Rhetoric
The Greeks invented the science of persuasion – they called it rhetoric. The posts in this category give a brief overview.
Strategy. Innovation. Brand.
Debate: Barry and Mitt Come to My School
Nice place for a slugfest.
I’m an adjunct professor at the University of Denver which just happens to be hosting the first presidential debate of this election season. That’s right — Barry and Mitt are coming to my school. If I may brag for a moment, the University is doing a simply superb job of hosting the event and using it as a springboard for educational and civic activities. I’m just proud to be an observer.
So, what do we know about debates? Here are a few thoughts.
- The incumbent has something to lose. The challenger has something to win. We all know that the President is… well, presidential. As a result of the debate, the President could look smaller but he can’t look larger. He’s already huge. It’s the opposite for the challenger. He could look bigger … he could even look presidential. So, expect Romney to be more aggressive while Obama plays defense.
- We like Obama; Romney needs to be careful. Obama’s likability ratings are much higher than Romney’s. Even people who disagree with Obama seem to like him. Even people who agree with Romney seem to dislike him. If Romney attacks Obama in ways that seem churlish or cheap, the audience will rally to Obama’s defense. Romney can attack but only on policy.
- The objective is to win over the audience. A battle has two sides; the objective is to crush the enemy. A debate has three sides; the objective is to win over the audience. Launching a mean-spirited ad hominem attack may feel good but it won’t win the audience’s heart. Watch for the two men to talk past each other as they try to reach their audiences.
- Tone is telling. Obama projects an aura of coolness under fire … but he has a temper. If Romney can needle him into a temper tantrum, it’s a major coup for the challenger. On the other hand, Romney typically comes across as wooden and mechanical. He needs a more humane tone to make an emotional connection.
- Most of us have made up our minds. Unless Obama or Romney says something truly stupid, I don’t think the debate will sway public opinion much at all. Both sides will play not to lose in this first debate. That will change in later debates if one side is feeling desperate.
I won’t be in the debate hall (I’m only an adjunct) but I will be outside on the commons, taking it all in on a giant TV screen. If the broadcast shows the commons, look for my smiling face. I’ll be sure to wave back.
Leadership, Stress, and Communication
Even in the best of times, it’s hard to communicate effectively within an organization. There’s a lot of “noise” and 
your message can easily get drowned out. If your organization is like most, there are a lot of distractions. So, instead of listening to your presentation backed up by 100 Power Point slides, your employees may actually be daydreaming about lunch. Never assume that you can deliver your message once and everyone will just “get” it. As every marketer knows, repetition is required.
But what if it’s not the best of times? What if your organization is stressed out? Perhaps you’ve hit a rough patch. Perhaps your customers are upset. Perhaps a competitor is threatening to acquire you. If you’re a leader in such a situation, how do you communicate effectively? The short answer: you have to double down. Watch the video to learn more.
Do Tall Buildings Make You Crazy?
Our son, Elliot, is an architect living in Brooklyn, where all the cool kids hang out these days. Since Elliot went off to architecture school, I’ve been reading more books on design and, especially, the effects of physical space on human welfare. In other words, how do the places where we work and live affect our mood, creativity, energy, and general attitude towards each other? Then, once we know the answers, how do we design better spaces?
One of the better books I’ve been delving into is A Pattern Language, which is often described as a classic in the design literature. Published in 1977, the book describes “an entirely new attitude to architecture and planning.” (It’s available here on Amazon).
On page 115, the authors make a simple but stunning claim: “There is abundant evidence to show that tall buildings make people crazy.” Here are two key passages that explain the claim:
“The strongest evidence comes from D.M. Fanning (“Families in Flats”, British Medical Journal, November 18, 1967, pp. 382 – 86). Fanning shows a direct correlation between incidence of mental disorder and the height of people’s apartments.”
……
“A simple mechanism may explain this: high-rise living takes people away from the ground, and away from the casual everyday society that occurs on the sidewalks and streets and the porches and gardens. It leaves them alone in their apartments. … The forced isolation then causes individual breakdowns.”
The book goes on to cite studies from Canada and Denmark that reach similar conclusions.
So why am I writing about this on a website that normally focuses on persuasive communication? Because Im interested in how our physical environment affects our ability to communicate. I’ve seen any number of business meetings ruined because the physical accommodations inhibited rather than promoted communication. Even so, I still can’t predict with certainty whether a given space will be “good for” or “bad for” communication.
So, I’m posting this more to gather information rather than to disseminate it. What are the characteristics of physical spaces that promote communication? And what characteristics inhibit communication? Please share your thoughts in the “Comments” section. If you can point me to any particular resources, I’ll be sure to review and summarize them in future posts. In the meantime, stay away from tall buildings.
Want To Be A Genius? Here’s How.
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.
Clint Eastwood and the Risky Shift
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.
If you’re a manager, you need to account for the risky shift of group behavior. While you may emphasize teamwork, it’s also important to teach individuals to speak up when they see the risks mounting. Otherwise, you can make a legend look like a fool.
My Social Media
