Triangle vs. Circle!

If you're going to drive (or even walk) in Germany, you really should know the difference between these two signs:

Do you know the difference? For the answer, click here.

Don’t bring a data set to a food fight!

The takeaway message of the 2013 Sackler Colloquia on The Science of Science Communication, which I attended Monday and Tuesday at the National Academy of Sciences, was the importance of trust to being heard.

Much of Susan Fiske’s presentation confirmed how I approach communication for smart leaders:

• “People are not idiots. It’s up to us to figure out what things mean to them.” Later, Dietram Scheufele pointed out, “The same information means different things to different people.” This is because all communication is contextual. And because “we process incoming information based on the ideologies we have.”
• Trust is the neglected side of communication! Communicators are ineffective if they are not trusted.
• People trust people who are like themselves. They are motivated to support these people.
• We figure out whom to trust based on both warmth and competence.

Melanie Green, who is conducting compelling research on persuasion, built upon this last point: You will be perceived as an expert if you use statistics. You will be perceived as being a warm person if you use story. 

Given my own motivated reasoning, these points confirm my Heart, Head & Hand™ approach to communication: first, establish trust, often by sharing a story; then, share information; and be sure to invite your listener to apply or act upon your information in some way.

There was also a fascinating presentation by Noshir Contractor on the importance of leveraging social networks for the effective dissemination of information. He identified four kinds:

1. Social networks – who you know
2. Cognitive social networks – who they think you know
3. Knowledge networks – what they think you know
4. Cognitive knowledge networks – what who you know knows

Contractor said it’s impossible to leverage your networks if you don’t see yourself embedded in all of them. And that most people who accomplish anything do it because of what they know and whom they know.

He also offered research showing that new media helps people connect, but mostly with people just like themselves. There’s an echo effect. He suggested that to address this, we use network analysis and look at the bridges and the brokers who operate at the crossroads.

The final panel was on narrative, and Michael Dahlstrom proposed that stories, as a communication tool, are becoming a focus of attention because “people want to make things closer to human scale”, and stories accomplish that goal.

This was the first conference I’ve attended in a year in which I did not present, but had the simple joy of solely participating. I’m thinking about ways in which to make my work even more practical, and I’m interested in focusing my writing on audience-identified challenges. So, I spent a lot of time listening to the Twitter feed. And then I got sucked into Twitter participation. You can read many Storify compilations for the sessions here.

All of The Science of Science Communication sessions will be available for viewing on line, and I will post a link when that becomes available.

Despite the smart presentations and some enthusiastic reception of the science of effective communication, I left with the sense that many scientists shun responsibility for audience engagement. Many believe in only imparting information: in telling, not sharing. Many came eager to hear about what the audience must do, but repelled any onus on the part of the scientist to communicate empathetically. 

Public Relations Executive Peter Zandan provocatively noted, “Businesses are spending $9.5 billion a year on research on the effectiveness of their messages. These methods come from the social sciences! Yet, when we work with the sciences, they do not have the appetite to use the very methods they developed!” As a marketer, however, I’m uncertain that Mr. Zandan had the trust of the audience to be heard, let alone for the scientists to act on his message. 

All communication is contextual. People hear only what they want to hear, from trusted sources who have demonstrated warmth. Perhaps this can be best remembered by Marty Kaplan’s admonition, “Don’t bring a data set to a food fight!”

Remember my laryngitis?

It resulted in a number of epiphanies! I wrote about what I learned about communication by not speaking, just published in the Stanford Social Innovation Review.

Here's an excerpt:

Losing my voice for several days was a fascinating exercise. I gleaned empathy for people who cannot speak, express themselves immediately, or yell for help. My biggest epiphany was around questions: I was distressed that I could not ask my husband about his day, what he was reading, or what he was telling me. I thought a lot about how questions express interest and how they also influence conversation. I realized that questions are about helping the person questioned be heard and better understood; they can also be about selfishly amplifying the voice of the questioner.

And here's the full link.

Not Speaking & Still Wanting to be Heard

I have severe laryngitis. I can't say "hello" or "thank you". I can't yell at my cat to stop eating my Valentine's roses. I can't cry for help. It seems that I can't immediately be heard.

This is an interesting and insightful condition for a communication coach, and for someone who essentially earns a living by speaking.

Has this happened to you? Have you been in a situation when you could not speak? Has it changed the way in which you approach writing, facial expressions, or bodily expression?

Be Confident.

My most recent post at the Stanford Social Innovation Review blog explores the difference between confidence and certainty in communication. 

Here's an excerpt:

Confidence allows for fallibility and flexibility, and therefore helps you to develop trust with your audience. Think of the sometimes off-putting perfectionism and certainty of Martha Stewart, versus the humility and benevolent confidence of Oprah Winfrey....

Madeline Albright said, "Certainty comes from believing we have learned all there is to know. Confidence comes from the effort to learn all we can."

And here's a link to the entire short piece.

Be confident!

"Disruption is overrated."

"'Disruption is overrated,' [Stone] said. 'If you tell good stories, the platforms are sort of beside the point. We made the most analog thing you can think of, a play at the Eugene O’Neill Theater, and it worked out as well as anything we have ever done.'"

-Matt Stone, quoted by David Carr today in the NewYork Times.

How to Gather Stories

How to Gather Stories, a piece inspired by my recent work with philanthropic foundation program officers, has just been published at the Stanford Social Innovation Review blog.

Here's an excerpt:

Ask: “Tell me about a time…” By asking about a discrete moment in time, you encourage the sharing of experience and the details and emotion that accompany the recollection.

Ask for superlatives....

We tend to remember the superlative moments in our lives. Probe for those experiences. Ask for heightened emotional moments. Emotion is often referred to as the “glue” of memory. Ask people about moments when they have felt connected, surprised, or touched. Ask for “Aha!” moments of epiphany and for turning points.

You can also share a story of your own—and then be quiet. Sit back, and transfer all your attention to the person with whom you just shared your story. Most likely, you will hear one in return. If necessary, ask: “Does that story remind you of anything?”

You can read the entire short piece here.

Some good advice from Karen Amstrong.

"There are times when you have to speak out against injustice or cruelty. But if you speak — and this is what Gandhi said — in order to punish or wound, you will do more harm than good. The Dalai Lama said that to condemn injustice with hatred in your voice will make the injustice worse. ... So it does no good to attack viciously. The thing to do is not to rise to the bait."

-from an interview with Karen Armstrong in the June issue of the Believer magazine.

"I take no sentence for granted."

Just one sentence (another titles this post) from the essay "My Life's Sentences" by Jhumpa Lahiri in today's New York Times:

"The urge to convert experience into a group of words that are in a grammatical relation to one another is the most basic, ongoing impulse of my life."

A Racy Taint.

Just the final sentence of the article "Off-Color Communiques Taint FBI Sting in Court: Racy text messages between informant and agents turn off jurors" by Del Quentin Wilber, which appears on the front page of today's Washington Post:

“U [expletive] [expletive],” the agent texted back.

Why Story Matters

"Communication is more than transactional. Communication can be transformative."

Stanford Social Innovation Review just published an excerpt from a lecture I recently delivered at the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University (my alma mater).

Click here to see my advice to future professional communicators, including:

• Why focus on storysharing, as opposed to storytelling
• The importance of story elicitation in business communication
• The transformational power of story

Why Story Matters - Syracuse Edition

Tomorrow evening, November 14, I will presenting a lecture on Why Story Matters at the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University - my alma mater! The lecture, which is open to the public, begins at 7 PM. Upstate NY NeuroCooking readers, please join me!

I am told this event will be live-tweeted, with the hashtag #pekar.

On Wednesday evening, I will be conducting a workshop with the Women Presidents' Organization, Syracuse Chapter. This will focus on why story matters in leadership. This program is by invitation-only.

Why Story Matters in Activism

On the Issues Magazine has recently published my article on why story matter in activism - and how to work with story in your own activism.

It opens, dear NeuroCooking readers, with a story about Sheila Thaler Pekar, mother of Jim and me:

I remember my first feminist act. It was Spring of 1974, and I was nine years old. My mother, Sheila Thaler Pekar, had gone to a car dealer earlier in the day, prepared to purchase a car. When it came time to sign the contract, however, the dealer required that she obtain my father's signature. Sheila had the deposit, the credit and the bank account. But, the salesman insisted, the dealership would not sell a car to a married woman without the consent of her husband.

When my mom returned home -- defeated, humiliated, and very, very angry -- she told me to follow her into my parent's bedroom. She retrieved the purse in which she kept her store credit cards. In those days, it was common for a middle class woman to have a credit card – in her husband's name – for every small, local department store. She sat me down on the floor, put a pair of scissors in my hand, and instructed me to cut up each and every one of the credit cards. As the scissors bore through the words “Mrs. Walter Pekar," my mom passionately spoke about the importance of a woman having her own money and being able to make independent financial decisions. And she spoke about the importance of women being respected, valued, and treated equally to men.

Click here to continue reading.

Forget Expertise; Go for Immediate Engagement

This morning, I had the pleasure of coaching a brilliant law professor on an upcoming presentation. We've been working together for two and a half years, and I am continually impressed with her passion for the law, and her sense of it as a creative and forward-thinking field. And I continually struck by how the tenets of being a good lawyer contrast with the skill set of a good presenter.

Most notably. when presenting a case to judge, or teaching to a classroom of law students, a lawyer must defend his or her position by thoroughly establishing context and background, and providing all relevant data. Expertise - and thus the right to win, pontificate, or hold forth - must be established.

When one is asked to be on a panel, present a speech, or deliver a keynote, however, expertise is already established. You are there precisely because of your expertise and the audience is anticipating - and deserves - engagement. As a speaker, you must immediately engage with your audience, and give them reason to trust you. And then, especially in the limited time allotted to a presentation, you must continue to engage them in a compelling discovery of information.

Establishing trust with an audience is different than proving expertise to a judge or oppositional lawyer. If you know your stuff, it will be communicated whether or not you say it in the bulk of your limited remarks. (You can always share it, if necessary, during Q&A.)

You don't have to prove yourself; you have to offer an invitation to conversation.

Persuasive Communication

I was recently interviewed for a magazine article on persuasion. Unfortunately, I just found out that the not-to-be-named magazine folded before the interview could run. Here are some excerpts from my unpublished Q&A with the journalist:

Q: Can learning the right ways to approach people with requests help people become more assertive? How so? We all hate rocking the boat, but why is it important to stand up for yourself and ask for what you want?

A: We all want to be heard. We don’t even necessarily want to “win” or get our way; we crave being heard and understood. The Earl of Chesterfield is quoted as saying, "Many a man would rather you heard his story than granted his request." Being able to voice our authentic feelings and desires while at the same time showing respect and empathy for our listeners is incredibly powerful. Continually tamping down on one’s own passion is eventually exhausting and demoralizing.

Q: What are the keys to being a persuasive person - and how is this different from being manipulative?
A: We need to understand that we are primarily communicating because there’s something we want our audience to do. It may be that we want our listener to undertake a different approach to solving a problem, or we want our partner or roommate to take out the garbage, or we want to help a friend feel better – there is an end goal to our communication. Persuasion is not coercion, or manipulation; it’s about moving toward action.

Persuasion is about helping change people’s minds about changing their minds. It’s not about telling people what to do, but facilitating their own discovery of the action and the rewards of taking such action. It’s about engagement, and helping people find meaning, and requires two-way communication. Being effectively persuasive is about respecting how other people see the world.

Q: When trying to get someone to see your side, are there tactics that work across the board, or do you have to know your audience and adjust?

A: I recommend a 3-step process, based on history, experience, and an understanding of the science behind cognition, emotion, and memory. I've trademarked it Heart, Head & Hand™. Heart, Head & Hand™ recommends first establishing a relevant and emotional context for communication, then delivering facts and data, and then asking the audience to take action. The order is crucial.

Q: So how can you read your audience – what should you look for?

A: Start with a clear understanding of what you want your listener to do as a result of your communication. Consider how your listener may need to feel in order to take the desired action. Might you have a story you can share about a time when you felt similarly?

Think, too, about where your work and concerns overlap with your audience’s work and concerns. Draw a Venn diagram and map it out. Seeing it visually can provide insight, and thus confidence.

Q: How important is confidence in being persuasive? How can you exude confidence without seeming cocky or arrogant?
A: Too often, we fail to show up, to show emotion, to show passion and desire. Showing passion is crucial to successfully moving listeners to action, and to making change happen. In a professional setting, passion and emotion need not translate as emotional. Emotion, in a professional setting, means delivering your information, and your request for change, with passion and confidence, and within a context that the audience finds meaningful.

How not to tell a story.

"The road to hell is paved with adverbs."

- Steven King

[h/t: The Writer's Almanac]

See this man if you possibly can!

Mr. Reggie Watts, who is not writing a book entitled "The Coolness of the Closeness of Now", was amazing last night at the Wooly Mammoth Theater, where tickets are selling fast for performances through this Friday.

What is an algorithm?

[Reggie Watts @ Google.]

"An algorithm is someone who feels good on a rainy day..." [starting at 5:44]

Why & How to be Intentional About the Stories You Share

Stanford Social Innovation Review recently published my short essay, Invite Your Listener to Share the Story. It offers tips for finding and developing strategic stories, as well an example of the process. Click here to learn how to invite your listeners to imagine their part in your proffered solution.

How Twitter Makes You a Better Presenter

For a nifty exercise on how to hone the message you deliver when you present, see my new blog post for The Communications Network, How Twitter Helps Hone Communication.