Here’s the bad news: it’s hard to be a genius. Here’s the good news: anyone can be perceived to be a genius. It just takes good communication skills.

That’s the essential message of Apple’s training program for employees who staff the Genius Bar. A few days ago Gizmodo published Apple’s sales training guide. (Click here). Like most sales training, it’s all about communicating effectively and choosing your words carefully.

Take the feel, felt, found trilogy, for instance. Let’s say a customer complains about the high price of a Mac. It’s probably best not to say, “I agree with you … those empty suits back at corporate are idiots.” Rather, the training guide suggests that you express empathy and then move the customer to a new conclusion:

I can see how you’d feel that way. I felt the price was a little high, but I found it’s a real value considering all the built-in software and capabilities.

Aristotle could have written this example. Ari’s first rule is decorum – the art of fitting in. With good decorum, you demonstrate to your audience that you share their values. Thus, “I can see how you’d feel that way…” means: “I empathize with your point of view and and I share your interests”.

Aristotle recommends concession and shift as the next tactic. “I felt the price was a little high” — in other words, “I agree with you… I concede your point. Let’s not argue about it”. Notice that this phrase is in the past tense. Since we’ve agreed in the past, we can safely shift to the future — the new conclusion that it’s a “real value”.

Apple’s Genius guide has a multitude of communication stratagems deriving directly from Greek rhetoric. For instance, empathize, don’t apologize. The customer is upset because his hard drive is fried. Don’t say, “Gosh, that really sucks – that line of drives never worked well.” Rather say, “I’m sorry you’re feeling frustrated.” You comment on the person’s emotional state rather than on the sorry state of your technology. Your decorum is good — you empathize and show that you share your customer’s interests. You’re on the same team.

I’ve looked at a lot of sales training programs — they’re all quite similar and they all derive from Greek rhetoric. The word “rhetoric” simply means the art and science of persuasion. The Greeks perfected it, then we lost it, and now we’re recovering it. So, Apple or Aristotle, it’s all about psychology, communication, and persuasion.

Want to learn more? Check out my earlier post on concession and shift: The Persuasive Future.  Or, just take my class on rhetoric.

Was Clint Eastwood’s performance at the Republican National Convention the result of the “risky shift” that occurs in group behavior? Eastwood’s performance has been described as “weird”, “cringe-inducing”, and “bizarre”. Not surprisingly, no one in the RNC or in Mitt Romney’s inner circle wants to take credit for it.

So, how did it happen? Last week, I wrote about the risky shift in group behavior. When lines of authority are not clear, groups can veer off track, making riskier decisions than any individual in the group would make. This especially occurs in a temporary group where it’s not always clear who the boss is or how decisions should be made. When somebody proposes an action, other members of the group may think, “Well, it’s not what I would do but she seems to know what she’s talking about, so I’ll just go along“.  Each member of the group can shift responsibility to the group itself. “Well, it wasn’t my fault. The group made the decision. I’m a team player so I just went along. ” This is why — according to the U.S. Air Force — fliers shot down behind enemy lines have a higher survival rate if they’re alone rather than in a group. A downed flier operating alone tends to make more conservative decisions that lead to more successful outcomes.

I don’t know exactly what happened at the RNC but here are two very plausible scenarios:

• It’s Clint Eastwood fer crissakes — I’m a good speaking coach but if Clint Eastwood showed up at one of my events, I’d be at a loss for words. He’s a legend — what could I tell him? He should be coaching me, not the other way around. There’s a lesson here. Even great speakers need to understand how they can help you achieve your objectives. If you don’t tell them very precisely how they fit in, they’ll just wing it. Good luck with that.

• I thought Joe had it under control — Advisor A thinks Advisor B has it under control. Advisor B thinks Advisor C is in charge. Advisor C thinks Advisor A is running the show. Call it circular management. Is this possible? You betcha. Especially in temporary groups with multiple lines of authority. If this is what happened, it calls into question Mitt Romney’s much vaunted management capabilities.

Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech was notable for one thing that it lacked: he didn’t launch an all-out attack on Barack Obama. Perhaps he’s been reading my blog.

Remember the difference between a debate and a battle? A battle has two sides; a debate has three sides. In a battle, you’re trying to defeat the enemy. In a debate, you’re trying to win over the audience. In a debate, you shouldn’t attack your opponent if you believe that the audience admires him. This is the situation that Romney faced. A lot of Americans (a majority according to polls) like Obama even if they disagree with him.  We admire the president or, at least, feel sympathetic to him. If Romney attacked or belittled Obama, many people would think, “Wait… that’s not fair…”  Instead of winning them over, Romney would be pushing them away. This was why I wrote a few months ago that it was dumb for Democrats to criticize Ann Romney, who is a very sympathetic figure.

So Mitt Romney took a different tack last night — one that Greek rhetoricians would have admired. Rather than attacking his opponent, he expressed sympathy for him. With messages like “we all rallied around him”, “I wanted him to succeed because I want America to succeed”, Romney expressed his solidarity with Obama supporters. Then he tried to peel them away, saying that Obama’s administration didn’t work out the way we expected. He didn’t fulfill our hopes. Romney used a tone of regret and disappointment rather than anger and attack. His message boiled down to this: “I’m like you… I like the man and I respect him … but it didn’t work out … it’s very sad but it’s OK to change direction”. It may or may not work but it’s a much smarter rhetorical strategy than a head-on attack against a popular opponent. Just ask Sarah Palin.