Lip Service by Ruth Sherman

03:24 pm | 0 recommendations | 2 comments

Airline Turbulence

So now it's the flying high JetBlue that is being brought down to earth. Apparently, on Wednesday, February 14 -– Valentine's Day no less -- passengers on several JetBlue flights were kept waiting on the tarmac at JFK. And as I write this, it's not yet over. More than 850 flights have been cancelled including hundreds during this President's Day weekend. I just happen to be in Maine where JetBlue only recently began serving Portland. All JetBlue flights have been cancelled. Check out the gory and scary details in this New York Times article and and this one, too. In New York, JetBlue is everyone's favorite airline and is likely to be forgiven. Here in Maine, however, where the airline has not had a chance to establish a loyal following, it's going to be a long, hard slog.

We frequent travelers have all been there, trapped on a plane that desperately wants to take off. Food runs out, babies are screaming and young children (and adults) are losing control. Lately, reports from this incident and the other one involving American Airlines in late December have included overflowing lavatories. Yuck!

It happened to me twice. Once on a United Airlines evening flight from New York to Chicago and the other on a return trip from a really wonderful family vacation on America West. In the first case, the pilot communicated with us often and made us laugh a few times. We did finally get to Chicago 5 hours late, in the wee hours, but everyone remained in good humor. No news reports, no lawsuits. In the second instance, it was the usual lack of information from the cockpit. Everyone was given a travel voucher that hangs on my bulletin board to this day. But it didn't matter to me because after that experience I vowed to avoid America West Airlines like the plague. (The voucher quickly became unusable because AW gobbled up by US Airways shortly thereafter. What a surprise.)

It's remarkable that airlines are still so lame when it comes to keeping their customers informed. With these latest events, the biggest complaint from passengers has not been about the significant delays, the missed connections, or even the miserable experience of being held hostage on that plane. The biggest complaints have concerned the wretched communication from anyone in authority. Although the airline often knows well in advance that there are going to be delays, it boards passengers anyway. Only the passengers are kept in the dark.

Announcements from the pilot will typically go something like, "Folks, we're 6th in line for takeoff. Should be lifting off in about 15 minutes." 45 minutes later, there is a second announcement, "Sorry for the delay folks. Thunderstorms around Dallas are causing some delays around the airspace in Detroit. Air Traffic Control expects those storms to move out of the area very soon. Be back with you as soon as we have more information." Another hour or more passes. It degenerates from there. 4, 6, even 8 hours sitting in those small, uncomfortable seats and nobody knows anything. The pilot, locked in the cockpit, refuses to keep people posted. Flight attendants are stuck dealing with irate passengers and overloaded facilities, and being paid poorly for the honor, so they let their emotions take over.

But that's not the final insult. Once the plane is thankfully guided back to the gate to allow passengers to deplane, the indifference or downright rudeness exhibited by the ground personnel completes the package. I know, I know, it's hard to smile when you're being yelled at by hundreds of irate passengers. But that's the job.

This whole state of affairs is a shame because a little communication goes a long way. In circumstances like I have described, passengers are literally hanging on every word the pilot says. It's a simple thing, really. If you say you'll lift off in 15 minutes and don't, let the passengers know right away. This causes people to relax, to calm down. There is actually a physiological effect. And it can be done repeatedly with almost the same benefits. I can't imagine that pilots like being stranded on the tarmac either. But they're the leaders, the CEOs of the flight, so their words matter a great deal, much more than the flight attendants, to whom they are also doing a grave disservice by leaving the dirty work of dealing with an angry mob to them.

Airlines are always complaining about how thin their margins are and how expensive everything is. To its credit, JetBlue is not complaining. David Neeleman, the CEO, is talking about being mortified by this turn of events (how refreshing is that?) and about operational changes that are going to cost lots of money. It'll be a real challenge for the airline to maintain its reputation in the face of this storm without raising its fares and further alienating its customers. Well, guess what? Communication, such as that that described above, is free. If it's missing, there is no excuse.

Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • ruth@ruthsherman.com • www.ruthsherman.com

07:25 pm | 0 recommendations | 2 comments

The Charisma Myth

Now that some of the 2008 presidential candidates are out of the gate, it's been fun to see who is being labeled with that mysterious quality, charisma. Of course, we can't seem to hear Barack Obama's name mentioned without it being accompanied by some form of the word. The others aren't as lucky. Even John Edwards, who's pretty good on the platform, doesn't seem to fit the description. Neither does John McCain, Hillary Clinton or Rudolf Giuliani.

So what is it about people like Obama that makes us gush? Are there really winners and losers in the charisma game? First things first: there is a belief held by many people that charisma is inborn; you either have it or you don't and if you don't then you are just out of luck. But that is wrong. It's a myth! Charisma is not inborn, it is learned.

Now it could be argued that some people are born with a personality type that gives them an edge in the charisma department. But if we look closely at what these folks are actually doing, we can break it down into discrete behaviors.

The most important of these behaviors is that charismatic people are able to draw others into their world and make them feel important. They do this by asking good questions and listening carefully to the answers. They understand that people's favorite subject is -- you guessed it -- themselves! Everyone loves a good listener. As the author and speaker Susan RoAne says, "You don't recommend your doctor by saying, 'You ought to go to my doctor. She doesn't listen to me.' " The charismatic among us are not faking it, by the way. They are truly interested in people.

The second behavior is that these folks really like people, find them fascinating and look forward to meeting and building relationships with new ones. They are very focused on what they can give…not what they can get. This is a very important quality because it eliminates them as a threat which, unfortunately, seems to have infected most business gatherings these days.

The third most important skill is they project a sense of personal comfort and confidence. We often hear that charismatic people are comfortable in their own skin. That may or may not be true. We have no way of knowing for certain whether Senator Obama, for example, is a content person, comfortable within himself and with his life. What people like Obama are clearly able to do, however, is to project confidence. Even if they don't feel it. This is a neat trick because there are many people who may not be outgoing by nature, but who know that when they walk into that crowded room, they must assume a particular bearing so they can leave a positive impression. They want their effort to be worthwhile. They don't want to waste their time by hanging out alone at the bar. There are many things that are required to accomplish this, but I also want to mention the many things that are not necessary such as having a lot of money, fancy jewelry, an expensive car or a degree from an elite college.

Now, here's the good news: all the skills I mention above are available to anybody who wants to learn them. The fact is that people who are identified as having charisma learned at some point during their lives that certain behaviors worked to their advantage and they could practice them and improve. This certainly has worked for Obama who is a junior senator and I argue would not be on anyone's radar without these qualities. As it is right now, though, he is a powerful candidate that everyone is talking about. Oh yeah, charisma is a great way to get attention.

Not all business leaders have charisma just like not all U.S. presidents or presidential candidates do. But I think the world would be a more interesting place if they did.

Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • ruth@ruthsherman.com • www.ruthsherman.com

06:15 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

Going Nucular

It's always bugged me that President Bush can't pronounce the word nuclear. I thought it was because I am a speech person, thus prone to being critical about such things. Until lately, however, the only people to call him on it publicly were those fun-loving folks at jibjab, which they did beautifully in their send-up of the 2004 presidential campaign.

So it's been interesting to see others are finally coming out of the woodwork and criticizing the President's mangling of the word. A couple of weeks ago, it was Andy Rooney from 60 Minutes. Rooney was speaking about presidential speaking, noting that the words in Bush's State of the Union speech didn't sound like Bush's words, except for "nucular."

Then, Dick Cavett wrote a terrific piece in his new New York Times blog on how sloppy we've become with the English language. He spent more than a paragraph on "nucular" bemoaning the fact that the president cannot pronounce one of the most important words in his vocabulary. His conclusion: Sloppy language leads to sloppy thought, which leads to sloppy legislation, a sloppy war, etc.

I'm reluctant to go that far, though I surely do like to hear words pronounced correctly by someone with such an important job. My daughter, Britt Olsen-Ecker, in her research for a presentation on the same topic, shared some interesting information with me. For one thing, our language, including definitions and pronunciations, are constantly evolving. A good and old example is the word "third." Apparently, way back before the 1500s, it used to be "thrid" but over time, people mispronounced it as "third" and this alternative caught on.

I call these occurrences speech viruses because they're very contagious.

With regard to nuclear, a lot of people get it wrong, not just the president. Britt claims the reason for this is something called metathesis, the act of switching sounds around. We don't hear many words with the syllables "cle-ar." But English contains many common examples of "cu-lar" such as particular, secular, muscular and vascular. So it's easy to become confused. Still, I'd hate to see "nucular" fall into the virus category.

On the rare occasions when I've had to correct this pronunciation, I've offered a simple and effective technique: Combine the words "new" and "clear." The result isn't as sharp as the intended pronunciation, but most people won't notice.

So, Mr. President, if you're interested, you might try the following: First, say "new", second say "clear" and thrid, put them together as "new-clear." You may think it's irrevelant, but I think it's an intregal part of a leader's job.

Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • ruth@ruthsherman.com • www.ruthsherman.com

08:03 pm | 0 recommendations | 2 comments

No Good Deed

As part of my professional life, I serve on boards of associations and non-profits. All of them entail some responsibility. This is a wonderful way to give back to the community and make deep and lasting friendships. It's not bad for business either, but that's not what I'm writing about here. Recently, while trying to fulfill one of my responsibilities for one of the boards, I found myself in an unpleasant and somewhat sticky situation.

In this case, my board responsibility entails writing the press releases for the events and sending them out. As a courtesy, I emailed the speaker whom the organization had booked for an upcoming meeting to ask him if he had a press release that he wanted us to use. This person is a well-known speaker who has attained legendary status in the field. The full email message, names and other identifying information excluded to protect the innocent, went as follows:

Dear______:
We are all excited to have you speak.

I'm in charge of getting the word out to the press. Do you have a release prepared for this type of thing and is there anything that you'd like me to include?

Thanks.

The response was swift:

The release is up to you, I'm doing you the favor. My bio is attached if you need it. How many people are you expecting? Please don't forget to send logistics and directions.

Thanks.

My immediate reaction was one of surprise, then of anger. "I'm doing you the favor." My goodness, we are prickly now, aren't we? But upon rereading my message, I could see where I went wrong. So I counted to 10 and sent back the following message:

I can see by the way I wrote the email that you might think I wanted to shift the responsibility to you. In fact, I just wanted to extend a courtesy. As a board member for a couple of years, last year in charge of programming, I have found that some people are picky about that kind of thing.

I'll forward your email to the people who can help you with the other info. And I apologize if what I wrote offended you in any way.

And then I guess, he counted to about 25,000 because later on that day he responded:

No offense, it's just that I do these events as a favor to the profession and I don't want to work too hard before them. Again, make sure I have logistics and directions well in advance.

The favor thing again. And the order to provide him with additional info. I was tempted to respond "Yes, sir!" because, by this time, I was getting steamed, so I decided to… let it go. Ahhhh, that deep breath felt good.

I wish that was the end of the story. I should have known better considering what had happened so far. I'm not going to bore you with the details or any more emails. Sufficed to say that I allowed myself to be dragged back in by a third party and it escalated. Bottom line was I just didn't have the info he demanded and he wasn't picking up on that. My efforts at politesse that almost always work, did not work here. So, I had to confront him and point him toward people who could help him. That did the trick. Of course, I haven't been in on further conversations so I don't know who else is bearing the brunt of this person's ire. I don't want to know. At least I'm out of it. I don't mind being abused when I'm being paid, but I don't do it for free. I did learn some lessons though.

I can't help but wonder if I had picked up the phone and called instead of emailing, whether there would have been so much miscommunication. As one of my former professors, the late, great Neil Postman, never tired of saying "Technology is a Faustian bargain; it gives something and it takes something away." The unfortunate reality, brought home to me in this case, is that written communication lacks the sensitivity necessary to negotiate delicate or explosive issues. Of course, it neve occurred to me that such a situation would be explosive or delicate, but, hey, you never know what's going to set someone off. Anyway, in substituting writing for speaking, we forfeit the ability to listen to the powerful nonverbal cues of the human voice, which, in this case, would have immediately alerted me to my original faux pas and allowed me adjust my tone, choose my words and extricate us both in short fashion. Perhaps the rest could have been avoided.

I will also say that I have to wonder what makes a person like our speaker tick. Maybe it's a command and control personality issue or the need to have the last word. You would think that with all his supposed success, he would have been a bit more generous and not felt the need to tell me he was doing us a favor not once, but twice.

Whenever people behave in such ways, it makes me question their competence. My take is if they have to tell you what a big deal they are, they must not be so great.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he was just having a bad day. I do plan to attend the meeting and hear him speak. I'm not dumb enough to think there isn't something I can learn. After all, legends are people too. And he's already taught me so much.

Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • ruth@ruthsherman.com • www.ruthsherman.com

04:40 pm | 0 recommendations | 2 comments

Running Interference

No, I'm not talking about the Super Bowl. Wish I was. I'm referring to those wonderful folks at guerilla marketing firm Interference Inc. You know, the ones who brought us last week's Boston terrorism scare. In case you missed it, the story goes something like this: Turner Broadcasting hired Interference to help with the marketing effort for one of Turner's Cartoon Network shows, Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Interference then hired two performance artists, Sean Stevens and Peter Berdovsky, to plant several of a box-type device with lights, in Boston and other cities including New York, Chicago and San Francisco by attaching them to bridges and road signs.

Ever on high alert since 9/11, continues the story, the good citizens of Boston, taking seriously authorities' repeated admonitions to report suspicious activity, did just that. On January 31, police, firefighters and other first-responders went into high gear, blocking off large areas of the city where the devices were found and scaring and inconveniencing a lot of people. This cost a lot of money.

Of course, the politicians, from the Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, to the Mayor of Boston, Thomas Menino, on down, who never tire of a good opportunity to express outrage, were all over it. Yet it wasn't until the next day, Thursday, that Turner issued a statement explaining and apologizing six ways from Sunday. Thursday night, one of the two self-styled performance artists finally expressed regret, no doubt at the insistence of his lawyer who hopefully knows how much defendants' attitudes influence judges' and juries' verdicts. Interference CEO Sam Ewen waited until Friday, February 2, to issue a statement. By the time you read this, everyone who's supposed to will have been in proper supplicant mode for a few days.

Now both Turner and Interference are members of the communications business. So one would assume they would know more about how to communicate. But both of them missed something critical in this case. I'm not talking about the act itself. Stunts like this are staged all the time. I'm talking about the aftermath.

For example, what, in the immediate days after the incident, was Interference leader Ewen thinking? Based on reports, he went into hiding, shutting down his company website, locking the door to his New York office and remaining incommunicado. Did he not realize how poorly such behavior reflects on him and his company? Did he really need the PR firm hired to contain the damage to tell him this? Respectively, I guess not and I suppose so.

In addition, what planet were Messrs. Stevens and Berdovsky living on? After they were identified, they were arrested. You'd think with the threat of 5 years behind bars in a federal penitentiary staring down at them, they would have been duly chastened, but you would be wrong. Uh-uh. These two held a press conference mocking the whole affair and were photographed looking unbothered, with Mr. Berdovsky even doing a little end-zone type dance.

Many have risen to their defense, stating that they are being scapegoated, that the real offenders are the bigger boys on the block, Interference and Turner. There is probably some truth to that. These ideas don't generally originate with the help, who in this case, were paid $300 each for their trouble. Of course, there is always the possibility they were all thinking, as the saying goes, there's no such thing as bad publicity, and finding the continuing uproar to be just a little bit irresistible.

Not being able to see what is so obvious to others is an old story of corporate misbehavior. The solution, also an old story, is not to hide from or deny mistakes, but to face up and apologize. And the sooner the better, because in today's light-speed media environment, 12 hours later is already too late.

The actions by the players in this particular drama made them seem spoiled and immature, not the corporate image most of us strive for. Taking responsibility, being accountable, taking your licks and moving on. Also known as leadership.

Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • ruth@ruthsherman.com • www.ruthsherman.com

01:34 pm | 0 recommendations | 2 comments

Tell Me What You <em>Really<em/> Think

Ever since I was quoted in the January 21 New York Times, I've been in conversations with several reporters and others on the topic of authenticity. In case you didn't see the article, my comments had to do with Hillary Clinton's communication style in her video announcing that she was planning to run for president. (You can also read my FC blog post for more on the topic.) I said, basically, that if she could persuade voters that her new style was authentic, they'd have a hard time remembering the old Hillary. Boy, did that open a can of worms!

But I'm glad it did. It forced me to think and especially write about it, which I find always crystallizes my thoughts and makes things easier to explain. I will say I found it vexing, though. Part of that is due to the fact that the very word "authentic" is wide open to interpretation.

So I did what I always do when I'm in a semantic pickle – I called on an expert. This time it was the brilliant motivational speaker, Glenna Salsbury. I have only recently gotten to know Glenna, but we have forged a connection, which, I am discovering, is part and parcel of the authenticity equation.

Glenna's take is that authenticity in communication derives from the heart. She has a word for it, too: Intention. When heart intention is aligned with the message, the better we are at communicating it. If, however, the underlying message comes from a place of falsehood, the audience will know the difference. They may not be able to measure it or even put their finger on it, but somewhere, deep down, they will feel it and recognize it for what it is. As a result, that communication effort is likely to fail.

Think about people – bosses, colleagues, family members – who inspire and motivate you. I'll bet that these are people who speak and communicate with intention. They let you in and they're into you. You may not be privy to their innermost feelings, but you feel there's something special there, you feel a connection. They also have performance technique; they know how to channel their feelings through the way they look and sound. Now think about people whom you just find toxic. See where I'm going with this?

The fact is, for a message to truly hit its target, the sender of the message -- the message conduit -- must touch the receiver. (Steve Ballmer and Steve Jobs come to mind.) It's hard not to get excited by such communicators. We endlessly hear about being passionate about work. That is all well and good, but if the communicator cannot actually summon the passion, there will be a noticeable deficit, a connection will not be made. We see it all the time, don't we, people speaking, spewing facts and figures without a hint of the stake they have in what they are saying or what it means to us? (Al Gore and John Kerry, anybody?)

My equation for authenticity picks up on Glenna's: Intention (feelings) + Technique (performance skills) = Authenticity. How's that for all you linear thinkers out there?

Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • ruth@ruthsherman.com • www.ruthsherman.com

06:49 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Houston, We Have A Challenge

Sounds funny, doesn't it? The original statement, "Houston, we've had a problem," was uttered by Jack Swigert, an astronaut on the Apollo 13 mission which, as many people know, became a monumental struggle for survival. Today, the statement is part of the lexicon as "Houston, we have a problem" and is used humorously to announce any type of problem.

Of course, the Apollo 13 crew was facing a life or death situation. Imagine if they had substituted the word "challenge" for the word "problem." The entire meaning of the statement would have changed to become something less threatening, more benign.

Today in business, there are no problems; there are only "challenges." No weaknesses, only "areas for improvement." No jobs are cut, they get "downsized." Wall Street has taken things much further. Stockholders don't sell, they "take profits." Stocks don't plummet, they "correct."

Early in graduate school, as part of my studies, I read the book "Language in Thought and Action," by the psychologist, semanticist and former U.S. senator, S.I. Hayakawa. At the beginning of this book, there is a parable called "The Story of A-Town and B-Ville." (You can read the parable here.) It tells the story of two communities that are facing similar problems but view them differently and use different words and phrases to describe the problems and fix them. It is just a story, and a fictional one at that, but it says something very important: Language influences behavior.

The language I described earlier is extremely contagious –- I like to call it a speech virus. We hear a word or a phrase enough times, spoken by respectable people and soon it starts sounding right and we start using it, continuing the cycle of contagion. But this selective use of language does a disservice to both the business using it and its stakeholders by providing a way for businesses to deny that problems exist or hide from them. It also lessens the likelihood that problems will be noticed by stakeholders. The less negative, less harsh feelings these subtle substitutions generate in us have profound effects. Necessary urgency is diminished. Solutions are delayed. Are we more likely to begin an urgent search for a new job if we know that a lot of people are about to be "fired?" Are we more likely to work on our professional skills if we know we have "weaknesses?" Are we more likely to hold those responsible to account if stocks "plummet?"

I do not think we should do away with euphemisms entirely. There are many instances when they serve a useful purpose. But I do think that their excessive use in business has been taking us all down a very slippery slope and in some cases has proven to be downright harmful. And I can't help but wonder what would've happened to the Apollo 13 crew if astronaut Jim Swigert had tried to soften his words.

Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • ruth@ruthsherman.com • www.ruthsherman.com

01:23 pm | 0 recommendations | 3 comments

Zombie Conference Calls

I was sitting in on a client's quarterly conference call. The call consisted of 3 members of this public company's top management team sitting at a conference table reading aloud into a speakerphone. The CFO went through the financials, the COO gave an update on operations and the CEO gave what passed for a pep talk about the company's quarter and year so far and prospects for 2007.

As these smart, confident, charming individuals went about their business, I was thinking "If I was on the other end of this call, listening to these boring, droning, disembodied voices, would I be paying attention or would I be playing solitaire on my PDA?" Solitaire, definitely. Maybe that makes me unfit to participate in such a call and I suppose if I was going to slack off, I could fill the time with another, more productive task. I suspect however, that my reaction is not that unusual. I can easily imagine all kinds of things going on at the other end of the phone that have nothing to do with the call.

This scares me and I'll tell you why. The analysts and financial managers who listen to these calls are supposed to be getting important information about the companies whose stock they include in their portfolios and that they that they recommend to their clients. They are also supposed to ask questions of the management team and listen to questions asked by others. If they are not focused or tuning in and out, they may miss something important. This can have devastating results for business and individual stockholders. I believe that much of the corporate malfeasance we have seen in recent years may be due in large part to people who should be listening carefully to such calls, but who are not.

I was in this meeting because the team had wanted me to help them rehearse for the call. They had this idea that their style wasn't the most engaging and they wanted to change that. A week or so before, I received the prepared remarks of each speaker and reviewed them. What I found is what I always find – the statements were written for the eye and not for the ear. There were the usual array of un-contracted word combos like "we are," "we will" and "will not." There were formal, legal sounding words like whereas and herewith. Sentences were paragraphs long. Industry specific terminology was rampant.

So I changed it, fixed all the stuff I mentioned above, adding contractions, shortening the sentences, substituting speaking words for writing words and common terminology for jargon. They accepted most of my suggestions and we began to do run-throughs. It was better, but it still was not good. I knew what the problem was. I could not, however, persuade these terrific, intelligent people that reading verbatim statements was not going to engage participants in the call and they were not going to be successful in getting their important messages across -- and I wrote a book on persuasion! Thankfully, the Q&A section of the call was much better because the presenters were, naturally, off script. But by that time, many of the participants, I feared, were irretrievably lost to other pressing work (or to Solitaire).

Whenever I suggest to businesses that they stop doing conference calls by reading aloud, I encounter the same objections: "The information is very technical and it has to be perfect; we cannot risk misspeaking." Or "The legal department made me do it." But I have heard many, many conference calls delivered by business leaders who, instead of reading word-for-word, take their cues from notes. They are also well rehearsed. As a result, their conversational tone is much more attention-getting because of the natural tendency to employ vocal variety or expressiveness, which is one of the nonverbal codes that gives our spoken words meaning. These skilled, knowledgeable executives do not make the mistakes my script-bound clients were so afraid of. Do they speak perfectly? No. There is no such thing as perfect speech.

The result? The information hits its target, and the leaders' knowledge, personalities and passion for the business shine through, increasing their esteem among those in the financial community. The participants are less prone to miss important information, and are therefore more qualified to invest their clients' money. All on the phone!

It's a winner.

Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • ruth@ruthsherman.com • www.ruthsherman.com

12:49 pm | 0 recommendations | 2 comments

Hillary's New Video

On Saturday, Hillary Clinton (finally) announced that she was running for president. In a video posted to her website, Senator Clinton, sitting in what looked like her living room, officially entered the '08 race. I always love to watch political candidates and analyze their communication styles mainly because they provide so much fodder. I believe that at the presidential level, the better communicator will win the election. Going back as far as Ronald Reagan, this has been true. By the way, the candidate does not have to be great (some of you may remember the first Bush v. Dukakis), just better.

So, how'd she do? Pretty well, I think. It was a performance that I, for one, had never seen from her. She has always had an issue with her public persona, coming across as cold and hard-edged, charisma sorely lacking, making it difficult for her to connect. For those reasons and because she has a reputation for being polarizing and is despised by many, I have been telling anyone who would listen that she didn't have much of a chance of winning a primary, no less a general election.

In the video, Mrs. Clinton looked relaxed, comfortable, even like she was having some fun. She called it a conversation and so she tried to make it sound conversational. One of her biggest problems has been her vocal technique; in her political speeches, she has always made a classic vocal mistake, substituting volume for expression (Al Gore does this, too). She did not do that this time. Instead, her vocal variety was natural, allowing her feelings to show through her voice. Her eye contact was direct, but sincere. She used her hands naturally, discarding the usual habit of keeping them motionless, resting on the lap during a "talking head" type TV appearance. Her head tilted and turned appropriately. She leaned forward and moved purposefully but smoothly, changing position at one point by resting her arm on a pillow while continuing to gesture from the new position. Her outfit was not a distraction and blended with the earth tones and general neutrality of the décor.

As far as the production values go, they were mostly excellent. The lighting and makeup were both flattering. The sound picked up on the best parts of her voice, eliminating her tendence toward nasality. There was something going on with the camera doing this nearly imperceptible panning during the close-up shots –- not sure why that was -– perhaps to trick the viewing eye into believing there was movement when there really was not -– I just don't know about that.

The most interesting thing to me was that her verbal message said nothing new but her nonverbals did. She seemed reasonable, likeable and warm, hard edges considerably softened. And given a choice between the words themselves and how someone looks and sounds when saying them, people will generally be more influenced by the latter.

As Hillary Clinton has no doubt discovered, albeit somewhat late, style matters. It makes a difference. And for political candidates at the national level, video style -- on television or on the Internet -- will make or break a candidacy because these are the places the electorate gets its info about candidates. They don't read newspapers or policy papers. In addition, people vote for candidates they like, or at least like better than the competition, and who seem more like themselves. You can't get that type of information by reading.

So, the questions now become, can she sustain the new communication style? Will it develop into charisma? Will her personal "story," yet to be told, be well crafted? (Remember George W. Bush as a brush-clearing rancher with a dusty pickup truck and a dog v. John Kerry, Nantucket windsurfer?) Those questions will have to remain unanswered for the time being.

The fun begins.

Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • ruth@ruthsherman.com • www.ruthsherman.com

12:12 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

Bad News Bearers

Several years ago, I was meeting with directors at an international investment bank the day after the stock market had taken a very serious plunge. The bank coincidentally had just finished rolling out a series of sales training programs for investment bankers. During our meeting, the directors began to get feedback on a key portion of the program—contacting clients when there is bad news. This sudden decline in the market filled that bill.

In the past, the bankers would wait for clients to contact them. The clients usually would be upset, many yelling and making gratuitous comments, so you can imagine the trepidation of the bankers at the prospect of taking the initiative to contact these angry clients first, portfolio managers who were holding stocks and funds the bankers had recommended and sold to them—stocks and funds that had lost a significant percentage of their value in just a few short hours. Calling clients at that moment felt like asking for trouble. The temptation was very strong to hold off on making first contact. Things were bad enough without pouring salt on this wound. No one wanted to risk being beat up any further.

Yet, some of the bankers who had gone through the sales training program overcame their fear and picked up the phone to make the calls. The result? Gratitude. Yes, that’s right, gratitude, for having had the guts to call and see how their clients were feeling, discuss the reasons it might have happened, and just plain commiserate. These portfolio managers, not known for being faint of heart, were consoled by the simple gesture of a phone call meant to reach out to them and help them buck up during a time of tremendous stress.

The result of those single, individual calls was enormous prestige bestowed on the investment bankers and their employer—just the opposite of what those who didn’t call received. A monumental amount of good will was generated. Clients told these bankers that they were the only ones who had called. Guess which investment bank got the next piece of business?

You might think about this story the next time things go wrong. I always do.

Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates, LLC • Greenwich, CT • ruth@ruthsherman.com • www.ruthsherman.com