Comments

Wasn't "rhetoric" once considered a fundamental aspect of a liberal arts education?

Today, few people get college exposure to the art of public speaking unless they are in debate (which currently involves some truly bizarre rhetorical styles)...I guess there's also some PowerPoint experience in some biz classes, but this may do more harm than good.

Posted by david foster at June 5, 2008 9:49 AM

It's a virtuous circle: if you want to get anything done, you need to sell it (and yourself). If you want to sell it, you need to present it well (and yourself).

BTW, let's hear less criticism of PowerPoint and the relative merits of Keynote. They're both terrific but they're also both tools. Neither on their own can make or kill a pitch: how you use them can.

Posted by Mark JF at June 5, 2008 10:27 AM

Crucial - and so many times forgotten by our educational systems. Rhetoric and/or Speech classes SHOULD be in the curriculum in High School or at least by College - but I can count on one hand the number of people I know professionally who have taken one.

Sometimes the message that is being given is so strong that it will eclipse presentation skills, but this is not often.

I agree with Mark on the tools - it really is how you use them. I remember a pitch given by a NASA scientist which had all kinds of complicated transitions, animations (even a space shuttle blasting off), just an astonishing amount of work. But, the presentation was crap - nothing served to illustrate or explain, just to distract us from the content (which may have been the point, after all, since the content was not so good). Technology gives us the opportunity to be way too fancy. Visual aids must SIMPLIFY what is said, either through illustration or summary.

Posted by Martin Koning-Bastiaan at June 5, 2008 11:47 AM

I had the absolute joy of watching the Professor Charles Handy speak a couple of years ago. He didn’t use a single PowerPoint slide. He wrote on one 'old fashioned acetate' on an overhead projector and he wrote with a very ‘wobbly’ hand. I was glued to his presentation for a full hour at least. The other three speakers that day had all the whistles, flutes and bells with PowerPoint but I can't remember a single thing about their presentations. It is nothing to do with the tools in my book - it is the person. As an 'outsider' to the US that is what I see most in Mr Obama - a gifted communicator. I'm not qualified to comment any more than that about him.

To coin an adapted phrase, credibility is NOT a case of ‘Cometh the hour cometh the presentation.’

Credibility is not proven by slick computer generated presentations.

Having seen Tom Peters ‘perform’ for a whole day (4 × 90 minutes sessions) in London 2 years ago I would say he could easily keep an audience attention without the slides. He could tell stories all day – although I have to say Tom uses slides very effectively to support his natural communication skills. Let’s be brutal - some people have it and some don’t. I accept as well that audience members have different preferred presenter ‘types’ and that is how it will always be.

For me it’s no slides and a warm and passionate speaker over a cold and dull speaker with slick slides every time.

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 5, 2008 12:03 PM

Trevor - could not agree more. I used to teach speech at the high school level, and there are two main things I would work on with them:

(1) figure out what sort of speaker you are; and
(2) tape and watch yourself speak. Have some trusted friends there that will tell you the honest truth and give constructive feedback.

For the first, you begin by understanding yourself enough to know where you do your thinking. Are you at your best thinking in your head, out loud, or on paper? Each have particular issues, pitfalls, and strengths. But this is the basis for understanding how to develop yourself into a good speaker.

The importance of watching yourself is not to be missed. Watching other speeches helps too. I used to show my students a number of speeches, including Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" speech (the best speech ever recorded, in my opinion). In it he makes some classic mistakes that can show any speaker not only that they can improve, but even the best makes the same mistakes as them.

Posted by Martin Koning-Bastiaan at June 5, 2008 12:38 PM

Agree totally...and I loath Sen. Obama.

The first step we all should take is to simply watch that speech. I watch it before every big talk that I give in the Fortune 100 company house that I work for.

Posted by Scott at June 5, 2008 12:55 PM

You've got it spot-on David. If speech/rhetoric is not required, it should be. On top of that schools should add an acting or oral story telling course. Actually an improv class would be even better. It seems the situations where great speaking comes in the most handy is in meetings or at lunch or in the hallway when you're least prepared, yet your performance is most critical.

Introductory speech courses just cover the tip of how to structure a speech. What's vital is the story and how it's told.

Thanks for this discussion. I've got my 3rd Toastmaster speech coming up and this is just the kick I needed to "up my game" to a "martial-arts-training-like, no-bull, I'm-gonna-master-this-or-die-trying offensive" on improving my presentation skills.

Posted by Todd Reed at June 5, 2008 1:06 PM

Whether you like him or not, Senator Obama certainly has mastered the process of connection. In his speaking he has the ability to make his listeners think that they are the one in the room whom he is talking with. His arguements, like a number of politicians, hit the hot buttons. What still remains to be seen is his ability to truly do what he says. As I listened to a speech that the Senator made at Google I heard him use the exact phraseology that our current President, GWB ran on. That is "I'm able to bring people together. I did it on this piece of (obscure state level legislation placed in here) and I did it on that (another obscure law)." Its really too bad that there is not a better method to hold these guys accountable for things said like that. But sadly, we are a sound bite generation and if you know how to put the words together in proper fashion and say it loud enough and long enough people will believe it. However, all that being said, this guy sure knows how to put those words together, kudos to Columbia and Harvard along with all of his handlers who started moving this fella along well before 2004.

Posted by Paul at June 5, 2008 1:12 PM

Just a reminder to all that today marks the 40th anniversary of the death of a master of rhetoric (at least in his finest moments): Robert Kennedy. One of his most eloquent speeches was completely extemp - when he first learned of Martin Luther King's assassination and had to break the news to a crowd of African Americans in Indianapolis. (http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/rfk.htm)
And you think YOU'VE faced some challenges as a presenter!

Posted by John O'Leary at June 5, 2008 1:42 PM

Point of order: although RFK was shot on the 5th, didn't he die the following day?

Posted by Mark JF at June 5, 2008 2:02 PM

Good catch, Mark. I even mention that in my own blog today. It's strange but until I looked it up yesterday I thought Bobby had died right away. Funny how the memory plays tricks. BTW, a lot of folks aren't aware he wrote "To Seek a Newer World" (lame title but better book). Lots of copies for $2.89 at Amazon.com! My favorite line from it: "The great corporations that are so large a part of American life play so small a role in the solution of its vital problems."

Posted by John O'Leary at June 5, 2008 2:28 PM

Martin - thanks for your comments – appreciated. Practising in front of the mirror is a great tip - the person you see is your greatest critic – convince him/her that you mean it and you are more than halfway there.

Todd – Good luck with your Toastmasters efforts. I agree about the need for ‘improv’ training – I run interactive role-playing workshops in healthcare using drama. It is incredible when managers are actually put ‘on the spot’ how they are able to respond so well. The best form of practising being ‘on the spot’ is to be ‘on the spot.’

John – thanks for the wonderful reminder of Robert Kennedy – I admired him from afar when I was a young man – maybe I was just young and naive (now I'm just older and naive) but he seemed to provide – sadly unfulfilled - hope. I wonder what might have been ……….

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 5, 2008 3:25 PM

Anyone looking for a masterclass in presentation technique should go to the Apple web site and watch any of Steve Jobs' keynote speeches. They are almost always superb shows. Why? He speaks clearly. He is positive and enthusiastic about what he's promoting. His pitch is based on user benefits and avoids techno-babble and pseudo-science. The slide backdrops are simple, uncluttered, in support of and not detracting your attention from the speaker. The latter is very important: too many people put too much into their slides. Think about the 3 things you want to people to take away from this slide and put them on the screen. Nothing else. No woffle, jargon or extraneous data. Just the 3 points.

I'd nominate Mr. Jobs as the consumate corporate salesman. He's pitching on Monday (new iPhone?) and it should be good.

Posted by Mark JF at June 5, 2008 4:12 PM

John ... Thanks for the opening here to say a few words about 'Bobby"... I was going to do it anyway of course.. As you may have gathered from my earlier comments, at various times here, Bobby was and remains my hero... I remember that speech oh so well - Bobby was only just finding 'his own voice' on the issue of black rights and he found it at that moment with a fantastic mixture of gut wrenching sorrow for his and the world's loss, his unrelenting belief in a better tomorrow, his ability to let us all feel our loss but not become lost, and his personal display of public compassion... I loved Bobby with a passion - I loved that he was flawed, imperfect, naive, and often out of his depth with issues... I loved that he was disciplined, self sacrificing, hard as nails, unflinching, and resourceful... Most of all I loved that he stood up to bullies! He will live for ever inside my head....

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at June 5, 2008 4:44 PM

Obama is great speaker and so was RFK.
Would they have been considered as great if
all they talked about were coffee shops, hotel service, supermarkets and personal music players? I doubt it -
Content is also important.
I'm sure TP is a great presenter, but if people faint because they are overwhelmed with emotion at an event with the content he usually covers, there might be a problem.

Posted by frank at June 5, 2008 5:05 PM

One thing to watch out for: advice from "experts" is often harmful.

For example, I once gave a presentation in which I used a quote from Gen George Marshall. ("No one ever won a battle by trying frantically to remember what someone else did in some vaguely similar situation.") The AV guy who was helping me put it together suggested we use a picture of Marshall at that point. I thought the picture would be distracting, since the presentation was neither about Marshall nor about military affairs, and declined.

This particular suggestion wouldn't have been particularly harmful, but expert advice in this area (as in all areas) should be used with caution.

Posted by david foster at June 5, 2008 5:24 PM

excellent post Tom... JFK was the dubbed the TV age President... Should Senator Barack Obama move into the Oval Office he will be dubbed the Internet age President... JFK was a great presenter in the old style of a leader who is here to help 'you' change your world... Senator Obama is a great presenter of the same message in a different era... My analysis here is going to sound loopy but, here it is anyway.... Look away now if you do not want to see this analysis...

JFK was a visual presenter who created images of a better world for us 'inside our heads'... Obama is kinesthetic (tactile) presenter who creates a 'feeling' inside us that is geared to ignite our passion to go change our lives, our prospects, and the way we converse with each other... Both men present what they have inside to 'you' so that you can do with it what you will... Because they are just being themselves when they deliver a speech they are totally focussed on 'you' their audience. Both were great presenters because of their 'timing'.... their clarity with repetition used to great effect... their melody in delivery of their message... but it is their ability to focus in tight on 'you' that makes them such great communicators...

Obama and Tom Peters are good presenters because they make sure their message is all about 'you'... I see great similarities between Tom's presentation skills and those of Obama... Barack is calm and Tom is agitated but the message is the essentially the same - it is all 'you' and what 'you' can do if you want to take up the challenge being presented to 'you'... All the stories, quotations, quips, jokes, etc are weaved into a coherent conversation with 'you' that is about 'you'... the exquisitely timed pauses are for 'you' to stay in touch with Obama because he is there for 'you'... the slides are points of reference in a Tom Peters presentation because he wanders all over the place as he speaks and you may need a focal point...

Obama has run a Internet era campaign not a TV era campaign because he has held a conversation with the American pubic and the larger world... This era is all about conversations... Web 3.0, YouTube, Facebook, etc are all about belonging to a conversation.... if you want to see a good example of how to present a your pitch as a conversation, and you are not an Obama fan, simply watch Tom Peters.... Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at June 5, 2008 5:55 PM

Brilliant Richard, thank you.

Thank you, John, so much for Remembrance of Things Past. After reading your Blog this afternoon, I watched Bobby Kennedy’s speech in Indianapolis after the assassination of Martin Luther King to the largely African American crowd on youtube and was incredibly moved by its honesty, compassion and truth. (He did not fear to be instructive; he did not fear of appearing patronizing. He spoke truth purely and simply; the people responded. There were no riots in Indianapolis.) I was also incredibly moved by your post, John. Please check it out guys: http://www.rockandrolllessons.blogspot.com/. This is a beautiful post.

This afternoon I had a meeting with a prominent businessman and councilman of a local government who is 88 years young. He is quick, passionate, loving, and intelligent. He is in many regards my hero. After we were well into our meeting, the conversation turned to politics. I expressed my enthusiasm for Barack, which he did not share. He is a veteran who served stateside in WWII and lost relatives in the Holocaust.

Listening to him, I got the distinct impression that he did not appreciate Barack's appeal to the masses. He did not appreciate the fact that many were drawn to his message that has little to do with swooning faint-hearted women, though many such women swooned for Clinton too, but rarely -- if ever -- for McCain. In this case, he would be the best candidate. Not! (Though, I’m very respectful of his past service to our beloved ever increasing unified country, the United States of America.)

Now, my councilman is a diehard liberal who serves his largely affluent African American constituency with honor and distinction and works tirelessly for the poor and downtrodden. But the past of another speaker that galvanized a country for evil seemed to loom large in our discussion, though the name was never mentioned. My beloved councilman was very “leery” of Barack. “I was for Hillary, he said. “You will see in time that you have made a mistake,” he warned. I respectfully disagreed in silence, seeing clearly what appeared to me to be a distrust of the past and not the present.

As we spoke I was reminded of another discussion that I had with one of my favorite professors of philosophy who, did not serve in WWII, but whose grandfather had escaped the Holocaust. He too had a great aversion to eloquent passionate men of power and distinction that drew masses of people. As a matter of fact, he had some concerns about Martin Luther King and his ability to draw crowds, though he appreciated his message.

To seek to squelch a leader (this may very well be a lost cause in Barack’s case as he is so universal) because of his passion and eloquence, because he has both the power and humility (the latter is very much lacking in dictators or egotists) to ignite the people to bring about change does not guarantee a repeat of historical atrocities. Communication and openness might. Though, I shudder to think of the holocausts that have happened since and are happening right now in other parts of the world.

There would have been no Martin Luther King, no John and Robert Kennedy, no Barbara Jordan (a personal favorite), if we sought to shut down these great orators and igniters of passion. I think it was TP who said that we should not even speak unless our intentions are to change the world. Without passion, it is virtually impossible to change anything or anyone. What then would we be? Unchanged.

Thank you, TP, for a great post. Through your passion and brilliance, you have changed many worldwide. We honor you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 5, 2008 9:07 PM

Wow, TP! How insightful you were about the Obama speech in 2004 and his possible future four years later. Wow!

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 5, 2008 9:28 PM

Tom, great post as always and great advice. One of the best things I ever did was to join Toastmasters after getting laid off from my advertising gig. My biggest regret - not joining sooner. Another regret - not joining the debate (or forensics) club in college. I'm no pro, but I have gained a great deal of confidence and I discovered that I actually like to give presentations. I will continue to work at it.

Tim

Posted by Tim at June 6, 2008 12:10 AM

Tom, I wonder if the importance of presentation/public speaking skills is a cultural thing.

Mahatma Gandhi wasn’t known to be an outstanding orator, (unlike say, Martin Luther King), yet he held sway over India.

On another note, many American televangelists are wonderful and powerful orators, compared to staid Indian gurus who nonetheless attract massive audiences in India.

In fact, I think a person who is considered a powerful speaker in the US could just as easily be perceived as arrogant and pompous in India.

Posted by Chetan Dhruve at June 6, 2008 12:15 AM

I've come late to this thread, so here's a little constructive mischief...

>I think a person who is considered a powerful speaker in the US could just as easily be perceived as arrogant and pompous in India.

And indeed, could be similarly regarded in other places too. It's likely a demographic, rather than purely geographic thing.

There's clearly a huge variance in what comprises 'powerful speaker'... of which your 'American televangelists' is, I suspect, a purposefully-choosen-to-be-provocative point-making example.

Unless I totally misinterpreted it, I didn't consider 'Get To (Serious!!) Work … On Your Presentation Skills!' to be a call-to-action which required a mindshift akin to 'struttin' around like Capt Invincible, horse-in-my-shorts male-testosterone-bullshit-overload' shock-and-awe nonsense.

I also didn't see it in an earlier TJP piece (http://www.tompeters.com/entries.php?note=007810.php).

Perhaps there's a clue in that first weblog post (the BO one) - in which 'self-deprecation' is considered. And another (clue, that is) in 'connection with the immediate and distant audience'. That's what RFK, MLK, MKG did - and did excellently.

And no, they weren't on the lunatic fringe, overpowering people with unrestrained emotion (and, for by-the-way avoidance of doubt, I suggest neither is TJP). Instead, they were natural, honest, enthusiastic. Gentle, too - a quality which has a place, and a very big one, right alongside 'integrity'. Simply, these folk could 'lick 'em by smiling'. [Go wake O'Leary for a follow-on.]

I'm not politically motivated here, although mentioning the man will likely piss off some people... I think the 'boy-upstart' O'B has it too. Trys a little too hard perhaps, but give him time, he'll mellow.

So then... back to where you came in... 'American televangelists'...

Question: are they - or their presentations - genuinely powerful? Sure, in the sense that they get a lot of people to open their wallets. Britney Spears does that too. Powerful? Maybe. But in a way that we should respect? Maybe, maybe not. That's a personal judgment call. Integrity? Ooooh... let's stay off that one. (Clearly some are, some ain't.)

In both examples, their audience is often 'not that bright'. Whatever.

Obviously, 'effective' takes many forms. My own marker is simply this: 'heartstrings pull purse strings', in pitching/presenting aren't we seeking genuine connection? Many of the best presentations are clearly rooted in honest, heartfelt emotions - which, to me, bears greater (and sweeter) fruit than 'overwhelm'. Simply, 'the performance wasn't a performance', they're natural.

But what do I know? In a desire to stick to my knitting I shall now shutup and consider restaging the summer of love for granola heads...

Damn, 500-ish words. I've seen shorter ebooks.

And, off-topic in similar vein to the mention of Bobby K (I miss the man hugely) (and wonder just why/how Chiat-Day 'forgot' to include him in that Apple 'think different' campaign), it's 64 years since a 'bunch of people got seriously ****ed on some French beaches - but they weren't there for the sunshine... which is just as well.

Posted by g at June 6, 2008 3:13 AM

Don't want to use too much space here, this has been a great discussion. I help people perfect their presentations for a living and have written a short pdf on the 6 skills most effective presenters seem to share. Feel free to use it anyway you wish! You can download it here:

http://www.stevenpearceonline.com/common_ground/2007/09/free-pdf-downlo.html

Thanks, Tom, for highlighting the importance of this issue!

Posted by Steven Pearce at June 6, 2008 3:43 AM

Chetan...passion exhibits itself in many ways, just as humility does. Because one is always lowering one's head does not mean he is humble. Just as one who speaks loudly and forcefully does not mean that there is passion there for positive change. Listen inwardly. It's a spirit thing, a thing that is connected to heart and head. There is no fear where perfect love is present. "Perfect love, casts out all fear." I think we know when that love is made perfect in another which is, by the way, ongoing. There is no judgement, no over the top need to persuade, no overriding all-consuming air-sapping ego involved.

The negative is when seeds of reality or the perception thereof as the whole is perceived as fact or truth. Even if it is a trickle, this perception, can be dangerous socially. It would be like saying all white Americans are like TV character Archie Bunker or all African Americans are like George Jefferson to the exclusion of all other variables, therefore judging the whole inappropriately. This perception would be non-factual if latched on to as the whole when there are many variables. (Though perceptions for many is reality and therefore dangerous.) The key might be to have many examples of such families, or to counter the character as Norman Jewison did so brilliantly with the great beloved character and wife to Archie, Edith. Coounters are needed for balance.

Passion is not necessarily fiery as is the case with many televanglists, and it most certainly does not have to be judgemental or over the top. Passion and greatness may be separable. While the motives of the former can be impure, I see the latter as purely beautiful. I see in Barack greatness which is akin to the passion that we all seek for positive change. Greatness is a combination of humility, intelligence, passion, strength, determination, excellence, and deference. These are exhibited in the whole as distinct embodied variables that draws. Just think about men and women we consider great. Many embody the above characteristics, though displayed differently. Honesty in our perceptions is key, along with stepping outside of what we believe to be comfortable to see the other point of view.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 6, 2008 7:05 AM

g...have you checked your humility gauge lately? And...have you checked your need to be distinguished above all else? (Some fights I do not join.) It's great to know that TP has a middle name. What is it, by the way?

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 6, 2008 7:08 AM

Many people in politics and business have inflicted considerable damage because their communication skills disguised their destructive or incompetent agenda. Despite what Tom Peters said, most of these people succeed in Third World situations (Castro, Chavez, or Hitler), or big cities like Detroit, or in corporations that lack discerning management. In the business world, I have become very discerning of the great pitchmen Elmer Gantry types. They have all the buzzwords, jargon, exclamation points! The difference is the great ones make it look easy. The Detroit Lions management uses all the things that Tom Peters preaches. The Detroit Red Wings management hardly says a word. The Lions have won one playoff game in 40 plus years. The Red Wings just won their 3rd Stanley Cup in 11 years. Enough said!

Posted by Stoic at June 6, 2008 7:36 AM

GO RED WINGS!!! GO!!!

Thanks, Stoic.

Believe me...Sparky Anderson, the legendary manager of the Detroit Red Wings, most certainly did plenty of talking. Perhaps, not as much during a game or to the general public, but he most certainly talked to his team and coaches. Talking is necessary for managers, doing or having done themselves in every situation, perhaps not.

Many of the greatest managers, coaches, and teachers have never themselves greatly succeeded in the thing that they are coaching or teaching. Some can dispense knowledge without necessarily doing or have done what they are coaching or teaching to great success.

(An aside: Just read a great story about the drafting of the 102 year old ex-Negro League player, Emilio Navarro, soon to be 103, to the New York Yankees. How great is that! Tim Brown of Yahoo! Sports writes of another soon draft pick of the Negro League. “In San Diego, Neale “Bobo” Henderson packed for Orlando. He’ll be 78 in three weeks. Sadly, his wife, Annie, is ill and won’t accompany him. But he’s waited the better part of a lifetime for this, to be draft-day eligible, draft-day worthy, draft-day remembered. So he’ll leave Annie behind for a few days, report for duty 60 years coming, dust himself off again and get on with it. He’ll be drafted by the Los Angeles Angels.” These guys must have had greatness to endure without any rancor.)

Below are a few Sparky Anderson quotes relevant to our discussion:

"A baseball manager is a necessary evil."

"People who live in the past generally are afraid to compete in the present. I've got my faults, but living in the past is not one of them. There's no future in it."

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 6, 2008 8:30 AM

Speaking of baseball, where is Jeff Angus? I always appreciate his brilliance.

brand viagra on sale in canada

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 6, 2008 8:37 AM

Great leaders can connect with their audience on many different levels. For me it is all about passion and sincerity whether it is one to one or a television broadcast.

Chris

http://learn2develop.blogspot.com

Posted by Chris at June 6, 2008 10:39 AM

Stoic...I can't let your comparisons go without comment. Matt Millen is NO Tom Peters...and WCFord couldn't talk his way out of a paper bag. So I disagree with you. And I would remind you that the same leadership team handles the Wings AND the Tigers. Words matter...the most technically talented manager is a failure unless he/she can inspire others. Sure, empty words spoken in a flashy manner without competence is snake oil....but great skills with little ability to communicate them is just as bad...my thoughts anyways...Rick Wagoner is smart...way smart and has been a golden boy since he came on at GM, probably technically a more skilled business person than Lee Iacocca, but he hasn't been able to light the fire necessary at GM.

Posted by Mike Neiss at June 6, 2008 10:54 AM

Bravo, Mike! Great Wagoner/Iacocca comparison.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 6, 2008 11:11 AM

online drug store viagra "light the fire" - oh yes, Mike - that is exactly it - that is what great presenters do. Naturally it helps (read: is necessary) to have a vision, but it is the presentation skills and ability to connect with people that gets others to SHARE that vision and work together to further it.

As I mentioned above - some times the message is so powerful that presentation is less important (Gandhi) - but let's not lose sight of the issue - in business (and in politics) these opportunities are rare - the black swans. All these great leaders were not born when their Black Swan came, but labored for many years with the love, dedication, intensity, care, and resilience necessary to take particular advantage of the situation when it arose.

Many of these posts are getting at how important it is to know your audience. A style that may unify and propel a vision for a business team in the US may fall completely flat in Japan, India, or even in a different company.

At Apple, Gil Amelio wore a suit every day to work. He always looked like a million bucks. But the Apple culture RIDICULED his suits - he was thought to be a stuffy prick (and in some ways he was). He never gained credibility with the company because no one thought he was one of them. In a law office, you come in with ripped shorts and running shoes (no socks) and no one will take you seriously there either.

Presentations are the same way. Knowing who it is you are talking to and making sure you do your homework so that they can see how their interests/concerns are addressed by you is absolutely critical.

Posted by Martin Koning-Bastiaan at June 6, 2008 12:03 PM

Judith, if I could vote in the US, I'd vote for Obama too. Even if he doesn't win the White House, he's achieved the apparently unachievable, and that says a lot about America's greatness as a nation too.

That said, I seriously doubt - because of cultural differences - that Obama would have shot to such prominence in India on the basis of one great speech. Things just don't work the same way here, which is why I think that cultural differences matter when it comes to presenting. Not that presenting well doesn't count - I just feel that in India, it doesn't appear to count for as much as it does in the US. Our Prime Ministers could put anyone to sleep in no time flat, with very few notable exceptions. Yet, that doesn't stop them from getting elected.

Posted by Chetan Dhruve at June 6, 2008 12:11 PM

viagra free sample online

Glad to hear the RFK encomiums (or encomia, for the Language Police). Glad to hear Detroit is winning again at something. And glad to hear a Ziggy Stardust quote. (g: being the rock-lyric archivist on this blog is an awesome responsibility I don't take lightly.)

Posted by John O'Leary at June 6, 2008 12:20 PM

Chetan...are you suggesting that we sum up the total of a man by one speech? Not so! Things don't work that way here in the US. Regarding being put to sleep by politicians and the like, are the people, by in large, happy with the direction and progress of your country?

Culture, with its emphasis on how we do what we do, is always a factor inside and outside of a country. No disagreement there. The disagreement comes with the notion of the uninspired leader's inability (now that's an oxymoron: uninspired leader) to motivate masses to action.

Decisions are by others when there is no inspiration or when things are done as a matter of course which may or may not speak to the needs of the people or perhaps the greater good of the country. (Voter turnout and knowing the relevant issues are things that the US still addresses. But inspiration helps this process tons, as is now evident in the high turnout for both Barack and Hillary.) The people are the country, besides its landscape in which other animals, plant-life, and critters dwell.

Funny though...people mostly take notice and become involved, which is very much a part of our democratic process, when there is something to take notice of. We take notice of cultures as a distinguishing element. But more likely than not cultures are consumed naturally without conscious knowledge; this ranges from politics to music to fashion.

Some cultures are exported and consumend around the world en masse; many are imported as quickly as they are exported. The distinctive cultural lines are being blurred in democratic societies through the Internet. India will probably change in time. I'm sure it has already done so with the advent of technology and access to more capital for more of the masses.

viagra online in canada

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 6, 2008 1:05 PM

Hey John - I saw that too - but was not sure the saying was unique to Bowie - like a cat from Japan...

Chetan - agreed. Audience matters. A lot. But I wonder what would happen if someone had all the qualities your leaders have, excepting that they were dynamic speakers that could engage (in speeches) the interest of people? Would that help or hinder his/her chances to be elected?

Posted by Martin Koning-Bastiaan at June 6, 2008 1:11 PM

I was thinking again about Obama - and keep thinking of another Illinois politician - an obscure lawyer from a small town, that went on to be arguably the greatest President of the United States: Abraham Lincoln. When he got the nomination from his party in 1860, everyone was astonished. But it came from a huge amount of work that went largely unnoticed. His opponents (such as Seward) were highly regarded by many, but also disliked as well. Lincoln was able to use his lack of enemies to his great benefit. The parallels here are easily found...

A master leader and strategist - and also an incredible speaker and storyteller. His ability to connect with his audience was legendary.

Posted by Martin Koning-Bastiaan at June 6, 2008 1:35 PM

Actually the Wings have their 4th championship in 11 years, not three as I posted earlier. And Matt Millen was hired for his charisma and vision. Few in the state of Michigan could tell you the name of the Red Wings GM. The Lions front office speaks of character about as much as Obama talks of change. The Red Wings don't say one word about character. Not a peep. Probably because they don't have to talk. They walk it. I'm very much a "Good to Great" kind of guy.

Posted by Stoic at June 6, 2008 1:50 PM

Bravo, Martin! Beautiful Lincoln/Obama comparison. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 6, 2008 3:26 PM

I’ve been commenting on TP Blog for 4 years. With this thread I tried something new for me. My preferred learning style is ‘activist’ when taking the David Kolb learning style inventory. This means I tend to jump in and don’t consider things for very long before making a comment. It’s a habit I’ve had all my life according to my 79 year old Mom! With this thread I decided to patiently (this was painful for me of course) watch the comments unfold. It is a fantastic ‘rap on the knuckles’ reminder to me and proves to me that I often jump in far too soon. It is fabulous to watch these conversations unravel as a spectator and to REALLY force myself to read properly the comments of ALL others before making my own. As my late beloved Dad would have said ‘Don’t open your mouth till you have engaged your brain.’ As a consequence I just wanted to congratulate ALL the commenters on this terrific conversation and my summary would be;

Authenticity is the greatest attribute of any presenter and will always shine through … with … or without ‘props.’

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 6, 2008 4:34 PM

Ted Sorensen was on Charlie Rose the other night and he told Charlie why he thinks JFK, RFK, and Obama are such good orators - he says it is because they were/are idealists. Ted Sorensen is a Liberal from the old school - a champion critic of McCain - but for those who do not share his ideology he still has some excellent points to make about public speaking. He has also been called the 'greatest speech writer' ever - he rejects that easily by referring to Lincoln, et al... Ted Sorensen was once famously referred to by JFK as his 'intellectual blood bank'... But in this interview he is on about the power of a good communicator to change the course of events and in the case of a US President - the course of history. Here he agrees that JFK was a pragmatist who people thought was a romantic - the romantic side was in his speeches... ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.. we will put a man on the surface of the moon and return him safely to earth within the next decade... Those are my memories of those speeches not actual quotes - a romantic with practical goals that he did not live to see achieved... A romantic who choose a legislator as his running mate, Lyndon B Johnson.. Ted Sorensen also agrees that RFK was a romantic who was thought to be pragmatic... get Adelai Stevenson to go down to the United Nations and tell the Russians to stand down... the act of a romantic who had no sense of what was possible and what was not so he simply did the impossible - he stopped the normal cycle of politics in Washington and came up with his own plan to end the Cuban Missile Crisis... Ted Sorensen has a new book out it might be worth a look the title is 'Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History' Harper Collins 2008... Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at June 6, 2008 6:27 PM

John O...ok, I am convinced I need a trip to the navy yard to hook up with you and Matt and a rousing night of rock trivia. Stoic, I will just assume we read different Detroit papers...I read Millen is still there because Clay Ford Sr likes his family values...Character??? Charlie Rogers? Assistant Coach ordering drive through nude? Mike Ganja Williams? I think not..And before Coach Babcock we had Scotty...certainly an example of inspiring coach. Bobby could inspire..and move people. Today was sad memories..

Posted by Mike Neiss at June 6, 2008 7:30 PM

Judith, my apologies, I didn’t mean to suggest Obama won because of one speech. In retrospect, I can see I goofed up in putting my point across.

Martin – I know it sounds completely logical to assume that if a person communicates well, it definitely helps his chances of getting elected. But that logic, strangely enough, doesn’t always work in India.

We did have one (now ex) Prime Minister who is a terrific speaker (A B Vajpayee). But he still lost the last national elections. Italian-born Sonia Gandhi, his rival and current de-facto leader, is no match for Vajpayee in oration because she can’t even speak Hindi fluently.

To put this in context in purely presentation terms, imagine Obama losing to a foreign-born politician from a religious minority who can’t speak English properly.

Posted by Chetan Dhruve at June 7, 2008 1:56 AM

Chetan...I appreciate your points. It is never about communication alone. One would have to have substance or at least a compelling argument in order for communication to be really taken seriously. It has to connect with the audience; it has to be relevant. These things I believe have an effect even on the presenter and the reception of the message by the audience.

TP outlines the components of a good speech that, without substance, will make the presentation hollow. In fact, with substance, if these things are omitted the speech to most audiences will render it lacking. (Chetan...your cultural point is well taken. I also wonder about the audience sense of their import to enact change. What does the audience want? Most want something.) Here are TP's components of an effective speech:

*clear and compelling theme
*perfect pitch
*connection with immediate and distant audience
*humor and self-deprecation
*memorable stories
*phrases that uplift
*timing to die for

Presentations, delivered without substance and without the above (unless the people do not expect change or do not have a say or feel as if they don't) get old and tired very quickly and lose the interest of the audience. How is the information then received and does it effect the speaker?

In another post, I commented on the importance of the audience to the presentation itself. There is a needed reciprocity that assists in the delivery of a speech that also seems important for determining the substance of the speech whether it goes against the audience's opinion or not. In any event, the components above seem necessary for an effective delivery of a speech.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 7, 2008 5:08 AM

Interesting exchange...and here are some assorted thoughts to throw into the mix:

1. Culture matters. What works in one cultural context may not necessarily work in another. In one setting, a bold and powerful approach is exactly the right approach, but in another (e.g. in Asian cultures), it can lead to disastrous results (as Chetan mentioned). In fact, this is an area that a lot of Westerners need to work on when dealing with those in the East.

In an neurobiological context, this is essential in order to pacify the amygdala (the reptilian part of the brain that can trigger a "flight or fight" response if stress is perceived). The amygdala's response can interfere with proper perception, interpretation, and understanding at higher levels of thinking. In other words, a bold approach in the wrong context can lead to an unintended emotional reaction from this part of the brain. The result is that everything else the speaker says won't stick with the listener.

If you're from the US and want to appeal to an Indian or Chinese audience, keep this in mind.

Similarly, if you're from the east and want to appeal to a US audience, for example, its important too (as an Indian raised by first generation parents in the US, I learned this the hard way...but I did learn!)

What makes a great presentation in one cultural context might or might not sit well with audiences in other cultural contexts.

What's important is to be aware.

2. Sound bites matter. It seems to me that we in the US actually do tend to put "make up" a great deal about an individual based on small pieces of information. So, one great speech can and does have a disproportionate impact here, just as sound bites, media hype, and images do. Many people just don't look deeper. Whether this should or shouldn't be the case is really irrelevant. It is what it is. The degree to which we're bombarded by messaging feeds this trend, and this makes it even more critical for anyone that wants to make an impression on others. Will you be remarkable in your 30 seconds? Can you be memorable in a sound bite? These are things to consider.

3. The traits that people value in their leaders differ in different contexts. In the east, leaders tend advance based on virtue-people are promoted when they are ready. Although accomplishments and experience matter, traits such as humility, personal mastery, etc. are often (though not always) placed more prominently. In the west, leaders tend to be promoted based on accomplishments first. I actually think that this is why we might see companies with people at high levels that have accomplished a lot, but who have difficulty leading. Food for thought.

Posted by Manoj Pawar at June 8, 2008 1:56 PM

Manoj- There is great wisdom in your words - thank you. 'When in Rome do as the Romans do' springs to mind.

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 8, 2008 3:10 PM

How Americans select leaders might also explain the high turnover and wild swings in approval ratings. Both political parties have been around a very long time (before Lincoln), despite all the rhetoric for change. How can anyone aspiring to be a serious leader claim they will "fix the climate" when their political party can barely fix a pothole, never mind a public school system? Leadership is not just a popularity contest.

Most of the leaders Americans now respect were unpopular in their times, including Lincoln whose career suffered more defeats than victories. Obama's position on Iraq is very similar to how the Democrats campaigned against Lincoln during the Civil War (and Grant could be the General Petraus of his time, saving Lincoln's presidency with strategic victories right before the 1864 election, which Lincoln won narrowly). A leader has to be judged on their long term results, not on daily tracking polls influenced by millions of dollars for marketing.

Posted by Stoic at June 8, 2008 3:12 PM

As far as marketing goes, we are in Iraq because
of a good marketing campaign.
A campaign paid with tax dollars.

Posted by frank at June 8, 2008 4:19 PM

Manoj...you make some fine points. It is undoubtedly very important to know your audience, whether they are Indian, Chinese, European, African, etc.

Knowing your audience is essential. Even within India, especially with its various languages and sects, I am sure one would have to also know his/her fellow Indian. This is the importance of knowing your audience, locally, nationally or globally.

While I appreciate the cultural specifics, knowing your audience is true of any regional area within or outside of a specific area or country. I do, however, value your comment. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 8, 2008 4:37 PM

too much can be made of cultural differences... India is a multifaceted society just like most other large populations... I am always struck by the dominant remnants of British culture within India - in many ways India, as a Nation-State, has retained both the best (eg legal system) and the worst (eg social or class based structures - making it a less transparent/open society than it could otherwise become) of that culture... But when I lived in India, for a short time, my Hindi girlfriend's family held fundamentally different beliefs to that of my Parsi friend - both voted for the Congress Party.. Sure to communicate with other cultures you have to be aware of their core storylines, messages, habits, and cultural taboos but that is not such a big deal as it is being made out to be here..... If you prepare well then these core cultural differences are no obstacle to clear communication and effective presentations... To pick up on Trevor's point when you go to Rome you had better prepare yourself in advance because they sure do 'things' (all manner of things) in their own special ways... If you are well and truly prepared for Rome then you are in for a great time, if not then you are in for a truly frustrating time.... On this subject of culture, a sociologist once gave me a great insight into one of my favourite places in the world - yeah Paris.... He told me Paris is a great city wasted on the French!!! Culture is what it is and if you prepare for what it is then you'll do just fine...

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at June 8, 2008 5:45 PM

I'm from the moon. Presentations here are challeneging. The lack of air makes speaking impossible. (Sound cannot travel in a vacuum or a blender)
We Thank God that when Marcel Marceau died and left the earth, he chose the moon over heaven.

Posted by cheeze at June 9, 2008 12:57 AM

"When in Rome..." I take issue with some of the points on this score. "When in Rome, be courteous to the Romans and acknowledge their culture but remember that you aren't Roman. Bear in mind some of them might not be Romans themselves. Don't try to be something you're not. Use your 'foreigness' to your advantage: tone down the bits of your culture that don't travel so well (unless you've really come to put the cat among the pigeons) and play up the bits that do. Remember, it's incumbent on the communicator to know his/her audience and get the message across."

Posted by Mark JF at June 9, 2008 2:39 AM

I agree Mark - the onus is ALWAYS on the communicator and not the audience - see my earlier comment - 'Authenticity is the greatest attribute of any presenter and will always shine through … with … or without ‘props.’

I think respecting the culture of another country is a pre-requisite of ANY visitor in ANY setting – its good manners. We are surely learning in this world how no country - however powerful - can IMPOSE a culture on to an existing culture. Even killing innocent civilians including children will not change cultures – when will we ever learn? – But hey that’s a whole new discussion and I have been ticked recently for taking discussions down other avenues and ‘off subject.’ Mind you Tom Peters proudly displays on this very Blog his quote 'Unintended consequences outnumber intended consequences’ … so I am walking his talk!

The sun is shining gloriously here in Shakespeare's County and life is wonderful. Summer has arrived in England - we must make the most of these few days :-)

generic viagra usa canada

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 9, 2008 5:45 AM

Regarding imposing one culture on another, this has been done probably since the beginning of time and its remanants, as Richard so accurately points out, remain. Yes, knowing your audience is most esential. Respect seems more potent than courtesy.

President Regan seemed to have more respect for the people of East Germany and a cause of justice more than courtesy when he exclaimed, "Gorbachev, tear down this wall." The speech was deliverd in West Berlin but could be heard just over the eastern side of the wall.

Perhaps a little truth is necessary too when presenting that may or may not be well received. It depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Wisdom is necessary, understanding the audience...paramount.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 9, 2008 7:38 AM

Sorry... I dozed off. Did I miss anything?

Posted by g at June 9, 2008 10:29 AM

g - you missed nothing my friend ...we were just killing time till you arrived :-) - Happy Monday!

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 9, 2008 10:48 AM

gulliver ... you missed everything!... In the flat world of the internet there are no 'outsiders'... there are only people who care, share, and present their ideas with whatever presentation skills they have... the Chattering Clusters, Clans and Tribes on this site have taught me that you can be a fan of Tom Peters (as you are 'g' and I guess that is why you are back here commenting) or you can become part of a Clan or Tribe that has developed here... those who sleep on the job can't be Tribal members and will struggle to be part of a Clan so that leaves you with only one option - to be a simplistic part of the Chattering Clusters which here is basically a Tom Peters fan club... you can be a fan and not commit to this site but if you commit then you have to do what Tom Peters was talking about in his post here - you have to find a way to present your stuff, to sell you stuff, to communicate your stuff, etc. a way that will translate into other cultures and get your message across... I still struggle to do that but I am working on it and the Clusters, Clans and Tribes here have helped me to be far less of an intellectual snob, academic, theoretical, obtuse, etc... they have helped me to become a better, but far from excellent, communicator and presenter... gulliver mate, you have missed everything.... Richard...

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at June 9, 2008 4:58 PM

Steve Jobs has re-defined presentation. It’s no more a presentation – It’s a PERFORMANCE! One hellova STELLAR PERFORMANCE! Jobs, although hit with a common bug two weeks ago (and on antibiotics) was on-top (as always!) of what he has been doing for years – PERFORMING AT WWDC. Kudos Mr.Jobs!

Posted by Sriram K at June 12, 2008 4:34 AM