasions, creating and delivering workshops for her team and coaching her directly in how to train others.

According to the VP, these workshops have had a positive impact, not least because they now have a common language to discuss body language and power. She reinforces the broad portfolio of soft skills training programmes by mentoring women in her team herself. One, she describes as “competent, but on the dull side!” She seems determined to light her mentee’s spark, and fan the flames of her ambitions.

Her approach is constructive rather than merely critical. For instance, she believes men have vulnerabilities as well as women, but that it needs to be acknowledged that the different genders handle their vulnerabilities differently.

“But it’s not all sorted,” she says. “And it’s still more difficult for a woman to make her voice heard than it is for her male colleagues. I’m the only woman in a senior team of alpha males. Most of them don’t have any sense of caution or self-restraint, and they’re not great at listening. I have had to say – on several occasions – will you just let me finish this sentence?” she sighs.

She believes that women in power can benefit everyone, not just the female workforce. She reminds me what happened when she influenced the (male) Sales Director to join in our workshops on body language and power. The games, she reckons, unlocked everyone’s imagination and playfulness – which led to us roping in bemused but willing hotel staff in the role-play. This did much to open people’s minds to possibilities and develop their confidence. The Sales Director too became a passionate advocate. He rolled the training out across the division, leading to improved performance across the board. This action contributed directly to his promotion in the organisation. Listening to and valuing women’s contribution, the VP believes, is self-evidently good for business.

The VP emphasises that although overt sexism is no longer normal, there is still much work to be done to make the office a place where women and men work together on genuinely equal terms.

This seems to be a commonplace in the non-profit sector as much as in the corporate, according to many senior women with whom I’ve collaborated. I’m struck by the number of female CEOs of charities who profess to struggle with managing their relationships with male trustees. Several have disclosed to me how much energy they have to expend in containing male egos, when they would have preferred to focus unhindered on leading their organisations.

“But yes, things have definitely improved,” the VP adds, with a smile. “Taking the chance, getting noticed, was harder work back then. Now it’s more normal that everyone is considered for promotion, male or female.”


A member of a Women’s Empowerment group at SOAS

Naturally, younger women are doing it for themselves as well. Millennials have reinvigorated feminism by using social media campaigns to call out wrongs, such Everyday Sexism. More broadly, they are looking at conditions for women and approaches to change with a fresh eye. Inclusivity is a watchword. I’m intrigued as to how far this extends to supporting each other offline in what is still, for me, the ‘real’ world.

In Spring 2017, a few female MA students from the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at SOAS, University of London, took the initiative to set up a women’s empowerment group in response to what they felt was a male-dominated programme. They secured the support of the SOAS establishment along with a small budget to fund their project, which encompassed talks and panel discussions with high-level women (including the Director of SOAS, Baroness Valerie Amos); practical training workshops; and a Facebook group for sharing experiences and opinions.

I was involved in creating and delivering a workshop on women’s impact and presence. Along with the practical exercises and games, we discussed why “assertiveness” is so often touted as an ideal. Why should one always have to make sure one is coming across as nice while exercising power? And by the same token, why assume that it is always effective to project high status? From the feedback, it was evident that the women especially valued the physical nature of the workshop, and the chance to play.

Afterwards, I met with Carla Moll Pinto to talk further. Carla had been a lively participant in my workshop. She remarked that the role-play helped her discover that changing her body-language depending on the scenario was within her scope, and that it inspired her to see that she could “be anyone, with practice”. However, I was also interested in her wider experience of the Women’s Empowerment Group and its impact on her.

Carla is a part-time Masters student who is studying while continuing to work in a full-time job in advertising and marketing. Her professional goals are to work in corporate social responsibility and “to change things from the inside”. She didn’t initiate the group and doesn’t completely share the perception of some of her peers that the MA programme or the sector is male-dominated. She acknowledges that some women felt uninspired by the lack of diversity. Although there were brilliant female lecturers teaching on the MA programme, negotiation workshops were conducted exclusively by retired British diplomats, AKA “old white men”. She rejects the idea that this is problematic and puts it down to mere historical circumstance. “We can change the future,” she says, “And maybe in 15 years, we millennials will be the role models to future leaders.”

So what does feminism mean for Carla?

“I’m still in the process of understanding what I think,” she concedes.

One particular panel discussion, however, helped her move closer to crystallising her own views. The first two speakers extolled the benefits of working hard and being better than the boys. As chance would have it, both these speakers subsequently left the room after their contributions due to pressing engagements. Upon their departure, the third speaker tossed aside her notes aside in a dramatic gesture.

“Well,” said the lecturer, of her co-panellists, “What the hell was that? That was bullshit!”

A frisson of shock rippled through the room. The speaker was Noga Glucksam, an International Security lecturer at SOAS, and evidently a charismatic communicator. (“She was like an actress, actually,” Carla adds.) Immediately, Carla felt a sense of identification with this rebellious stance. What really resonated with Carla was the speaker’s opinion that we are all shaped by own individual past experiences, gender is merely one element in the mix, and that there is no specific way that women should behave.

Carla is a proactive, extrovert young woman with a dynamic attitude, yet she doesn’t consistently feel confident in every situation.

“I know things, but I don’t always know how to convey them, and I get nervous. I’m a good talker, but when it comes to technical things, sometimes I struggle. And it happens at home too, with my dad and my brothers. They always talk about politics and economics, and I feel I always lag behind. I’d rather be quiet than say something I’m not sure about.”

She attributes her challenges as much to other factors – having a disability, or speaking in English rather her native Spanish language – rather than exclusively to being a woman.

Since taking part in the Women’s Empowerment group, Carla has seen changes in close friends but also within the wider group. She recounts how in the Facebook group, that people “are more motivated to share things. Sometimes you see things and you don’t share them… because people label you. Always on Facebook, you need to be very careful about what you upload on your wall, because then it’s there, and then people can create an idea of you, or they label you – ah, this is a left-wing feminist, or a right-wing conservative. It’s really, really easy to judge somebody on Facebook and decide which side you are on. On the Empowerment Group page, people will share more there. Sometimes you will like what is uploaded, sometimes you won’t. But there is a space to share and I think that’s the main change that I’ve seen. In terms of life and relationships, I haven’t seen anything yet, but then it’s difficult, because we had exams and then everyone disappeared! It will be interesting to see what will happen this coming academic year.“

I’m struck by Carla’s caution about generalisations, and her sometimes conflicted feelings about taking a definitive position on the issues. She explains that she likes to base her opinions on evidence. The Group has given Carla an opportunity to research and become more informed. She says she has now moderated her individualistic, pragmatic stance, and now believes that there are some common issues that do need a collaborative approach for change.

I asked Carla what she thought should change for women specifically in the workplace. Her response this time was unequivocal: “Equal Pay, and in our sector, International Relations, there needs to be the involvement of more women.”

Young Girls in Newham

In 2014, I contributed to a project called the Emerging Scholars Intervention Programme (ESIP). Based in Newham, East London, this project identified girls who were promising, although not yet fulfilling their potential. The programme was provided for students in Years 8 through to 10 from three schools in the borough. It was delivered over ten sessions per year, and involved many different professionals from different fields of expertise. The programme’s aims were to:

  1. Develop resilience through challenge and support;
  2. Inspire new interest in subjects and topics through original perspectives and depth, increasing ability and achievement;
  3. Stimulate skills development for life, work and learning;
  4. Support development and expression of aspiration and a lifelong passion;
  5. Create a movement of change to inspire schools, parents and communities.

My first participation was as a delegate at the ESIP conference ‘Business Meets Emerging Scholars’, which was an opportunity for the students to meet professionals and business people. There were presentations from some of the girls and plenty of conversation. Taking part in our particular round table discussion, and particularly impressive, were an employment judge, Julia Jones; and Andréa Watts, a former art therapist and the founder of a company called UnglueYou, which helps people visualise their goals by using collage. Both women are black. Overall, the invited male and female professionals were a diverse group in terms of heritage, values and work life. So, the students had both the benefit of hearing different perspectives, and the opportunity to find points of identification with several different adults.

I contributed further to ESIP later in the year by providing a workshop for year 10 students called ‘Me and My Voice’. We explored how we send signals about who we are to others by playing improvisation and storytelling games, taking on different ‘status’ roles, voices and physicalities. Although this work involves exercises I normally use with adults, it was interesting for me to refashion them for a new age group and context. The girls grasped the objectives quickly, and responded to each other in a lively, creative way. This is not to say that they all necessarily found it easy, yet everyone took on the challenges with courage.

I had some of the most rewarding feedback of my career, and was impressed by the degree to which the students went away and thought deeply about how they could apply their discoveries to their lives. A comment from one girl was: “Fundamentally, I have learnt that I can make a choice and not let people dictate what my path is in life. Furthermore, that status is something we choose to present and we should make use of the choice.” Another student said: “I would love more sessions like this. The more uncomfortable the sessions make us feel, the more fears we conquer and the more confident we become.”

I met the girls again at the end of their programme when I was part of a panel evaluating their final presentations in which they each shared their own Big Audacious Goal. These were varied including: becoming a Member of Parliament; qualifying and embarking on a career as a pharmacist; and setting up an educational charity for young people in the developing world.

There were many more events, outings and mentoring sessions than I was involved in myself. All together, this was a resource-rich support for girls who would not have necessarily have allowed themselves the ambitions they grew into over the course of the programme.

This extraordinary project was the brain-child – surprisingly – of a man, Dr Simon Davey. If not exactly one of us, he is certainly a fellow traveller.


How to do feminism

While Women Rising: The Unseen Barriers provoked me with its misconceptions about my own field of expertise, there were also other wider points the authors raise with which I want to engage. Reflecting on a few contrasting examples from my collaborations with clients raises one big question for me: how can I pull together these diverse experiences and opinions to provide me – and perhaps others – with some guidelines on how to contribute towards redressing gender equality in the workplace in a way that feels both manageable and ambitious?


Purpose versus Perception

Identifying one’s purpose is vital for leading others in any endeavour and living meaningfully oneself. There is indeed a distinction to be made between purpose and perception. However, I’d like to explain in more detail why I think Ibarra et al set up a false conflict between “image” and “larger purpose”.

In my other life as an artist, I’m able to accomplish both the writing of a theatre piece and its subsequent performance in front of an audience. For me, these are complementary, not contradictory, activities. Once an idea is fully developed, it’s natural to want to put it out into the world and persuade others of its value. Establishing the credibility of the speaker is part of this task. In fact, if our early attempts at persuasion are not as successful as we would like, we need to go back to the drawing board to consider our larger purpose before we try again. This iterative process clarifies the message as well as its transmission. Sometimes we need to change the words, sometimes the delivery, and occasionally we need to rethink altogether. We call this rehearsal in the theatre. It is all about learning from failure and developing the necessary discipline to handle the stress of the difficult circumstances in which we must sometimes operate.

Telling women not to bother with how they are perceived is unhelpful. Anyone who wants to be persuasive should bother about how they are perceived. This means the opposite to enslaving oneself to others’ assumptions. Rather, it is about using one’s judgement about how as well as what to communicate.

None of the women I’ve trained report feeling constrained by rules or ‘masculinised’. Instead, they describe how they feel liberated to play a range of status behaviours, or how great it feels to use their voices with energy and freedom, or how empowered it is to be able to choose the impact they make on others.

Naturally, to begin with, all these techniques can do is give individual women leverage in an uneven playing field. However, the more women make conscious choices about their communication, the more others will respond to these women on their own terms rather than according to previous norms.


Respecting others’ experiences and viewpoints

We still have to contend with the long-held cultural assumption that masculinity and leadership are linked. It’s just as dangerous to generalise about femininity and female leadership styles, and to conclude that these are necessarily more benign. The women I’ve worked with have been extremely diverse – street-wise and naïve; self-effacing and show-offy; collaborative and individualistic; thick-skinned and sensitive to criticism; good listeners and bad. They have not all been held back by limiting assumptions about women and leadership, although undoubtedly some have been.

In the 1970s, “Blondie” had to be very determined to overcome the demeaning way she was treated early in her career. Knowing her story, I admire how she has nevertheless become a top leader, challenging expectations of what it takes – that is to say, having the balls.

I don’t always share the same beliefs as my women clients. Sometimes I find their interpretations of their experiences at odds with how I would see things in their place. Women are not all the same with regard to what they attribute their challenges, or where they look for solutions. Different generations have different views about feminism.

For instance, in the same breath, MA student Carla Moll Pinto describes feeling less comfortable expressing her opinion than her brothers and denies that gender inequality is necessarily the main barrier to her confidence.

Ibarra, Ely and Kolb would ascribe Carla’s feelings to second-generation gender bias. They claim: “Most women are unaware of having personally been victims of gender discrimination and deny it even when it is objectively true and they see that women in general experience it”. I find this a troubling filter through which to look at women’s lives. How is it useful for women’s self-empowerment to insist on casting them as victims?

I do challenge clients on their views, but I would rather respect their version of their experiences than impose my own. It makes more sense to me to nudge women to experiment with different approaches to communication. They can evaluate for themselves afterwards if their perspective has changed along with the outcome of the interaction. Ultimately, we must accept Carla is the expert on her own complex reality.


Space to explore freely

A logistical/philosophical dilemma forced me to examine my own prejudices when I became involved with the Women’s Empowerment Group at SOAS. I was amazed to learn that the women planned to invite men to the workshops on Women’s Impact and Presence. I decided to engage with the Group on this matter with an open mind. There is much to be said for their commitment to inclusivity, even when this may look to older feminists like giving up hard won territory where we can be ourselves, without adjustments. I got as far as plotting how I could deploy the men in certain games to explore gender and power to challenge traditional roles. After discussing it, in the end, we agreed that it would be better to make this workshop women-only.

And yet, I have to admit to inconsistency on this point.

Those of us contributing to the ESIP programme at the Newham schools often remarked amongst ourselves that we should have been educating the boys alongside the girls, and teaching them to be feminists too. I wonder if, in a limited way, we could have helped forestall gender inequality before we needed a cure. Dr Simon Davey, however, counters: “I strongly believe girls take more risks when boys aren’t around. And boys are inherently less mature at the same age of adolescence.”

Age and timing may be factors in whether it’s productive to invite men into the process. And while men’s buy-in will ultimately be vital for real social change, involving them at every stage could compromise our journey.


Inner conflict, collective responsibility, individual action

How much should we work at changing the environment for all, and how much should we focus individually on surviving within the present one? Perhaps we don’t have to choose.

In my research for this piece, my client collaborators have been keen to recount anecdotes. In the telling, they have used our conversations to explore what meanings they could draw as they re-visited and re-appraised their lives.

It has struck me how much sharing stories has mattered to Carla and her cohort at SOAS, and how validating it has been for them individually and as group. “I can tell my experiences,” she says, “but I cannot tell you how to handle yours. You need to find your own way.”

What I’ve learned is that prescriptive approaches are not the way. Storytelling, experimenting with different styles, allowing space for inconsistency and uncertainty are the most honest and inclusive attempts we can make as feminists to make the world better for ourselves and others.

We shouldn’t only focus on purpose and perception, but also on possibility. If we’re searching beyond our present circumstances to alternate visions of reality, we should look to the arts. Read Margaret Attwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale or Naomi Alderman’s The Power to imagine yourself as a woman in another world – either horribly oppressed, or terrifyingly physically empowered. Watch Mad Men if you want to remember what office life was like before feminism. Listen to Beyoncé’s Lemonade to hear a feminism that can be wildly popular. Look at the photographic art of Nan Goldin for images of different ways of being a woman, or of Annie Leibovitz for the glitziest icons of female success. Then write your own story, sing your own song, or paint your own picture of the future.

This is why I import many exercises from the theatre and improvisation into my work as a coach. When I encourage playfulness in my workshops, the participants delight me with their originality. Given the tools and the permission to experiment, people are reinvigorated in their purpose. They discover a deeper emotional connection to their vision, and are inspired to be more inventive in how they structure their ideas, and therefore how they go on to communicate them. I see men and women collaborating on much more equal terms, as the novelty of the exercises disrupts established dynamics. Creativity is a greater leveller and a necessary ingredient if you are looking to change the status quo. The revolution will not be delivered on PowerPoint.

But enough gazing into the future. To borrow a trope from ESIP, my own Big Audacious Goal in this essay has been to boil down my insights to something simple I can act on right now, at least until a better idea comes along.

So, I have come up with this short checklist for my way of doing feminism:

  • Collaborate, don’t impose.
  • Explore, don’t prescribe.
  • Imagine big, but be pragmatic along the way.



Read more



Leadership – a collaborative approach to communication

Author: Karen
Comments: 0

Popular images of leadership don’t do much to promote the benefits of collaboration. We often think of a solitary figure: an individual striding resolutely down a wide road, arms swinging, perhaps with an obedient crowd trailing behind; or someone atop a hill, one hand positioned as an eyeshade against the blinding light of the promised tomorrow. Whatever, up a hill or down a road, the leader is always essentially alone and aloof.

I wonder if these are misleading and even unhelpful representations of leadership? A leader who is cut off from the team is disconnected from broader perspectives and opportunities. A leader who speaks at people, not with them, is in trouble. This leader is ill-equipped to convince others to buy into any vision for the future and liable to topple into an abyss after tripping up over unintended consequences. Ouch.

Post-match analysis of crashed political campaigns and brands tarnished by tone-deaf pronouncements from CEOs usually points to the absence of proper communication with stakeholders, where people can talk back to power.

My preferred image is of a leader facing the crowd – engaging and responding – and also creating the conditions for a continuing conversation. There might be the murmur of good-humoured laughter, perhaps a gasp of surprise, some interjections or even heckles, and ultimately, of course, the sound of applause. Above all, there’s a feeling of togetherness and warmth even when the message may be serious. So how does one go about achieving this cosy ideal?

There may be various paths. Certainly a good hard look at current practices might be a good idea. There is so much we accept by default that is in fact counterproductive – boardroom seating arrangements, PowerPoint slides loaded up with text, scrupulous avoidance of emotion along with a firm commitment to such tight controls over messaging that speakers are robbed of a sense of ownership. Disengagement and boredom are institutionalised.

Some experimentation might be in order.

I have a regular commitment delivering a one-day workshop called Voice Vision and Vitality on the Oxford Advanced Management and Leadership Programme at Saïd Business School. Under the aegis of Voicecraft, I and four other colleagues work with small groups exploring how they can communicate as leaders with more depth and creativity.

The programme participants form an extraordinarily diverse group. They are a global mix of Senior Executives, each embodying different organisational cultures and different national values. They celebrate their differences at a Cultural Diversity Dinner, which is always held on the eve of our workshop. Each participant brings a personal cultural icon to talk about as an entry point into their national identity. At the most recent dinner, a chopstick-wielding Chinese participant rubbed shoulders with a gun-toting American. (He didn’t bring a real gun). There are always some are interesting hybrids too – such as the Englishman who had spent nearly all his adult working life in South and Central America. There are never enough women in the group, although they always offer powerfully different perspectives from their male colleagues. All these characters are thrown together to learn from each other as well as from the esteemed Faculty and other sundry professionals, such as us Voicecraft tutors.

Collaboration isn’t the explicit objective of our workshop. It does, however, underlie all our beliefs and values about what true communication is and how to do it well. Crafting the experience for the audience is a collective effort in the theatre, where the director is not the sole voice of inspiration.

Voicecraft is an umbrella organisation of independent communication training consultants. We all have theatre credentials, and some of us still work as innovators within the arts, as I do. However, just as we are more than actors, the Voicecraft team is more than the sum of its parts. Inspired and nurtured by Arts and Business pioneer, Yvonne Gilan, the team has grown exponentially in experience and expertise since it was initiated in 1997. Creative collaboration is at the heart of our own practice. We continue to mentor each other so that we can continue to coach all our clients to the best of our collective talents. So, you could say that we practice what we preach.

Even though we have delivered this particular workshop format many times, it’s always a unique experience because the range of personalities and talents that we work with always changes. We have a set schedule of exercises and games that incrementally build risk and confidence of the individuals. Along the way, we feed them tools, techniques and approaches from the theatre. We provide simple parameters for testing out how they will meet some fundamental challenges that leaders experience facing an audience. Through playing and telling stories, they discover how to harness their own vulnerability. In the process, they may discover what charisma looks like on different people. Sometimes extraordinary things happen.

Inevitably, this process stirs the participants into reflection and imagining how they will bring their new insights and skills back to work. In the latest workshop, the following issues came up for deliberation amongst us:

Why do people resist rehearsing?

During the preparation stage, I noticed that participants were happy to discuss ideas in small groups or pairs. They would have been happy just talking for their entire allotted time if I didn’t prod them into getting up and testing out how they were going communicate their vision. This is something that I have seen before with other groups. Over the years I’ve heard a range of opinions against rehearsal: it makes your ultimate performance stale; there isn’t time; it’s just not very important or necessary; there are other just as effective ways of preparing for presentations, such as thinking it through in your mind.

As a theatre practitioner, I’m deeply immersed in the rehearsal process for developing ideas and polishing them until they’re good enough to put in front of an audience without embarrassment. This time, rather than simply calling out the behaviour, I was interested in delving a little deeper into the psychology behind this.

Everybody in the group acknowledged the importance of rehearsal before a major presentation or speech, but nobody really wanted to do it.

One participant explained to me that it’s not that preparation isn’t taken seriously. It just that instead of a culture of practising, the attention is all on the slide deck. He described to me how the slides were assembled by committee and then, over a period of weeks, batted up and down the hierarchy, with slight edits inserted here and there, and then deleted again, until the final deck closely resembled the original version. There was no energy left for rehearsal although still plenty of anxiety. It seemed to me that nerves had been displaced onto Powerpoint, instead of usefully channelled. And because no time or energy is ever allocated for rehearsal, it remains outside everyone’s comfort zone.

Is there a particular value to creative collaboration?

However, when I did manage to coax this group into practising, they took to it with gusto. My success at converting people seemed to be at least partly due to their discovery – once they’d started – that dynamic, collaborative preparation can be a hugely pleasurable activity.

The other persuasive factor was the evidence that it works. The ultimate result was that their performances were of a high standard. That was my judgment as a professional theatremaker, and the group members enthusiastically concurred.

I had divided the group into pairs for this exercise and laid down simple parameters: take turns to present your pieces to each other and ask for feedback and direction. Beyond this, the process of each small unit was unique. People spoke from both the perspectives of director and performer. As performers, they credited their achievement in most part to how their rehearsal partners worked with them. As directors, their pride in and respect for their performers was evident. There were many different experiences, but everyone felt enriched and believed the outcome was better than it would have been without working together.

Developing your own creative, iterative process with others, who have a stake in the vision and in you as a leader, allows you to hone both the vision and its communication. Collaboration makes the message and its impact better.

These were the key findings when we de-briefed afterwards. However, the real test will be how they use the learning when leading their organisations. Will they have the courage to apply the tools and insights?

Taking the lessons back

Some of this work may seem dauntingly radical, particularly for some organisational cultures. It may go against deep-seated attitudes and long-established practices. It will also require judgement about how you can harness your vulnerability as you embark on this adventure, rather than becoming a hostage to it. So I will suggest a few practical tips:

  • Don’t locate the presentation in the Powerpoint. Keep away from slides until a late stage in the process. Plan it out on paper instead. Powerpoint, Keynote and Prezi are just visual aids, so treat them that way. You are the true focus of the presentation not the screen.
  • Ideally, get a small team together in a room, and work it out between you. Be creative about it. Don’t forget that if you don’t engage your audience’s emotions you certainly have no chance of changing their minds.
  • If you are planning to communicate a transformative message, test it out with others beyond the charmed circle before making a final commitment. Send out scouts to get feedback on tone as well as content.
  • Don’t be frightened of practising it aloud, to others. You need to be open to changing both the substance and the style.
  • It is very possible that as you practice out loud, you will come up against flaws in the substance of your message. Deal with these immediately as they will not go away. Be glad that you have uncovered them as otherwise they will come back to bite you.
  • Time-manage the process. You shouldn’t be editing your way up to the podium. After a certain point, fix the structure and words and concentrate on practicing the performance so you can allow yourself to be natural and in the moment when you’re in front of the audience.
Read more



1. Do you have to be creative to be innovative?

Author: Karen
Comments: 0

Creativity and innovation have become buzzwords for success in business, but what do these words actually mean? Are arts organisations and corporates talking about the same concepts when they use this language?

Barbara Vollath and Karen Glossop met in London in 2013, when Barbara came to the UK for a one-year secondment.

Barbara now lives in Munich, although she has travelled across many other countries, fuelled by her love of different languages and cultures. Barbara has worked for a leading German reinsurance company for 15 years. She heads a team of nine people, mainly dealing with Asian and African markets.

Karen has lived in London since she was nine years old, although she was born in Toronto, Canada. She read Classics at Cambridge University and afterwards trained as an actor. She now combines a career making theatre as part of the award-winning creative partnership Wishbone, and working as a consultant in communication and leadership at UK business schools and with private clients.

We were mutually intrigued by the differences and similarities between our values, lifestyles and work. We began a series of conversations discussing ideas, arts and current affairs, which we are transcribing and sharing over a series of blogs.

This first dialogue took place in a café at Tate Modern in June 2015. The Tate Gallery manages to combine an identity as a high art mecca and a commercial blockbuster. 


KAREN                A few years ago, I learned a great technique for deciding what ideas for a script are worth developing from the writer and film-maker Paul Schrader (Taxi Driver, American Gigolo, Light Sleeper). We drove all the way up to Nottingham for the masterclass, and I don’t regret it. Schrader advised us to take a friend out for a beer or coffee, and pitch them whatever half-baked idea we had for a story. He admitted that you would have to improvise anything you hadn’t quite sorted out in order to keep it coherent and flowing for the listener. The only rule was that you had to stop two thirds of the way through the story and make some excuse to get up – to go to the loo or to buy another drink at the bar, whatever. When you joined your friend again, you had to change the subject and talk about football or anything but the story you were pitching. Schrader said that if your friend didn’t impatiently sweep away the new topic and demand to know what happened next in the story, this was a sure-fire sign that you should abandon working on that script straightaway. It wasn’t good enough. You had failed and you should be glad that you’d found this out before you invested another six months, only to find out then that you had wasted your time. I was thinking about the parallels between Schrader’s approach and your experience with the innovation lab.


BARBARA            That’s right. Where I work, in the insurance industry, the environment is changing drastically. Digitalisation is taking over, globalisation means money is becoming very fluid, and the low interest rate environment brings many more players into the game. We have to actively steer innovations in order to keep our leading market position. One approach we’re taking is to set up an innovation lab. This is a room that is outside the daily business and the daily routine. It is a space where together with our clients we prototype ideas that respond to their needs. Exactly like your example about Paul Schrader, we test them with the client immediately. That way it is much easier to kill your darlings. We’ve chosen to use real materials such as, for example, lego, to build our prototypes. This helps visualize the financial process or product. We feel it is much easier to talk about something physical than about someone’s ideas. And it helps you develop a certain distance with your own ego, as everybody knows that it is early stages and the maker has not yet got committed about it.


KAREN                … So the stakes are quite low, if you share something at an early stage… And definitely with Wishbone’s work-in-progress showings, we had very mixed responses, not unanimous at all. But then you have to learn how to use the feedback…


BARBARA            Indeed, I think designing a product is an iterative process. And again, the main hurdle is to overcome your own preferences, if you discover that they undermine your client’s needs. However, I have to admit, that I still struggle with the fact that you are showing prototype theatre pieces to your audience. That contradicts in a way my understanding of arts and artists.


KAREN                Well, it’s true that not all artists are as collaborative as the corporate design process that you describe. Collaboration, I think, is a great way to involve audiences in the artwork.


BARBARA            Interesting. I feel that artists want to express rather than design.


KAREN                Oh right, in other words, they’re more self-indulgent! LAUGHS


BARBARA            LAUGHS Well, I didn’t want to accuse you of that! We all have the same impulses. Perhaps that’s just human and universal.


KAREN                But why can’t self-expression and collaboration be compatible? Why you would think that an artist would say: no, I’m holding on to this idea and you can only have it when it’s ready? And it needs to have my imprint on it, and I can’t let you dilute it. I have to make it brilliant, and when it’s brilliant, you’ll like it. I’m not convinced this attitude is typical.


BARBARA            I think it is because artists’ intrinsic motivation is to express themselves, their ideas and interpretations of a subject or their technical or aesthetic skills. Whereas in a company, you know that you serve the stakeholders’ requirements. You need to increase topline and profitability and that is by creating something that the client is prepared to pay for. So you design something specifically for your client regardless – to a certain extent regardless – on how you feel about it. Or that’s the theory. Eventually it will also not be your idea, but a concept that is based on the input and approval of many others.


KAREN                So corporate in the very basic sense. Corporate ownership of the idea whereas…


BARBARA            Yes, whereas as an artist you want to set up your own brand, your own idea, or your own techniques.


KAREN                Hmmm…. It may be my own work, but it still matters to me that it connects with others. Ok: I believe to be any kind of an artist is to suffer from an addiction. I’ve always been compelled to make up stories and perform for an audience for as long as I can remember. I’d do it whether I was paid or not, because it doesn’t feel like I have a choice. Often we can’t make money from our shows – we barely cover our costs – even though we’ve had critical acclaim and great audience feedback. This isn’t unusual, but that’s not a very sustainable lifestyle, is it? That’s why artists are so interested in how business delivers profit in return for products or services. In a capitalist society, artists have to set up their own brand to differentiate themselves within a crowded market. To make a living. But it’s something I think a lot of artists, um… struggle against. Artists often get uncomfortable about the idea of themselves as brands. They have to borrow the language of corporate business although they’ve probably made a deliberate decision not to be part of the corporate world. Even though there are many people who choose to do commercial creative work… possibly creating apps. Some coexist in both worlds, creating apps for games by day, writing novels by night. For instance, I coach and train business people in creative communication techniques as my day job. Not everyone is a purist.


BARBARA            So you don’t agree that as an artist you want to use your skills simply to make your ideas explicit? And then show them to other people and wait for their reactions?


KAREN                Not totally.


BARBARA            But yes… er, ok, but you’re saying…


KAREN                It’s complicated.


BARBARA            Can I sense a certain reluctance to use the word ‘brand’?


KAREN                Well, we do have to use the word ‘brand’. We do have to consider how we come across to people who haven’t necessarily experienced our shows. We’d be stupid not to engage in that. But artists often behave as if it makes them a little bit dirty to have to do that. And it’s really hard not to… I don’t know… feel ambivalent. I’m pragmatic, but I’d rather just get on and create the actual work, and not have to worry about marketing. But marketing is such a huge aspect of whether anyone’s going to see what you do.


BARBARA            It seems that setting up a brand, which is a very commercially driven idea, is a nuisance for you. Is the capitalist framework a bad environment for art?


KAREN                Yes, you’re quite right, there are tensions. However what’s the ideal anyway? If I were living in a communist society, for instance… Historically, it’s not been that easy to produce good art in that kind of environment either, LAUGHS, and the ones who do are…


BARBARA            Dissident?


KAREN                … yeah… are… dissidents, who often suffer. I think there’s a little bit of vanity in artists in that they believe they are, in whatever kind of society they find themselves in, somehow dissident.


BARBARA            Hmmm… And would you say, as you explain it, that every artist in a way is political?


KAREN                PAUSE Well, that’s a very difficult question. PAUSE I think I’d have a lot of nerve if I tried to speak on behalf of every artist.


BARBARA            Ok. But your perception.


KAREN                I think… um, deciding to make art in a society that doesn’t particularly value it for its own sake is a political thing to do. I think society generally values art for it can be sold for. PAUSE But I don’t think human beings are like that. If something’s really good, human beings do connect with it. But I’d understand if you were sceptical, because if you look round this café and the exhibitions here, most of the visitors are middle-class people who have been trained to enjoy and understand what’s going on here. It could look like art appreciation is limited to consumers who spend enough money in the gift shop to make it profitable. It’s political to aim beyond that group, otherwise art has exactly the same goal as business: profit. There are obstacles to making art genuinely accessible to everybody though. That’s why it’s so important to have school-groups coming to places like this.


BARBARA            Yeah, I can see your point.


KAREN                Ok… there are challenges for anyone in assessing what the value is of art. This POINTS AT PHONE has an obvious, literal function. You know, if we can’t make phone calls on it, or receive email or send texts, or use apps on it, it’s no good. Whereas I could create a piece of art and we could really argue about whether it’ s any good or not. There isn’t any kind of objective test.


BARBARA            And wouldn’t you say that the difference between an artwork and an app isn’t so much commercial, but that the app is more intended to… to solve a problem that a user has?


KAREN                Yeah…


BARBARA            … whereas the artwork is an expression of myself?


KAREN                Well, I would say…


BARBARA            … Or that’s my idea of art…


KAREN                …art is there to solve a problem that the creator has. LAUGHS


BARBARA            Yeah…


KAREN                That’s why I make it, anyway. It’s to solve my problems. That’s why I’m compelled to do it. I’m hoping to find some kind of universal connection through the process, but my own problem is my starting point. Whereas maybe for someone who’s making an app, somebody else’s problem is their starting point.


BARBARA            So being creative would mean being self- concerned. Whereas being innovative is being concerned about the client.


KAREN                Well, if my art is good, my solution to my problem has to have resonance and meaning for the audience too. There’s no compromise between my audience’s needs and my vision. It’s the connection between the creator and the audience that completes the solution.


BARBARA            You’re creating a community, in a way.


KAREN                Yes. Yes, absolutely.


BARBARA            In fact, business too is going in this direction. We want to lock in our customer, and community is a sustainable way of doing it. But it’s a big challenge.


KAREN               Does that mean that art and business are coming together culturally?


BARBARA           Yes, maybe. Because business needs authenticity too.


KAREN                I’m not sure if artists and business people will ever become the same as each other, because there are some radical differences, but there is probably already much more overlap than we acknowledge.


BARBARA            And we are getting closer…


In the next dialogue, we explore the shamefulness and usefulness of failure.




Read more



The False Promise of Authenticity

Author: Karen
Comments: 0

IMG_2320For several years now, there has been a prevailing maxim in leadership theory. Not only have academics been keen champions, it’s also caught on amongst lay people working in all kinds of organisations and institutions, corporate or start-up, public, non-profit or private sector. Anyone who wants to sum up what they want from a leader, or how they want to be perceived themselves will reach for this one word – authentic.

A major reason for its persistence, I believe, is because the term is laden with moral force. This has had a particular appeal recently, when the reputations of big figures in business and public life in general have taken a severe battering. Authenticity is virtuous. It’s transparent. It’s accessible. It’s reliable. It’s real. No one could condemn it any more than they could condemn motherhood or apple pie. The antonyms – fake, phoney, false, misleading, untrue, dishonest, deceitful – are obviously undesirable. If authenticity can be demonstrated to be effective as well as virtuous, then it must be the obvious prerequisite for any leader.

Whenever I wonder out loud how to achieve authenticity, people always have a ready answer: “Be yourself.”

I’ve never been particularly comfortable with this directive. It’s sounds easy but when you try to apply it, it’s rather complicated. How do you identify what is ‘being yourself’?

Personally, I’ve had difficulty nailing it down. When I interact with my mother, my best friend or the dry cleaner, my behaviour, physicality, language and tone shift according to the person and the circumstances. Often these are reflexive rather than reflective choices. So which one is the real me? If they all are, as I believe, what use is it to tell me to be the real me when the reality of me is so varied?

As a coach I aim to suggest actions that, if not necessarily easy, are at least specific and achievable. The ‘be yourself’ mantra is neither. Authenticity seems not only to be predicated on a full and exact knowledge of who one is as a person, but also to require one to hold a view of oneself which is consistent across situations.

Whenever my students and clients express an urge to be authentic, I navigate them towards more down-to-earth goals that can be attained through practical methods – such as releasing the breath, so they can be audible and engage others with their voices.

Now, leadership gurus are beginning to question the value of fetishizing authenticity, or even ricocheting to an opposite viewpoint. In their paper, The impossibility of the ‘true self’ of authentic leadership, Professor Jackie Ford and Nancy Harding have expressed their doubts. They suggest: “…firstly, that authentic leadership as an indication of a leader’s true self is impossible and, secondly, that attempts at its implementation could lead to destructive dynamics within organizations.” And in the New York Times, Adam Grant has opined: “Unless you’re Oprah, ‘be yourself’ is terrible advice”.

One story that is frequently trotted out by the backlash-against-authenticity lobby is that of Cynthia Danaher. When she was promoted to general manager of a group at Hewlett-Packard, she declared to her 5,300 employees that the job was “scary” and that “I need your help.” It’s been widely reported that this over-sharing led to her team’s initial loss of confidence in her as a leader. I’d be cautious about ascribing this lack of buy-in entirely to the authenticity of her communication. Let’s be frank: sexism may have played a part too in how she was received as a leader. When we’re supposed to be living in a post-feminist world of having it all and leaning in, it’s uncomfortable to acknowledge such a possibility. This is speculation, but perhaps if we were all a little more skeptical about the fruits of authenticity some wider considerations might have tempered Danaher’s approach.

Coming from the world of the arts, I’ve long since harboured an alternative perspective. When I’m coaching people in communication, I borrow a great deal from my own drama school training and my practice as a theatre professional. I bring in exercises that involve invention and play-acting in order to explore how anyone can adapt their approach to different people across a range of contexts. Not only do regular people – with no previous drama experience or training – enjoy doing this, they also prove themselves quickly adept at many of the games. To observers, they appear to have mastered how to present themselves in a variety of styles to others, and to select whatever approach will get them the impact they want. This can be a surprise and a pleasure for my students and clients. Of course the next step is how to integrate this new flexibility into real-life situations where these shifts in voice and body-language can affect the outcome of an interaction that matters.

For leaders in particular, this facility is a distinct advantage because it allows them to be responsive to the needs of their stakeholders, and to model behaviour they want from their teams. In fact, it might even be a way for leaders to train themselves to be the kind of leaders they would like to be. Perhaps this is a better strategy for handling ‘imposter’s syndrome’ than an open confession of self-doubt to all and sundry.

In a recent public speaking workshop, a student confessed to me his worry that making external adjustments to his posture and voice would make him an inauthentic person. It was intriguing because while he clearly felt deeply, he found it difficult to put his finger on what exactly was disturbing about this approach. When pressed, he reiterated that his integrity was important to him. Other workshop participants pointed out that if being authentic for him meant never making deliberate changes, he would be doomed to never improve his presentations.

However, his concern got me thinking about how differently actors view the process of communication in the theatre. To focus on authenticity in this context, most of my colleagues would agree, would be a category error. Granted, there is some cultural suspicion of how actors manage to transform themselves so convincingly. When people wish to decry charming but unscrupulous public figures, ‘actor’ is sometimes deployed as synonym for ‘liar’.

I believe this is based on a misunderstanding of what the job of acting is. Greater awareness of what actors do would not only dispel some minor stigma against the profession but, more importantly, also empower ‘real people’ to use some of their approaches to persuade people of their own excellent, morally worthy ideas.

When an actor takes on a role such as Hedda Gabler in Henrik Ibsen’s classic play, this is what doesn’t happen:

  • She doesn’t actually become Hedda Gabler;
  • She doesn’t think she has become Hedda Gabler;
  • She doesn’t believe the story in which she is a character is literally, factually true.


So contrary to the tenets of conventional leadership beliefs, in the theatre there is room neither for authenticity nor delusion. She is playing a part, and she knows it.

However, actors and directors are extremely preoccupied with truth. Indeed, the highest compliment an actor can pay another is to describe his or her performance as truthful. This may seem paradoxical. After all, everyone (the actors, director, whole creative team and audience) acknowledges that they’re inhabiting a fictional world. So how can these beliefs be compatible?

Perhaps, what ‘truthfulness’ means in this context needs a little unpacking. In the world of the theatre, I would describe it as a commitment to the world of the imagination, rather than to bullet-pointed data and the literal here-and-now. But, a world that is nevertheless coherent and plausible – a reality that could exist. Above, all it is full of possibility.

In the theatre, everyone is mobilized towards this possibility. And the whole creative team, led by the director, is focused outwards on the audience’s experience of this possibility. By the time a production is up and running, the actors’ focus cannot be inwards. They must create an experience that’s resonant enough for the audience to connect with their own lives, feelings and beliefs. Universal truth, not personal authenticity, is the point.

I think there are interesting lessons here for someone looking to share a vision for a business, a public institution or even a social campaign. These projects too are surely concerned with future possibilities and deep resonances rather than the present limitations of the individuals concerned – leaders or followers.

Theatre shows, whether they originate from a written script or through a collaborative devising process, are crafted through preparation. And this gives rise to another paradox; despite exhaustive rehearsals, during a performance actors are committed to being present – physically, mentally and emotionally. Athletes experience something similar. In their lingo, they are ‘in flow’. Anyone who has ever become immersed in an activity – sporting or creative – will recognize the sensations of being at one with time and place, rather than separate and distinct from it.

So in the theatre, personal effectiveness doesn’t necessarily have much to do with personal identity, let alone authenticity.

So, this is what actually happens when an actor plays Hedda Gabler:

  • She prepares – practices her lines and moves exhaustively – so that when she is in action onstage she is able to be in the moment;
  • She commits to the relationship she has with the other actors onstage;
  • She commits to sharing the story with the audience from the perspective of her role;
  • She means what she does onstage;
  • She adjusts how she uses her voice and body in order to make her demeanour congruent with her with intentions.


Rather than chasing after the false promise of authenticity, there are fruitful alternatives. Try ‘being truthful’ and ‘being in the moment’ if you’re looking for more useful mantras for communication and leadership.




Read more



Home practice: How to continue your development beyond training sessions

Author: Karen
Comments: 0

Wise Owl

As term comes to an end yet again at City University, London, I find myself wanting to send another bunch of dedicated Presentation Skills students on their way with a little goody bag of tips. After the routine of a weekly session, they now will have to take ownership over their own development all by themselves.

Yes, one-to-one coaching sessions for ad hoc challenges are a great idea, and indeed may of my clients do come back me to structure and rehearse for the big interview, the conference presentation, or the best man speech.

However, it’s the regular maintenance side of things that seems more difficult to attend to. If you too have had the benefit of coaching or training sessions in the physical work of communication – voice, body-language or breathing exercises – you may be wondering how to keep up the good work when you don’t have a coach or workshop leader standing by, urging you on and offering corrections where needed. People often ask me if I ever run drop-in classes, or whether there’s a weekly session they can attend which will take care of all their communication skills needs. Well, not exactly. But there are still steps you can take.

Any classes that help you connect your body, brain and breathing are very useful. For instance, any martial arts or yoga can provide some good back-up. Personally, I’m a Pilates fan, and the classes I go to really help me improve my posture and flexibility. However, you will still have to do your own work of connecting it up to the purpose of having better posture at your desk, or having good alignment for healthy voice use. It’s not your aikido or yoga teacher’s job to join up the dots for you.

Especially if your budget is tight, you’ll need to make sure you get best value from the investment you’ve already made in your own development. So a completely free – and very effective – solution is to create your own home practice.

Here are a few guidelines:

Develop your self-awareness

Self-awareness is key for good communication. Take time out of your day for a quick moment to monitor how you are currently breathing, where you’ve tensed your body, if any area feels tight or sore, or how free your spine feels… Is there any rigidity in your knees or hips will get in the way of standing up with assurance in front or an audience? Has stress made your breathing shallow, so that you don’t have enough air to use your voice with energy? You can’t make any changes for the better if you don’t know what’s going on with you and your body.

Identify what needs fixing

Once you know what is out of kilter, you can get rid of the problems. Sometimes just noticing your shoulders are hunched will liberate you to release them. Some people hold their breath when they feel stressed. If you do find yourself cutting off your air supply, release your out-breath slowly, blowing out until you find yourself naturally breathing in, deeply.

Commit to a short daily routine

This routine isn’t necessarily to fix problems, but rather to keep the machine well-oiled so few problems will arise through the day. And I do mean daily. This doesn’t need to be a grind. It can be really short, in between 2 to 3 minutes. This is approximately the same time commitment you would make to brushing your teeth. You DO brush your teeth, don’t you?

Start with the exercises you love and you know will give you an immediate pay-off. Also consider giving the exercises you tend to resist a whirl, as they may be just the medicine you need. You may even get to enjoy them as they work their magic.


Don’t make it all a chore. Your approach will be more effective if you see it as an exploration rather than a task. Some days you will surprise yourself. Enjoy discoveries and be kind to yourself. You can really help your voice along by singing or humming in the bath and shower!

Keep growing, don’t give up!

You will be making small imperceptible changes all the time. Of course, you’ll reach plateaus. That’s when it’s time to vary the exercises, to try something new or in a new order. It’s a lifetime’s work and no one ever becomes so expert that no further improvement is possible.


Read more



Trial By Ordeal – The job interview

Author: Karen
Comments: 0


There’s something about job interviews that can provoke an existential crisis, even in completely well-adjusted people. It’s a disruption of the ‘business-as-usual’ world, where we get on with our routines in the belief that we’re competent enough to get our tasks done and more or less handle the people involved. The interview turns all these assumptions upside down. We can find ourselves questioning everything.

This experience seems to apply across situations – whether you’re aiming to get back into work after a long gap, or whether you want to move from one job to another. One relatively recent phenomenon is the request to reapply for the role that you already hold, usually as a result of restructuring. That situation can be the most destabilising of all.

As the interview looms, this sort of thinking may surge up: “I don’t really have what they’re looking for.” Or, “I’ve never done anything like this, why would anyone would take a risk on me?” Or, under different circumstances: “I do this all the time, it’s like breathing, so how can I possibly put it into words?”

This self-questioning leads some potential interviewees to conclude: “The interview process is artificial rubbish anyway.” I suspect we are mentally defending ourselves against the fact that we are about to be judged by people in positions of power.

The interview is a performance in some respects. There may not be a clearly defined script to follow, but it is universally acknowledged that it does help to anticipate questions and compose some self-promoting answers. There is also the matter of being able to make an impact, not just through what you say but also through how you say it. Confidence is key.

The sense of turmoil and insecurity may be unavoidable, but it’s not always fatal. However, it can lead to some people postponing or avoiding essential preparation. And that, actually, is fatal.

So if the interview is a performance, rehearsal may be an effective strategy for making sure that you come across with both substance and style. Role-playing allows you to test out those self-promoting answers with a trusted friend or colleague in the part of the interviewer, and to evaluate how these answers sound out loud. Are you getting your message across? Usually you can trim some waffle, and make your point more succinctly and effectively.

Storytelling is a key way of engaging your interviewers with what you can do. Scroll through your experience for stories that demonstrate how you’ve met past challenges. Position yourself as the hero or heroine with a difficult problem. Explain what you did to resolve the problem. Take your audience through it, step by step. It’s your actions that matter. You don’t need to be flowery. Just providing a single vivid detail will be effective. You never need to describe yourself as clever, fast-thinking, empathetic, or any other checklist quality that the interviewer is looking for. Let your account of your actions do the work for you. These stories don’t necessarily have to be from your current role, but they should demonstrate skills and qualities that would be transferrable to the job in question.

And now, to a key issue: just because it’s a crafted performance doesn’t mean that it can be inauthentic. In rehearsal, check your own feelings as well as the effect on others. Does what you are saying feel real and genuine? And this is the point where you may need to come to terms with some inner conflict. It’s ok to have uncertainties, but it’s not helpful to let them supress or muddle how you present yourself. Take the opportunity to clarify your values and goals for yourself before stepping in front of the panel. Under scrutiny, your lack of conviction will leak out through non-verbal signals that psychologists call “tells”. People often describe their response to others’ non-verbal signals as having a “gut feeling” about someone, in layman’s terms. Often they can’t articulate what it is exactly that they like or dislike, although the sensation is often immediate and powerful.

Of course, you can find yourself undermined by your non-verbal signals simply because you’re feeling very nervous. This is because you can only have control over your physicality (and the ability to minimise negative tells) if you’re physically relaxed. The most effective method of managing this tension is pausing to breathe out fully. In the Flight or Fight reaction of your body, you may find yourself breathing too fast or shallowly, or even holding your breath. However, if you take back control of your breathing, the body, mind and emotions will follow. Practice this technique regularly beforehand, so it seems natural to use in the interview.

So, how might interviewers respond to different candidates’ behaviour in the heat of the interview? And how might the candidates’ preparation affect the outcomes for them?

An acquaintance of mine, the CEO of a medium-sized not-for-profit organisation, was recruiting for a role. It came down to a choice between two different but outstanding candidates: a black woman and a white man. In the interviews, the female candidate scored well, though the male candidate consistently scored better. However, the CEO had a nagging feeling that he wasn’t the right one for the job. After being consulted, each member of the panel agreed that they felt less than confident that he would deliver well in the role. His range of correct but stock answers didn’t give the panel the insight into his character that they needed. She decided to invite the two candidates back for a further interview each. This time, the panel devised a series of questions they believed would uncover the concerns that they all shared but had found difficult to pin down. The questions called for a deep level of honesty and self-awareness from the candidates, and also tested their commitment to the values of the organisation they wanted to join. One such question was: “Tell us about your main allowable weakness. What would your biggest fan say, and what would your biggest critic say?” What the CEO and panel didn’t want to hear was the standard answer: “I’m a perfectionist.”

The female candidate was hesitant at first. Then she was open that there was a field in which she felt she would need extra training, as her current level of knowledge was probably not yet up to scratch. The male candidate side-stepped the question altogether. He refused to admit to any weakness.

Indeed, the answers to all the questions were eye-opening. Time and time again, the female candidate showed that she had insight into herself. She even identified that she tended to be reserved when under pressure, which matched the panel’s assessment of her. These were the very qualities of self-knowledge and openness that secured her the post.

In fact, the male candidate’s unwillingness to reveal any vulnerability was his most telling flaw. When the CEO rang him to tell him the news he had been unsuccessful, she described his response like this: “His mask dropped.” Unfortunately for him, his willingness to share came too late.

I’m speculating now, but perhaps the different outcomes for the two candidates lay in their different approaches to their preparation.

One approach interpreted self-presentation as striding forth in a suit of armour of ‘right’ answers. Yet for the panel, the candidate’s non-verbal signals were not congruent with his words. What was missing, perhaps, was the candidate’s willingness to relax, possibly because he deemed it too risky to be vulnerable.

The other approach prioritised making a connection over maintaining an iron-clad ‘ideal’ appearance, even though the candidate’s natural reserve made this an effort.

So this makes me wonder: what if having a pre-interview mental struggle could bring us closer to a deeper understanding of ourselves, and of what it is that we want from our working lives? What if this struggle is a necessary preliminary step for harnessing our vulnerability, and finding a way of connecting honestly with an interview panel composed of individuals, each of whom are genuinely committed to choosing the right person?

Of course you need to demonstrate to the panel that you are professionally suited to the role. You need to tick as many boxes for them as you can. No responsible interviewer will choose a likeable but incompetent candidate without discernable potential. However, the dynamic between you is a significant factor. After all, they will have to work with you, and probably spend a huge amount of time in your company. A little soul-searching can go a long way to help you connect with the interviewers, even within the formal parameters of the job interview.

And that, perhaps, might allow us to see some sort of purpose to the unwelcome and discomforting existential crisis, and to trust that we’ll get through to the other side.

Read more



Storytelling: The best tool a leader can get

Author: Karen
Comments: 0

When Stephen Elop, the newly appointed CEO of Nokia wanted to rouse his employees into reacting to their loss of market leadership, he sent a memo to the whole company. He began it with a story.

At first glance, the story had nothing to do with mobile telecommunications. It told of a man standing on a burning oil platform faced with a stark choice: waiting to burn to extinction along with the flaming rig or to risk the plunge into the freezing water in hope of rescue. After securing his audience’s attention with this arresting image, Elop explains his metaphor:

“We poured gasoline on our own burning platform. I believe we have lacked accountability and leadership to align and direct the company through these disruptive times. We had a series of misses. We haven’t been delivering innovation fast enough. We’re not collaborating internally. Nokia, our platform, is burning.”
Just as the man on the platform had to behave differently and do the unthinkable, so did Nokia executives.

Only a few days after the circulation of the memo, Elop and Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO, posted an open letter announcing plans for a broad strategic partnership that “combines the respective strengths of our companies and builds a new global mobile ecosystem.” Moreover, Nokia would adopt Windows Phone as its primary smartphone strategy.
So why not merely announce the partnership rather than waste time with unconnected anecdotes about oil platforms?

Elop needed to prepare his people emotionally for the changes ahead. Elop’s story instilled in them a sense of urgency which would align them all in a new business direction.

Let’s explore how storytelling helps a leader influence his or her organisation.
Traditionally, we look up to storytellers as bearers of wisdom, who embody a special authority which trumps hierarchical roles. In pre-historical societies, the storyteller was the group member who dispensed knowledge essential for the survival of the tribe, using a range of analogies and metaphors. This was a creative endeavour. Somewhere in our primitive brains, we haven’t forgotten that, and we still respond. This is why great leaders need to be great storytellers.

What stories don’t do is simply supply information in a neutral way. They present events, people and facts in a certain light. Our interpretations are covertly – and thus irresistibly – directed. Stories get under our skin. That’s what makes storytelling such an effective tool for influencing. Once Elop had seeded the image of the burning oil platform in the minds of his employees, it would have been very difficult for them to resist his interpretation of Nokia’s market position, and the conclusion that drastic action had to be taken.

Stories get our imaginative juices working. They make us curious about what else there is to find out – some stories satisfy that curiosity with a ending, others prompt us to ask more questions and get involved – so we supply the ending ourselves. In this instance, Elop provided the happy ending a few days later with the announcement of a rescue in the shape of a lifesaving partnership with Microsoft. By telling a story first, he guided his people towards seeing this change as positive solution to the crisis rather than a new threat.


Top ten tips for inspiring storytelling

1. Think about where you are in the story. Are you an outsider to unfolding events, or the main character?

2. Make sure you are taking your audience on a journey. Stories are full of events and revelations which take the audience somewhere new.

3. Don’t rush. The pleasure is in the telling.

4. Allow yourself to see the pictures, hear the sounds, smell the scents, savour the tastes. Then your audience will too.

5. All the best stories contain transformations. Think about what transformation you want your audience to experience by the end of the story too.

6. Stories don’t have to be original to be effective; they do have to be told with conviction and sincerity.

7. Audiences love it when you re-integrate a detail you’ve casually mentioned earlier – especially when it holds the key to your story’s resolution.

8. A pause, a look, a gesture all can convey as much, if not more, than words.

9. To keep your audiences on their toes, use… suspense!

10. The greater the range of emotions in your story, the deeper the connection you will build with your audience.

Read more



Knowing why you’re speaking

Author: Karen
Comments: 0

When a client comes to me with a presentation to work on, I’ll often ask him or her: “So why are you speaking?”

This doesn’t seem to be a question to which everybody finds easy to give an immediate and clear answer. Some people slip into telling me what they’re going to say, as if the Why is either too obvious or too difficult to articulate.

For any kind of communication, however short or casual, you need to consider your purpose. You are not speaking for the sake of it, but in order to achieve a purpose. For the simplest and shortest of communications, this may be the only essential factor for you to consider before opening your mouth. Most people would agree with that sentiment.

However, this purpose can get really complicated: “I want the audience to understand that if we take Approach A it’s a really risky choice unless we figure out first what the outcomes will be of Project X, and then we should go ahead but only if we’re sure about what the market will bear. And I’d like them to feel really motivated.”

On the other hand it can become mind-numbingly banal: “I want to give the senior team an update.” Or even worse: “My line manager told me I had to.”

I would argue that every speaker aims to have some kind of emotional effect on the audience, as well as to have them understand what the message means on a literal level. Certainly you’ll want to keep them engaged over the duration of your message. Probably you want to persuade them to either do something different, or to commit to carrying on doing what they’re already doing without wavering. Sometimes you’ll need to take a few steps back to identify what it is exactly that you do want. Thus, you may discover that your objective of “I want to give the senior team an update” is really “I want to enlighten the senior team with the range of possibilities.” It may seem a subtle difference but personally, as an audience, I’d prefer to be enlightened rather than merely updated.

Getting to the nub of identifying a Why that’s simple and compelling, yet fits perfectly with your message and your audience may now present even more of a challenge than it initially appeared.

How actors identify and act on the Why

It might useful to borrow some techniques from the world of the theatre to flesh out some sort of practical solution to planning the impact you want to have on those listening.

A Practical Handbook For The Actor is a manual written by Melissa Bruder, Lee Michael Cohn, Madeleine Olnek, Nathaniel Pollack, Robert Previto, Scott Zigler. They are a group of actors who’ve all worked with playwright, director and acting theorist David Mamet. The book’s purpose is to help its readers develop a methodical approach to the actor’s perennial question: “What am I supposed to be doing out there onstage?”

Existential though this sounds, this is a technical question with a technical answer, with some insights that are pertinent for public speakers and presenters.

The writers of A Practical Handbook divide the areas of concern into ‘the action’ and ‘the moment’. They suggest that the actor analyses the text to decide what the overall action is for a scene – for public speakers, think speech – that they call a ‘through-line’ or ‘through-action’. Then each section can have a separate ‘action’, which cumulatively build up to achieving the ‘through-action’. The ‘through-action’ is the practical implementation of your Why.

Then with all this prepared, the actor responds to the ‘moment’, whatever is created by the other actor onstage and by the environment. The actor’s job is to do that in accordance with his or her ‘through-line’. The actor may need to improvise in the face of the unexpected.

The action

For our purposes, we’re going to concentrate on ‘the action’, and how defining and acting on this might be helpful for a public speaker, especially in terms of nailing the Why.

The “action is what you go onstage to do, the physical process of trying to obtain a specific goal, often referred to as the objective.”

This is my edited version of their checklist to help you select your own action for your presentation or speech:

“An action must:

  • Be physically capable of being done;
  • Be fun (or compelling) to do;
  • Be specific;
  • Have its test in the other person (the Handbook writers mean the other actor onstage, but in our case, it’s the audience who the action needs to be directed at and for);
  • Have a ‘cap’.”


This means that you need to pick a verb to act on, which will allow you to change something in your audience, probably how they feel about your topic or idea.

For example, you can choose to challenge your audience about their preconceptions or to reassure them that your solution will be effective and straightforward. Your cap is simple; either at the end of your speech your audience is reassured, or it isn’t. Either your audience has been challenged, or it has not been.

There are many more possibilities, as many as there are transitive verbs. Avoid being too general or too neutral, such as ‘to inform’ the audience, which gives you no clues about how to present either your message or yourself. It’s also not much fun.

Emotion is important. If you can change how your audience feels, you have a fighting chance of changing what they think and, ultimately, what they do.

We’d all like to think that we are rational creatures who change our minds when the facts indicate that we should. However, there is a lot of evidence that is exactly what we don’t do, even when presented with good arguments against our current position. So, bullet points on a PowerPoint slide alone may not cut it. This is the reason always knowing why you are speaking, and acting on that knowledge is so important.

When you have chosen your ‘action’, the Why of your speech is actionable. You will be ready to select all the relevant facts, vocabulary, arguments, tones, pauses, facial expressions and body language that will help you fulfil your objective.

What’s more, if you commit to your action, you may find that your instinct takes over and you will graduate from needing to make conscious choices to being ‘in flow’. You will have become connected to your Why and to your audience.

Read more



Working as a creative team

Author: Karen
Comments: 0

How a team approaches a project will affect the outcome, whether the goal is to learn new skills, innovate a solution to a tricky problem or to make a piece of art.

If the process is linear and hierarchical, it can be easier to predict how the end product will turn out. If it works well, it will be an effective implementation of one person’s vision without dilution or distortion along the way. That safety can be quite attractive, particularly if you are a leader with a disinclination towards delegation. Taking a different, more creative approach may give you rather more unpredictable outcomes. You might land anywhere on the spectrum from abject failure to undreamt of innovation.

That risk can be off-putting, of course, which means many teams won’t ever experiment with it.

Moreover, paradoxically, this creative approach requires a great deal of discipline. If you are prepared to be open-ended about the result, you need to be able to commit to a process with clear parameters to see you through the inevitable wrong turns before you achieve your goal. The process not only requires people to share at least some common values from the start, but it also engenders particular values along the way.

As one half of a theatre-making duo, Wishbone, I have to have a lot of faith in my creative partner. Likewise, he has to trust me. Because we develop original ideas organically, it takes us a long time to deliver a finished show to an audience. If we weren’t working within a process which demands vulnerability and openness from both of us, we wouldn’t be able to honestly say that our shows are joint inventions. We believe this approach leads to better shows than what either of us would have come up with as individual artists.

What any artistic process actually consists of is open to question. If you’re looking to change your own process, it’s a good start to mine the practices of an existing art tradition. You could look into what painters and sculptors do, or what writers and poets do. If you’re working on a presentation, how about exploring how a landscape painter would put the ideas together instead of using bullet points as a framework? If teamwork is a priority, research those arts forms that require a collective input. Don’t be put off by the remoteness of their objectives from yours.

Borrowing ideas and techniques from the theatre is an accessible way of developing a creative mindset with all its risks and rewards, but it also brings longterm benefits for team-members. As a coach and workshop tutor in communication and leadership, I will often use games to bounce people into making useful discoveries that they own for themselves rather than receive from on high. Depending on the client and the objective, we might use storytelling, acting or devise a short piece of theatre.

These practices don’t have to be confined to the training room. You can bring creative techniques to a host of projects, especially where you need to bring about deep change.

Playing with purpose can allow you not only to discover your own individual talent and that of other team members, but also to foster some values you can share as a team:

Openness – Being receptive to the environment as well to others’ contributions is enriching. It raises the level of the whole team when the individual members are listening and absorbing what is going on around them.

Sensitivity – Responding to other people’s contributions with sensitivity builds respect and strengthens mutual bonds.

Trust – With shared bonds, comes trust. Trust creates the possibility for the whole team to be more effective than a single talented individual acting independently. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Courage – That trust allows individual team members to feel bold about taking risks without feeling that they will be humiliated if a particular risk doesn’t pay off.

Innovation – Taking risks in a safe environment allows new ideas to emerge and to develop as others respond openly.

Sharing the spotlight – This means a generosity in allowing different individuals a chance to shine, and a confidence to use the opportunity when it’s offered to you.

Support – This involves giving praise generously when team members share vulnerability or excel, but also the willingness and ability to give constructive criticism. This also means keeping attentive as others begin to improve their performance as a result of your criticism, and letting them know when they have mastered the new challenge.


Read more



The Vulnerable Communicator

Author: Karen
Comments: 0

I’m always slightly foxed when I encounter some of the words which are bandied about to characterise ideal behaviour for business interaction – words like “consistent”, “authentic” and “assertive”. I often reflect that rather than liberating people to be effective, they seem to be imposing a norm for people to comply with without allowing for the reality of their lives as human beings with emotional complexity, including their vulnerability.

It is actually difficult sometimes to be simultaneously authentic and assertive.

It’s easy to see why assertive influence is lauded; it’s a socially acceptable version of dominance, which is about directing other people what to do. Apparently, this is how good team players should win each other over and, of course, how leaders should lead. This is seen as morally better than indirect ways of getting other people to do what you want, such as flirting or weeping. Manipulation is seen as bad. It interests me that, in patriarchal societies, the means generally available to men are direct while those available to women are indirect. In our post-patriarchal (sort of) society, we are all now obliged to exhibit nice dominant behaviour, while we make negative value judgements about other approaches. This seems to me to be limiting for both men and women.

In my work, I’m concerned with helping people when they are presenting, or communicating in less formal settings, especially when the stakes are high and they might feel a degree of stress.

I’d propose a different approach based on awareness, choice, flexibility and changing one’s non-verbal signals. Moreover, I’d suggest that it is more practical to be technical and external rather than internally driven, which for some seems to be the only change legitimised as authentic.

There should be an approach available which allows people to be honest about their own vulnerability, when they chose to be, rather than to feel compelled to supress it at all costs. Ultimately, they should be free to explore a range of behaviours for enhancing their connection with others.


The story your body tells others

An article in this week’s (6th April, 2013) New Scientist magazine, ‘Lost In Translation’, busts a few popular myths about body language, such as crossed arms as a sure-fire indicator of defensiveness. It suggests that perhaps an accurate congruence between body language and internal thought is less important than what messages other people habitually interpret from certain postures and gestures: “What matters is what others think it is telling them.”

It then goes on to ponder: “Can it be faked?”

Well, I can attest that there is a group of professional practitioners who have been successfully faking it for millennia. They are called actors.

What actors do is watch those whom they tend to call ‘real people’ – i.e. non-actors – in everyday situations. They then rehearse and deliberately play behaviours that they have observed have a certain impact. Different actors have different methods to get the outcomes they want, ranging from internally driven Stanislavski methods to the more external, physical Commedia del arte tradition.

The New Scientist points to findings by Dana Carney at the University of California, Berkeley, that changing body language can in fact change physiology, siting the evidence of significant percentage increases or decreases in testosterone or cortisol depending on whether the subjects were holding “high” or “low” power poses. (Psychological Science, vol 21, p1463).

Again, actors over the ages would have been able to supply anecdotal evidence of this as a route into finding their way into a character. There is a kind of feedback from acting angry on the outside to feeling angry on the inside, for instance. The body influences the mind.

Carney, and the New Scientist, implicitly suggest that “high power” is desirable and low is to be avoided. In other words, let’s all be assertive all the time.

This tack belies the truth of how real communication happens between human beings. There are times when nothing resonates more than vulnerability and it can become a powerful conduit for a message.

In a TED talk, social psychologist Amy Cuddy speaks about the transformative impact on her life of “power posing”, presumably similar in nature to that explored by Carney. What’s interesting, and perhaps ironic, is that her presentation is not at all characterised by high power. At one point, she appears to be holding back tears while speaking fluently and movingly about her experience. It is not a “power pose” but her harnessed vulnerability which makes this such electric and memorable viewing. She is no less persuasive because of this, in fact, perhaps more so.


Harnessed vulnerability

To be vulnerable is to be human. Without an indication that someone has a degree of vulnerability, it’s difficult to warm to that person. The dropped pencil, the fluffed word, the admission that there’s an area in which you’re not an expert – all these factors paradoxically can enhance your standing. Enhance it, that is, as long as you don’t appear to be horrified at your own apparent loss of face. The moment when you lose an audience is not when you stumble over a percentage point but the moment after, when your whole demeanour collapses in apology. This inability to accept anything less than perfection from yourself is actually a bigger weakness than being relaxed about small flaws.

In my work with clients and students, I can see what a big challenge it is for many first to identify what physical signals they are sending, then to assess how these look to an audience, and finally to resist the impulse to keep doing things which they now understand undermine them. It takes practice.

If we could genuinely lose the mind-set of over-protecting ourselves against audiences and striving for an un-crackable shell of high status, it would be a huge bonus.


High and low status

As dramatists ancient and modern know well, there is nothing so compelling as watching a high-status player tumble from a great height. Whether this is the fictional Oedipus of Sophocles’s eponymous tragedy or the mesmerising TV viewing of Rupert Murdoch claiming to a public enquiry that: “This is the most humble day of my life”. Many observers reacted with glee and derision to the latter’s humbling; it was so long in coming that the sentiments could be barely be interpreted as sincere.

So, even leaders who commit successfully to projecting invulnerability over a long period of time eventually find this strategy has its short-comings.

Politicians are a tribe who suffer particularly from the desire to appear without flaws and gaff-free. It’s therefore interesting to note how one of the most popular current political figures in the UK is not someone who projects high status authority in all circumstances, but a character who happily exploits his slips into clown-like self-abasement to charm people – appealing even to those who may not necessarily share his values or agree with his policies. I’m a speaking, of course, of Boris Johnson. This well-received thank-you speech at the end of the 2012 Olympics is a great example. Another memorable moment was the zip-wire stall which Boris managed to present as endearing rather than humiliating.

Johnson’s daring lies in robbing detractors the chance to cut him down to size by owning his own vulnerability and selling it back to the crowd. What happens when you mismanage that is beautifully illustrated by Nick Clegg’s unwitting You Tube hit , when he gave others all the ammunition they needed.


Choosing your power

The single ingredient which enables public speakers and presenters to own their vulnerability is an ease with themselves. Quite simply, you need the courage and the technique to relax.

This is major element of the training and coaching work that I undertake with my clients. They’re often surprised at the impact of regulating their breathing on their own physiology and on the audience’s perception of them.

When you’re relaxed, you can connect deeply with your own message and with your audience. Then the unexpected can happen without damaging your essence. Athletes call it being in the zone. Then, you’ll have the right kind of invulnerability.

Power poses might be a valid starting point, but I’d argue it is a crude technique which only values one end of the spectrum. It might be more effective to consider what kind of rapport or impact would be more likely to win people over in a particular situation. A high, assertive stance is not always best.

Keith Johnson’s classic manual for actors, Impro, published in 1981, explored how all our lives are governed by the rules of status (or power), which have nothing to do with social standing, class or organisational hierarchy but everything to do with non-verbal signals. In an autobiographical section, he describes the impact made on him by a teacher at his school who earned the respect of his pupils through his expertise in adapting his status for the situation, rather than by relying exclusively on a high status pose to exert authority. Johnson suggested an actor’s ability to shift up and down along a spectrum could give him or her the possibility of being both compelling and credible in an endless variety of situations. Playing with status, or power, might be an effective tool for presenters and all kinds of ‘real people’ – as well as actors.

The best communicators exercise their choices judiciously and are not stuck in default mode. Whether they are deferring to others or leading from the front, whether they are baring their souls or sharing a joke against themselves, they are connecting with the message and the audience.

They are masters not just of assertiveness, but also of vulnerability and flexibility.





Read more



The risks and rewards of the pause

Author: Karen
Comments: 0

One of the most frequent self-criticisms people make of themselves as public speakers is that they rush through their prepared message to the detriment of both clarity and comfort. While I believe people can be excessively harsh on themselves when assessing their performance, this is a fair insight.

In most cases, my advice to speakers is to slow the delivery down by inserting some pauses between points rather than to focus on consciously altering the pace of speech. That gives the speaker, who has many things to do at once, the relatively simple extra task of remembering to stop every now and then rather than to have concentrate continually on monitoring tempo when she be should focused on engaging the audience.

Actually, pauses are the speaker’s best friend even when rushing isn’t the speaker’s main fault.

Speakers need pauses to breathe. Breath keeps us alive, obviously, but under stressful conditions, when the flight or fight mechanism kicks in, the body leaps into defensive emergency behaviour. That can result in fast, shallow breathing. Terrible things happen to the voice and to mental focus without full, regular breaths. In other words, a speaker will feel better and speak better if she is prepared to pause to allow the breath to settle.

Audiences love pauses. They create the space for meaning to land. They can also add drama and suspense. The effectiveness of the pause is further enhanced if the speaker holds eye contact over the duration. Even when the speaker is pausing merely because she has been instructed to do so as an exercise – and is not driven by an authentic internal impulse – the audience frequently report that the pause/eye contact combination made the message seem more significant and more emotional. Depending on the context, the audience will go on to endow the speaker with gravitas, sensitivity or other flatteringly appropriate qualities, whether or not the speaker is aiming to demonstrate these or not. The audience is often galvanised or moved within the silence after the message rather than during the delivery of the message itself.

The very neutrality of a pause appears to provide an invaluable blank canvas on to which the audience projects a positive interpretation – as long as the speaker isn’t undermining herself in other non-verbal ways.

It seems, then, it would be a no brainer for speakers to embrace pauses when making presentations. Yet, in fact, this is something many people struggle to do. Sometimes they do indeed deliberately sabotage the pause with eye-rolling or grimaces, if only to prove the ghastly unreasonableness of my suggestion. There seems to be something about standing in silence in front of a group of staring people, even for a moment, which makes speakers deeply uncomfortable.

In exercises with my clients and students, I notice that however positively the audience responds to pauses, the speaker can find it difficult to incorporate the feedback.

So why do speakers find pausing such a challenge?

People are more used to having conversations than making presentations. These are very different modes of communication with different rules. Because we are so expert in conversations, we frequently import the rules of conversation into presentations with not such felicitous results.

In a conversation we take turns in who speaks, while in a presentation one person has an unusually long turn while the others listen. When conversing, we instinctively fill gaps between our words with “ums” and “errs” to signal to the other person that we haven’t finished and it isn’t the other person’s turn yet. This trick backfires in presentations. If we supress any natural pauses which arise over the course of a speech with conversational “ums” we begin to muddy the clarity of our argument. In the same way, a written page would be difficult to read if the layout were cluttered and without any white space relieving the blocks of text. Anyway, since audiences already know not to interrupt, the “um” merely has the negative impact of making the speaker look unconfident of the right to speak.

Even more interesting is the speaker’s perception of how long she has paused. Even when encouraged to leave a long gap, the speaker will foreshorten the pause so that for the audience it barely registers at all. When challenged, most speakers will insist that they have paused for a really long time.

I used to explain this phenomenon in the vaguest terms, opining that the experience of time in the spotlight was different to time spent in the audience. My recent reading of Claudia Hammond’s book Time Warped has finally provided me with some evidential support on the distorting effect of fear on the perception of time. In experiments where people believe themselves to be danger, time slows down for them to the extent that they will overestimate that a minute has passed when actually only 40 seconds of clock time have elapsed.

Although people making presentations are not literally in danger, their fears lead them to behave as if they are, with the same consequences for their sense of timing.

These are not easy habits to break but, with practice, speakers do get much better. Partly their sense of timing becomes better through repetition, but they can also become adept at using techniques for focusing and relaxing which correct the distortion caused by their fears.

There are many aspects to making good presentations and speeches. However, mastering this one simple but thorny trick – the pause – will create the opportunity for you to make a deeper, more positive impact on your audience.

Read more



Storytelling and the Art of Creating Reality

Author: Karen
Comments: 0

What Steve Jobs’s speech can tell us about leadership, personal brand and the art of creating reality.

When Steve Jobs made his Commencement speech to the graduating students of Standford University in 2005, he was already a business icon and in possession of a powerful personal brand which was widely admired. His expertise at marketing beautifully designed technology was matched only by his genius at marketing himself as an entrepreneur and leader. While the Apple brand is disseminated mainly through product imagery, its founder’s preferred means were personal appearances at launches and the stories he would tell to his audience.

So why make did he make stories such a major tool for promoting himself?


Personal Brand

We are all adept at telling stories about ourselves. Despite all the arbitrary events and apparent randomness of large sections of our lives, we can’t help shaping our experience into something meaningful.

The stories we tell about ourselves to great extent determine our own view of who we are – maverick outsider or girl-next-door, resourceful or cheated by fate, inspired visionary or determined grafter, or possessing a myriad of other qualities or traits. The more we recount the events of our lives in a particular way, the more we come to be convinced by this version of ourselves.

That said, the story may change over time. Our genre may shift depending on our current emotional state. In low mood, we might be relating a sob story. In a more jocular frame of mind, the same set of events might take on a comic turn.

Because we all tell stories, we have the perfect vehicle for presenting ourselves to others in such way in which we would like to be seen.

When storytelling to others, we may be adjusting tone, selecting where to focus or which details to leave in or out, depending on our relationship with our audience. Or depending on how we would like that relationship to be.

Stories are much more effective than listing a set of attributes – resourceful, hard-working, open-minded, etc… – which by themselves are not necessarily credible.

For instance, I always recommend that candidates for job interviews mine their previous experiences for a true story that demonstrates talents with which they can hold their interviewers’ attention.

For good measure, I suggest they dramatise any problem they’ve encountered and paint it very darkly indeed before explaining what they did to resolve it. They can be as self-deprecating in tone as they wish, as long the story ends with the problem fixed by their action. This action must epitomise their personal ingenuity, fast-thinking, empathy – whichever talent fits the bill. They never need to describe themselves as ingenious, etc… , but that will be the impact made.

Surprisingly, sometimes people find it difficult to think of a suitable story to tell. These people are often obviously skilled with a good grasp of how to relate to others. And yet I have to tease it out of them!

Perhaps the story they’ve internalised is that of a small problem which didn’t require any special skills to overcome. In other words, they’ve been telling themselves a story which minimises their abilities rather than one which gives them their due. That’s the reality they’ve created with their story. And that’s the reality that they will present to potential employers – unless they’re prepared to rethink their own life story.


The art of getting a story to create reality

A masterclass in using stories to give you more bang for your buck can be gleaned from the Commencement speech that Steve Jobs gave at Stanford University. For the full transcript, look here: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-061505.html , and for a recording look here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHWUCX6osgM

“Today I want to tell you three stories from my life. No big deal. Just three stories.”

This is the deliberately underplayed opening. The signposting is, however, neat. We get just enough to appreciate there will be a structure but there are no spoilers about what is to come. So, Jobs creates some anticipation.

Each story is signposted as to what themes will arise, yet each time he sets up expectations which he later overthrows.

The first story, he says, is about connecting dots. He goes on to begin the story “It started before I was born.” By the conclusion, the story which initially we have been directed to understand in terms of birth and destiny turns out instead to be about happy accidents.

One might assume that the second story, which is billed as “a story about love and loss”, would be a romantic tale about his marriage. It’s actually boy sets up computer company in garage, boy gets fired by his computer company, boy returns to computer company as hero and CEO. His wife barely gets a look in.

The subject of the third story is starkly introduced: death. In a rather moving section which shifts fluidly from the abstract to the personal, the expectation he set up earlier about a love story are finally fulfilled as Jobs expresses his regret that dying means leaving his family too soon. In a finely crafted sentence, the plot does a 180º turn. The doctors weep as they realise that, against all odds, Job’s cancer is operable and he is granted a reprieve. “I had the surgery,” he says. “And I’m fine now.”

No event turns out to be for no reason. Job’s narrative voice shifts backwards and forwards in time, allowing him to direct the audience’s attention to how seemingly irrelevant details become the keys to success. Just as Cinderella’s lost slipper reconnects her to her Prince, Jobs’ casual interest calligraphy launches a font revolution in personal computers.

All three stories are actually about redemption in their different ways, which was likely very close to Jobs’s own view on his life. They also served a useful specific purpose in the context in which this speech was delivered, to an audience of young men and women graduating from Standford that summer 2005, starting their own careers.

It is not too far fetched to claim that this speech has messianic ambitions. The protagonist suffers and is reborn, each time newly wedded to his work. Jobs exhorts his audience to echo his own relationship with work: “The only way to do great work is to love what you do.” He urges them repeatedly, “Don’t settle.” These calls to action would have less force, however, even coming from Steve Jobs, without these authentic stories to demonstrate their essential truth.

It’s impossible to say how much others would supply corroborating or contradicting evidence for these self-fashioned myths. But the telling of these stories in that moment, and also in their afterlife on YouTube and in the transcribed text, will give these myths a definitive cast.

Steve Jobs is not the only technology giant who has benefitted himself and his corporation through the persuasive power of stories. Similarly, the Hollywood movie The Social Network has become the founding myth of the Facebook story, drowning out any other heterodoxies.

It’s also the reason that party political leaders bolster what Aristotle would have called their “ethos”, or appeal to character, with stories about growing up in an ordinary family. Conference speeches are full of anecdotes about humble immigrant origins or fathers getting on bikes to find work. On the surface, these life stories are not pertinent to policy, but they offer a chance to connect with a disparate audience over values.

Stories really are the art of creating reality.





Read more



A tale of two speeches

Author: Karen
Comments: 0

This week has seen two major speeches delivered by two political leaders. David Cameron spoke on Great Britain and Europe while Barack Obama delivered his second Inauguration Speech. How does the oratory compare across the two sides of the Atlantic?



Barack Obama’s speech set forward the vision and the tone for the second term of his administration. The speech is a highlight in the solemn almost religious ceremony of inauguration. It bestows on the President a quasi-priest role, and his job is to live up that moment.

David Cameron’s speech had to supply an answer to the speculation swirling around about his views on Europe, especially as he had been prodded by UKIP supporters and also Eurosceptics in his own party. He was compelled to clarify the Conservative vision on Europe and to set forward a plan for how the Tories, should they win a majority in 2015, would handle Britain’s relationship to Europe. In particular, it had to answer the question: would there be a referendum on Europe, what would be the question and when would it be put to the British public.



As soon as Obama won the US Presidential Election in November last year, he was committed to making a formal speech in the Mall in front of the Capitol, outside in the January cold. The date for taking the oath is traditionally 20th January. So, to accommodate the requirement to give the US people a public holiday, it was preceded by a (much-photographed) private oath in the Oval Office on day the before, which was a Sunday. Monday was a big national event, and included Beyoncé lip-synching the national anthem, which attracted as much or more attention than the President himself.

Initially, Cameron had planned to deliver his speech last Friday in Amsterdam, the capital of a European country which might be considered to share some of Britain’s interests in reform. In the event of the hostage crisis in Algeria, Cameron finally delivered his speech amid fervid media and political speculation on Tuesday 22nd at Bloomberg LP’s European headquarters in London. Another date, Wednesday 23rd January, was verboten because it was reserved for another high profile European occasion, a meeting between President Hollande and Chancellor Merkel celebrating the unity between Germany and France. No upstaging was allowed.

Where and when big speeches happen is not always up to the speaker, however powerful he or she is. The place and timing are shaped by tradition and forced by events.



Compared with the first time round, Obama was more radical. His main message was that equality is at the centre of the American constitution. The rest of the speech was an elaboration of what this equality entails, with a stress that freedom of the individual rests on everyone taking action collectively. He was the first US president ever to mention gay rights in an inauguration speech. The focus of the content was inward-directed at domestic policy.

Cameron’s speech was about his vision of Great Britain’s relationship with Europe, and his view that Europe must reform along with meeting Britain’s specific demands. He outlined five principles which would form the basis of the British position. He promised the British people an In/Out referendum. Journalists and broadcasters tumbled over themselves to predict what outcomes would be set in motion by Cameron’s words.



In the US, the immediate audience were the thousands of people who’d gathered in the neo-Classical environs to hear their President speak to the nation in a ceremonial, almost spiritual capacity. Of course, this would always be a speech which would score many hits on YouTube as well as be broadcast globally on news networks, analysed in depth by pundits everywhere.

It’s interesting as well to note that “partisan” is a word commentators have used to sum up Obama’s approach throughout. In other words, the liberal use of “we” was designed to go over the heads of Congress, and to allow him to align himself directly with the American people. There was material here that set him strongly apart from this political opponents, the Republicans. The sparser use of “I” is reserved mainly for his description of himself taking the oath, but he quickly makes parallels between the presidential oath and pledges made by American citizens, such those made by soldiers and immigrants.

Cameron’s audience was an extraordinary range of near and far, with some radically different agendas: his own back benchers, European leaders, Brussels functionaries, domestic interest groups such as the City and business communities, and of course British voters.

Cameron personalises his vision by speaking in the first person singular in his opening line: “I want to talk about the future of Europe” and the first person singular pops up regularly through to emphasise his personal ownership of the vision. His “we” slips from meaning “we Europeans” to “we the Conservative Party” during the course of the speech, as he shifts from establishing common ground across nationalities to speaking from his own domestic political viewpoint.



Both speeches were delivered from a podium, and relied on the speaker’s ability to connect directly with words and voice without the background of projected images.

Obama’s speech was less than 19 minutes long. He had to deliver a balance of value for money for the masses who had schlepped up to see him but avoid going on too long, since it was indeed cold. The language was high rhetoric, as befitted the occasion. His delivery was impassioned as well as his words, so that critics of coolness couldn’t find him wanting in warmth on this occasion. It sounded like a speech he wanted to make.

By contrast, Cameron’s indoor speech was almost twice as long, running at 37 and half minutes – dubiously described by Number 10 as akin to tantric sex – and had to be much more varied in register to keep the audience engaged over the course of the speech. So, formal high rhetoric sometimes gives way to chatty phrases, where nothing is “off the table”. The five principles are worked through in list form, and only then is the anticipated referendum announced. His delivery is more contained than the famous noteless speech he made to win the Tory party leadership.


What outcomes will ensue from both speeches is for futurologists on which to speculate, not the student of rhetoric!

Read more



Can introverts be charismatic public speakers?

Author: Karen
Comments: 0

Reluctant public speakers sometimes tell me that they’ll never be any good at inspiring audiences because they’re not extrovert enough. Actually I don’t believe introversion is the barrier to persuasive public speaking that many believe it to be.

I recently read Susan Cain’s excellent book “Quiet. The Power of Introverts In A World That Can’t Stop Talking” which articulated her concerns as an introvert about how to manage in a world that idealises extraversion. One of the major challenges she identifies for herself as an introvert is handling a phobia of public speaking. That said, she describes several known introverts who nonetheless manage to enthral audiences. She herself has become an accomplished speaker as you can see in her TED talk.

It’s true that at first glance introverts don’t seem to have the right temperament to wow crowds. However, introverts have some innate talents which are very useful for public speaking. Moreover, in some circumstances introverts can take on some useful extrovert characteristics without going as far out of their comfort zone as they would imagine.

I’ve witnessed many introverts develop their own style and, with practice over time, grow in confidence as charismatic persuaders of large audiences.

If you are an introvert, the following may well apply to you:


Introvert talents

High reactivity – This is not an exclusively introvert trait, but it is very common among introverts. It means that you have a heightened response to the stimuli around you. At worst, it can seem like overload. At best, it makes you vigilant to cues around you, such as your audience smiling as a particular point resonates with their experience, or individuals frowning as they disagree with a suggestion. Your observations can equip you to make subtle physical adjustments and changes of tack to create better rapport with your audience and win the argument.

Storytelling – Many of the key skills of good storytelling are ones that come naturally to introverts. Building a structure which is resonant, making sensitive choices about what mood or moods to convey, and identifying details which will illuminate the general picture –  these are all activities which can be done in quiet solitude. This gift for meticulous preparation work is as important for storytelling as in-the-moment extrovert attributes, such as a capacity to vary intonation and to be expressive through facial mobility.

Character and conviction – There is something very compelling about listening to someone who addresses an audience from a position of quiet conviction. A speaker displaying the gamut of emotions is not necessarily more effective. What is effective is creating emotion in the audience, and this is achievable for any personality type. An introvert’s sincerity can be a credible ambassador for a bold vision.


Tips for handling the challenges you face as an introvert

De-sensitise yourself to your fear – A tried-and-tested cure for phobias is to gradually expose yourself to the object of your phobia, initially in very dilute form until the real deal holds no terror for you. I recommend inventing reasons at run-of-the-mill meetings to get out of your chair and hold forth standing up, even for 20 seconds to begin with. This is a chance to turn the meeting group into a bona fide audience. A flipchart board is a very handy prop. All you need to do is draw a pie chart or write up one significant word. Yes, it will supply more drama than a three person meeting actually needs. And yes, you will be taking action in circumstances in which solutions could easily be arrived at over an informal chat without this kind of palaver. This is exactly why this is a good opportunity to practice being in the spotlight, albeit very briefly. The risks and stakes are very low. Then, when you have to do a proper presentation it won’t seem so alien and you won’t have as many negative associations to combat.

Make sure you care about what you’re talking about – If you have mixed feelings about the message, identify the aspects you do connect to and foreground those. If you find yourself constantly at odds with your message, this will constantly undermine your presentation. Ultimately, it will undermine you. This is true for all personality types but, according to Cain, introverts seem to suffer even more when their feelings are not congruent with the message. And if an introvert is really mobilised by passion for the topic, they seem to unselfconsciously “borrow” extrovert attributes of expressiveness.

Use breathing techniques to deal with nerves and tension – You will still perhaps find yourself not relishing your turn in the limelight as much as an extrovert. If fact, your physiology may be telling you that you are in mortal danger. Regulate your brain and body through your breath. Allow yourself to gently blow air out through your mouth until your lungs are completely empty, squeeze out the last little bit, and breathe in again when you need to. Do this five times, noticing how each time the out-breath is becoming calmer and longer. If you’re subtle about your mouth position as you blow the air out, you can do this with impunity in any situation – as you set up your laptop or while you listen to the speaker in the slot ahead of you. You won’t attract undue attention; after all, you’re only breathing!


Read more