I have been a loyal customer of a few businesses over the years, and it is not because they charge less for their products or services, or because they do a better job than the competition. It is because they make me smarter. I contacted one recently, a heating contractor, about a furnace in one of my properties. The property is over twenty years old, and any furnace that is over two decades old is on its last legs. How do I know this? Because I Googled it. When I searched the internet, the first page stated an average of 16-20 years. And, like 92% of users of the internet, I didn’t look past the first page. Why bother? Everyone knows that the top of the first page is the most accurate. Except it is not. In fact, even the most trusted sources of information on the internet can be highly flawed. And the average user does not often know the difference. That is where you and your staff come in.

Research has shown that customers remain loyal to companies that are considered a trusted source of information. Researchers have confirmed that being considered an expert in your field within your marketplace is one of the best tools of marketing. But the key word is known. The customer doesn’t really care how much you know, they care about how much your knowledge can serve them. You cannot keep your knowledge to yourself.

Take the furnace company I referenced earlier. When I called about my elderly furnace, they could have just set up an appointment to sell me a new one, but I would have eventually discovered their trickery. Not only would they have lost me as a customer, but they would have lost everyone I could reach on social media and beyond (I have been known to hire a skywriter to voice my displeasure). Instead, the rep said, “I know the internet says your furnace might die, but I have seen furnaces that were 25 years old and still cooking. No need to panic. I have you in the system, so when the unit does go out, we can get you a new one in no time.” My trust in the company grew because, not only did they help me avoid spending money, but they gave me information which made me a smarter customer. Now, there is no way I will go to any other company.

I spoke to another company about a new oven my wife and I just bought (yeah, it’s been a year of failing appliances). When I spoke to the rep, I told her that the temperature in the oven was uneven. It would start out higher than the thermostat setting, and then drop lower. She was a pleasant rep, but she made two errors. First, she said I needed to leave the thermometer in the oven for about 30 minutes because it can take a while for the read to be correct. Second, should the temperature still be off, she kindly offered to e-mail me instructions on how to recalibrate the temperature settings.

After more research, I discovered that all ovens, even new ones, fluctuate during the first half hour of heating because they are adjusting to heating elements turning on and off. After 30 minutes, the temperature in the oven evens out. Had she told me that, she would have had a much calmer customer, and one that would trust her more in the future. She gave me one bit of information, but didn’t fully educate me on the issue.

The second error came when she offered to e-mail me instructions on recalibrating the oven. I said, “No thanks. I am sure there is a YouTube video that shows how to do it.” She agreed, and that was that. She should have said, “You are probably right, but let me send you the e-mail anyway. You never know if the information you are getting is correct, and I want to save you the time of searching for it.” The truth is, my YouTube search turned up no results.

In every contact, make sure that your company is the source of information for your customer. Information makes for a happy customer, and a loyal one.

Stevie Ray is a nationally recognized corporate speaker and trainer, helping companies improve communication skills, customer service, leadership, and team management.  He can be reached at www.stevierays.org or stevie@stevierays.org.

by Stevie Ray

First published in the Business Journal Newspapers, January 2021

Right now, in America and across the world, every business leader has one thing on their mind, “How can I keep my staff focused and productive during one of the most stressful periods in history?” Your business might be afflicted with changing sales patterns, distance working, and economic upheaval, but the greatest threat to your company is rising stress levels among your staff. Stress doesn’t just make people feel bad, long-term stress decreases mental acuity, creative problem-solving, communication skills, and cognition. Add increased rates of illness, and the impact of stress will certainly be seen on your P&L.

Some companies deal with stress with a let’s push through this approach. That approach does work, but only for Acute Stress. Acute stress is short-term, like a traffic jam or a heated argument. The human brain is designed to manage acute stress. However, chronic stress—negative events that last a few hours each day over a period of weeks—is beyond the brain’s ability to mitigate. When in chronic stress, the brain engages in the General Adaptation Syndrome. This syndrome has three stages: Alarm Reaction Stage: the fight-or-flight response, Resistance Stage; the body attempts to repair itself. If stress does not dissipate, this stage can cause irritability and poor concentration, Exhaustion Stage: a draining of physical and emotional resources, resulting in burnout.

Rather than employ quick pick-me-ups—which boost morale only briefly—leaders should consider the issue of Locus of Control, a term in psychology which refers to where control is thought to originate in someone’s life. People who feel an Internal Locus of Control believe that the events in their life are the result of their own actions. People who feel an External Locus of Control feel that events are the result of the world acting upon them. Even though both types of people experience the same event, those with an internal locus of control experience less stress, recover from the negative events more quickly, and are more productive.

To be clear, it is not who actually has control over their environment that matters, it is those who feel in control who do better in life. If a child gets good grades and you say, “That is wonderful. You are naturally smart,” or “You are so gifted,” you are fostering an external locus of control. The positive outcomes are a result of factors outside of the child’s control. However, if you say, “You must have worked very hard to get those grades,” you are fostering an internal locus of control. Children who feel an internal locus of control go on to choose more challenging work, and excel at future tasks. Those with an external locus of control shy away from difficult challenges, and get lower grades. In short, it isn’t the size of the challenge that causes stress, it is the belief in the individual that they have control over their situation that allows them to succeed.

It is easy to see the comparison between school children and your staff. How well your staff can face potentially stressful challenges goes beyond effective training, and the tools they have to perform their job. Those two factors certainly do play a role in employee satisfaction and success, but the ability to employ those factors depends on whether the employee feels in control of their life. The great thing about locus of control is, we don’t need to actually be in control, we just need to feel in control. In studies about stress and productivity, those subjects who were able control even minor decisions fared better. In one study, subjects were placed in a booth and told that an uncomfortably loud buzzer would sound every few minutes. Some subjects were given a button and told that they could choose when the buzzer would sound. Other subjects had no control over the buzzer. Both groups were subjected to the same negative stimulus, but those with the button reported feeling no stress at all.

Rather than saying, “Don’t worry, I’ve got this,” give your staff a feeling of control by asking their input, take a vote rather than issue a directive, allow them to make as many decisions as possible, no matter how insignificant. Controlling everyday decisions puts the power back into their hands, and helps them navigate the stressful waters ahead.

Stevie Ray is a nationally recognized corporate speaker and trainer, helping companies improve communication skills, customer service, leadership, and team management.  He can be reached at www.stevierays.org or stevie@stevierays.org.

Now that the pandemic is settling in for a longer run than expected, many businesses are having to shift from let’s wait this out to what do we do now? Some organizations have the option of simply delivering their existing goods through different channels—drive-thru service or patio dining for restaurants—but if your company is more complicated than burgers and fries, it is time to get serious about creative options. That led me to dust off some old tips about brainstorming.

Most brainstorming sessions are at best, unproductive or, at worst, exercises in frustration and futility. The fault lies in following out-of-dates methods. Individuals have been shown to be every bit as capable as teams at developing creative, workable solutions. So, why have teams brainstorm in the first place? The answer is, groups can create a higher volume of ideas in the same period of time, and when a group creates a solution together, there is greater buy-in; the idea is implemented with more enthusiasm than if the solution is handed down from on high.

The goal of brainstorming is twofold; a high volume of ideas, and creative breadth. Creativity is measured by how far away from the norm an idea is. The best way to achieve both conditions might surprise you; debate. Most people have been taught that brainstorming is only possible if team members follow the rule that every idea is a good idea. This rule goes back decades. Alex Osborne, and advertising executive in the 1940s wanted to codify the methods used by his staff when developing creative advertising campaign. Upon observation, he noted that his team seemed to be more productive when they agreed with each other. So, he formed the every idea is a good idea rule, and we all believed the rule to be gospel truth. The problem is Osborne didn’t test his assumption. When the rule was researched recently, it turns out that Osborne was only partly right. The first obstacle to the rule is, it is impossible to treat every idea as a good one, because some ideas stink. To agree with a stinky idea is disingenuous, which destroys the trust of the team. Teams can’t create if they don’t trust each other. Second, agreeing with every idea shuts down the critical thinking centers of the brain. We have all been in meetings where the leader said, “Every idea is a good one. Who has one?” The very notion causes uncomfortable silence because it is saying, in a sense, “Leave your brain at the door.”

When groups were used to test the brainstorming process, a third of the teams were told to agree with every idea presented, another third was told to debate each idea on its merits and defects, while the final third (the control group) was told to employ no rules at all. The group that had the highest volume and most creative ideas was the debating group. The next most productive was the control group. Surprisingly, the least productive group was the one that agreed with everything.

Osborne was correct in recognizing that bluntly telling someone that their idea is stupid will shut down new ideas, inhibit group participation, and destroy productivity. So yes, we should avoid completely blasting someone’s idea. But respectful debate does the opposite. If I think someone’s idea is unworkable, and I say, “Charlene, I just don’t see how we can make that work. Tell me why you think it is a good idea,” it invites my team member to dig further into her idea. If my challenge is an invitation to mix it up, mentally, it sparks creative thinking; not only in Charlene’s brain, but in the rest of the team’s brains as well. The act of Charlene defending her idea causes greater brain activity in the group.

The only way for this to work is to recognize the difference between argument and debate. An argument is a back-and-forth It won’t work, Yes, it will test of wills. The winner is usually the one with more authority. For debate to be productive, it must be robust and respectful. During brainstorming, workplace hierarchy must be suspended. In fact, sometimes having more experience in a field prevents examining a issue creatively. It must be openly acknowledged that everyone must have an opinion, whether positive or negative. And, if Tim from the sales department is always shooting down others’ ideas, some people are just not wired to think up new ideas. However, if Tim is told that he can still be critical, but now must do it in a way that sparks healthy debate, you access Tim’s talents without sacrificing every else’s. A good leader guides the process and keeps debate productive. If a team member says, “That will never work,” the leader must ask why. Keep digging until the answer sparks even more debate. Now go do what hasn’t been done yet.

Stevie Ray is a nationally recognized corporate speaker and trainer, helping companies improve communication skills, customer service, leadership, and team management.  He can be reached at www.stevierays.org or stevie@stevierays.org.

It is one thing to keep employees focused and engaged when times are normal; try doing it during a global pandemic. Not only are people isolated—which cuts them off from the usual channels of stimulation and connection—but the uncertainty of the future takes a drastic toll on every employee. The current crisis calls for specific types of leadership, but not just one approach will work. Ironically, one style of leadership that has been under attack for years, is just the kind needed right now; Command and Control.

Also called Top Down Leadership; Command and Control was the predominant leadership style in place during the ‘40s, ‘50s, and ‘60s. The belief was that, if the approach worked in the military, it should work for business. Since there was little research to refute this belief, the military-is-good-for-business philosophy flourished. It was later discovered that, not only are there over a dozen styles of leadership that are effective in business, even the military doesn’t adhere only to the top-down management style (they routinely employ consensus and team-think when needed). The truth is the type of leadership that works best depends on what kind of team you are leading, as well as the situation the team is facing.

The situation that most calls for Command and Control is an emergency. When the ship is sinking, there is no time to call for a vote. But it isn’t just expediency that demands a top-down approach, it is the psychological state of the team. I recall a scene in a movie where a young naval officer is thrust into the captain’s chair in a submarine after most of the crew is killed. When a sailor continually presses him for a plan of action, the new captain snaps and says, “I don’t know. I don’t have all the answers!” An older, wiser skipper takes the young captain aside and says, “Don’t ever say ‘I don’t know’ to your crew again. Those three words will kill a crew deader than a depth charge. You are the captain. You have to know.”

This is not to say that leaders should be barking orders and ignoring input; it is a reminder that the type of leader that is needed right now is one that knows; a leader that is decisive. Going in the wrong direction might be risky, but it is much less risky than not picking a direction at all.

Another critical lesson also comes from the military. It involves Distributed Teams; people who work in separate geographic locations. Some companies deal with this challenge as a matter of course, but most are facing it now for the first time. The military has researched how a leader can best  command troops  that are located thousands of miles away, often in a different country. The one action taken by successful leaders of distributed teams was communication that was frequent and spontaneous. The longer an employee goes without contact with the leader, and fellow employees, the worse the results. Also, regularly scheduled meetings are not spontaneous; so, they provide less benefit. Check in on your staff—one-on-one if you can—but make it often and make it a surprise.

Finally, the first casualty of crisis is humor, and prolonged periods without the healing power of laughter are dangerous for humans. One critical condition that must exist for people to laugh is permission. Before people laugh, they look around them to first see if laughter is considered acceptable. That is why people are sixteen times more likely to laugh at something if they witness it as a group, rather than seeing it alone. Prolonged crises, like we are experiencing with COVID-19, can seem to make the very act of levity a crime. Now is the time, as a leader, for you to include humor in communication. Let people know that they are not being insensitive to the situation by releasing tension through laughter. In fact, one of the greatest benefits of laughter is the release of tension, which help mitigate dangerous toxins that are fostered by prolonged stress.

The best way to relieve your own sadness is to force yourself to help someone relieve theirs. This is the most important job of leading in a time of COVID.

Stevie Ray is a nationally recognized corporate speaker and trainer, helping companies improve communication skills, customer service, leadership, and team management.  He can be reached at www.stevierays.org or stevie@stevierays.org.

“Look at me when I’m talking to you!” “Don’t you eyeball me!” Two phrases that demonstrate the dichotomy of eye contact. European cultures consider it rude not to look at the person who is speaking. However, many Asian cultures consider it intrusive and disrespectful to give too much direct eye contact. Add to the equation the brain’s unique way of processing input, and suddenly knowing where to focus your gaze during a conversation becomes a risky endeavor. One fact about the brain helps explain why eye contact is fraught with complexities. The fact is: one of the most challenging acts the brain can engage in is communicating with nonfamilial persons.

People who are not part of our immediate social group are almost always considered a threat by the brain. Unfamiliar people are difficult to communicate with because we don’t know how to read their vocal tone, body language, or facial expressions. Eye contact is tricky because humans are a product of both evolution, and socialization. DNA wires us to behave in accordance with how our ancestors evolved. However, the brain is a malleable organ, and will rewire itself according to social influences and personal experience.

When it comes to eye contact, many people unknowingly use it incorrectly. For example, say you want a colleague to open up about a sensitive issue. You sit down across from him so you are facing each other. To encourage conversation, you look directly at him and say, “Go ahead. Tell me what you think.” In this case, direct eye contact is detrimental. Throughout human evolution, people have spent their waking hours either walking side by side, working side by side, or eating side by side. Very few shared experiences involved sitting and facing each other. Directly facing another person signals either formality or familiarity. Formality certainly does not foster openness. Familiarity is a good for any relationship, but it is a tenuous feature in the workplace.

Parents are given the advice that, if they want their child to speak freely, engage in an activity that requires focus; so, you and the child aren’t sitting looking directly at each other. This might seem impossible in a work environment, but it can be done. Steve Jobs was well known for having walking meetings. Instead of sitting across from his desk, you and he would stroll around the grounds of Apple headquarters. Walking side by side eases tension, making communication easier and more productive.

I used this technique when I was asked to deal with a particularly challenging executive at a retail giant. This woman was known for her harsh demeanor; sometimes exploding at employees during meetings. When I arrived at her office, she said, “I’m glad you’re here. There is a lot of crap going on around here I want to discuss!” I said, “Great. I want to hear it. Let’s walk while we talk.” With that, I turned on my heels and strolled out of her office. If we had sat across from each other, the resulting constant eye contact would have increased the tension; risking bringing contention into the conversation. As we walked side by side around her building, she certainly didn’t become sunshine and roses, but she did mellow out enough that we could come to an agreement about how to proceed.

Other research has discovered that some companies have three people attend employee evaluations; the employee, the manager, plus the manager’s boss. The manager’s boss doesn’t sit next to the manager; with both of them staring down the hapless employee; he or she sits next to the employee. With the employee and big boss sitting side by side, the eye contact is directed back at the manager. This simple shifting of focus signals to the employee that this is a collegial meeting; meant to discuss goals and outcomes, not a meeting to put the employee under a heat lamp.

This is not meant to suggest that all eye contact is bad. Regular checking in with others in a conversation with glances and visual acknowledgement is crucial to effective communication. However, it is important to maintain awareness of whether the type of eye contact you are employing is generating the results you want. The eyes are called the windows to the soul. They are also windows to a good working relationship.

Stevie Ray is a nationally recognized corporate speaker and trainer, helping companies improve communication skills, customer service, leadership, and team management.  He can be reached at www.stevierays.org or stevie@stevierays.org.

If you never have to stand in front of an audience and deliver a presentation, you can stop reading. For the rest of you, I am often asked, “Should I bring notes on stage, or script my presentation word for word?” As with most of life, the answer is never simple. Before I get into the meat of the issue, let’s dispense with one question right off the bat. Unless you are giving a legal deposition, never script your presentation. The two most common reasons people script speeches are: they are too nervous to face the audience and talk, or they are worried about forgetting important points of information.

If you are uncomfortable facing and audience, reading off a script won’t make you appear any more comfortable. In fact, because you are trying to follow words on a page, you are more likely to stumble when you fall off script (which always happens). If you are worried about forgetting something, bring notes on stage. If you have key words to follow, your natural conversational tone will take over, and you will appear more genuine and authoritative; and the notes will make sure you tick off important points as you go.

There is another important reason not to script presentations. When we write, we use more words than when we speak; we also use different vocabulary. It is rare that someone can read a prepared speech and not sound canned. The result is a disconnect from the audience, and a loss of trust on the part of the listener.

So, if you can’t script a presentation, how do you improve your speaking skills? An effective tool comes from an unlikely source; stand-up comedy. Comedians have the same challenge as speakers, they must remember important points in their presentation, and yet they must appear to be speaking off the top of their head. Comedians use what is called a set list; a list of key words that take them from one piece of material (called a bit) to the next. The best comedians take honing their craft to the next level. They record their act, then afterwards they transcribe their set word for word; essentially creating a script after the fact. This allows them to examine their act on paper and look for better word choices, clear up unnecessary or meandering segments, and rearrange material for better flow.

Besides reviewing their act on paper, disciplined comedians also watch themselves on video. They look for distracting mannerisms. These are usually repetitive movements that people aren’t aware they are doing unless they see it on screen. They watch for movement and physicality that either supports or detracts from their message. Anyone who has seen themselves on video can attest that it can be very uncomfortable. Few people like the way they look or sound on tape, so good performers must develop an objectivity; the ability to look at themselves on screen as if they were an audience member. Gaining objectivity helps us improve our style without getting rid of the things that make us personable.

Years ago, I was acquainted with a successful news anchor. He reached the top of the #14 media market in the country, and was eventually hired in Los Angeles, the #2 market. I asked how he gained the skills to be a top-notch news anchor, and he said, “I review every single news broadcast I deliver. I evaluate my performance as if I were someone sitting in his or her living room and I ask myself, ‘Would I like watching this, or would I turn the channel?’” I thought about what my friend said, and I thought about the thousands of conferences I have attended over the years. I thought about how many speakers made me want to change the channel.

Few comedians, or news anchors, follow through with the discipline of transcribing their performance and reviewing themselves on tape; but the best ones do. I do it every so often, and every time I do, I am surprised at what I learn about my performance. Even if you can’t transcribe and review yourself after every presentation, do it as often as you can. It is the only way to make sure the audience doesn’t want to change the channel.

Stevie Ray is a nationally recognized corporate speaker and trainer, helping companies improve communication skills, customer service, leadership, and team management.  He can be reached at www.stevierays.org or stevie@stevierays.org.

I got a call from Charles the other day. Charles is the Vice President of Sales of a software company. He said, “I handle high-end client issues. By the time an issue reaches my desk, it means that things are serious. The first thing I do is check the e-mail thread between my staff and the client. Sometimes the e-mail thread is three to four weeks long, but my staff member never picked up the phone and talk over the issue with the client. When I review the e-mails, I see that, around the second or third exchange, a phone call would have easily resolved the problem.”

Charles added, “Instead of solving problems by calling clients, my staff continues to e-mail. I end up having to give refunds and discounts just to keep a client that is ready to walk. Our company spends months or years to woo new clients, only to almost lose them because a staff member would rather use his thumbs than his mouth.” I asked Charles why he didn’t just instruct his staff to pick up the phone instead of e-mail or text. He replied, “Would you put a jockey on the horse if he didn’t know how to ride it?”

I was surprised to discover that the problem was not that Charlie’s staff were millennials who grew up only communicating through cell phones; there were just as many Gen-X and Baby Boomers in the room. We began by examining the pros and cons of voice, text, and face-to-face communication. Too many people choose one form of communication over another without thinking. In a nutshell:

Text: the pros. Text is trackable, allowing for accountability and accuracy. Text can also be reviewed before sending, avoiding mis-statements. Text allows both sender and receiver to engage on their own time. Text can also be stored for later review. These pros make text appropriate for sending data that might be reviewed at a later date.

Text: the cons. Text usually takes more time to convey the same amount of information, making it a less efficient means of communication. Text also lacks the subtly of voice or face-to-face, increasing the risk of misunderstanding. This next point might seem trivial, but text isn’t fun. Communication is not meant solely to convey information. Even staid business relationships must have an element of human connection. Only the most skilled writer can make textual communication fun. With inboxes filled with dozens of messages every day, one more message adds stress for the receiver. No matter how necessary your text is, it is not a welcome part of someone’s day. Conversation is almost always more pleasant than reading. Most important, it is virtually impossible to influence behavior or resolve issues using text.

Voice: the pros. Reading is a relatively recent addition to the brain’s evolutionary abilities; and quickly tires of it. The brain prefers listening to a voice. Subtleties of pitch and tone make voice communication more effective at influencing behavior and developing a relationship. Voice also allows for more information in a shorter time. Voice enables humor; a powerful tool for communication.

Voice: the cons. If you aren’t adept at conversation, you can ruin it by interrupting or not delivering with smooth flow of information. Also, unless you take accurate notes, voice communication can be remembered differently by both parties, leading to problems later. Finally, it can be difficult to align schedules that allow both parties to be available to talk at the same time.

Face-to-Face: the pros. As much as the brain loves to listen instead of read; it loves to look at visuals even more. The combination of face and voice are what our brains are most attuned to. Every benefit listed in the voice section belongs here, but with slightly less risk of misinterpreting signals.

Face-to-Face: the cons. Besides scheduling conflicts, there aren’t many other cons for face-to-face communication, unless you are socially challenged.

Now that the pros and cons are out of the way, I’ll bet you were expecting a tutorial on the best techniques and voice and face communication. If only life were that easy. If you want to sharpen these skills, you have to practice. Have your staff call you to make practice runs. Train your jockeys before putting them on a horse.

Stevie Ray is a nationally recognized corporate speaker and trainer, helping companies improve communication skills, customer service, leadership, and team management.  He can be reached at www.stevierays.org or stevie@stevierays.org.

I was engaged in a political debate over social media the other day with an acquaintance of mine. Have you ever done something that you know is a complete waste of your valuable time, will accomplish no discernable good, and will almost certainly end with everyone right back where they started; only angrier? Such is debating social policy on social media. “Larry” had made a derogatory comment about one of the past U.S. presidents concerning how a particular industry was being treated in America. According to Larry, this president was a terrible leader because his policies “destroyed” this particular industry.

I knew that debating of whether a single president has the power to build or destroy any industry wouldn’t get far with Larry. When it comes to economics, cause and effect are nearly impossible to prove, much less agree upon. So I did something even more foolish, I introduced facts to the party. Admittedly, it can be arrogant to claim to have facts while accusing others of resting on opinions; but in this case, my facts were facts. They were flat-out statistics, not opinions about why the statistics existed or where they came from. In fact, the facts were so universally agreed upon by all sides of the debate, and on both sides of the aisle, that it has long been agreed upon that the statistics are valid. By everyone, except Larry.

After unloading both barrels of facts into the debate, I sat back, crossed my arms, and waited to Larry to grovel at the feet of truth. I didn’t expect to be metaphorically lifted on the shoulders of rectitude, but it would have been nice. Have you ever posted a response on social media and the other person took forever to reply? All sorts of thoughts go through your head. “I’ve got him now. He’s on the ropes and gasping for breath.” Or, “I bet he is surfing the internet to find a rebuttal statistic. Cheater!” Larry finally replied, “I trust my own eyes and ears more than I trust a bunch of Ph.D. bean counters.” I realized then what I should have known at the outset of the debate; Larry wasn’t interested in sparking a lively, thought-provoking conversation. He wanted to connect with people who hated that president as much as he did. I wasn’t playing the game Larry had set up. I replied with something weak, like “We’ll have to agree to disagree,” which translates into “You’re an idiot, but I’m tired of trying to convince you that you’re an idiot.”

What does all this have to do with business? A report was issued recently that suggested that one of the most damaging traps executives in America fall into is confirmation bias; the tendency to make a decision, and then ignore any evidence that might threaten that position. The Harvard Business Review published an experiment in which people were placed in one of two groups based on their opinions concerning capital punishment. Each member of the group was then given a report that contradicted their original position. The contradictions were not simply differing opinions; cold hard facts were presented to support the opposition. Regardless of any new evidence, almost no one changed their position.

Confirmation bias is not simply a stubborn quality built into humans. We all have a psychological tendency to decide what we want to do first, then figure out why we want to do it. Combine this with another psychological urge—to engage only with things we like—and you’ve got a powerful combination of forces affecting important decisions; decisions that are better left to facts rather than opinion. However, failures in business throughout history have been traced back to someone in the corner office “Knowing what I know, and no bean counter is going to tell me otherwise.” Attitudes like this always make me laugh. Frankly, if you’re going to hire a bean counter, shouldn’t you trust the count she comes up with? And, even though there are some people walking around with Ph.D.s who I wouldn’t trust to watch my dog, by and large, a person got a doctorate degree because he or she devoted years to learn more about one single subject than most people on the planet. Ph.D. holders really are kinda smart. Smart enough not to use words like “kinda.”

If you want to avoid confirmation bias, be sure to have someone on your team whose job it is to take opposing sides of a debate. The person has to have the power to disagree with you without fear of recrimination. Also, when talking about an important issue, be aware if you are asking questions that aren’t really questions at all, but simply veiled attempts at forcing agreement from others. Remember, we are all psychologically built to seek out things that we like, and supporting evidence feels good. Constantly remind yourself that what feels good in the short term could end up feeling terrible in the long run. Be disciplined enough to approach major decisions from both sides of the debate, and do as much work arguing with yourself and you do with others.

Stevie Ray is a nationally recognized corporate speaker and trainer, helping companies improve communication skills, customer service, leadership, and team management.  He can be reached at www.stevierays.org or stevie@stevierays.org.

This column is aimed at those of you who either deliver presentations. A situation that deals with communication is a non-familial setting (as opposed to, say, a meeting with a co-worker whom you deal with on a daily basis). Delivering presentations involves apprehension on the part of the audience concerning the outcome. Is this meeting going to be worth my time? Am I going to be bored or excited? Will I like this person? The audience, or listener, in these circumstances experiences one of two emotions; nervous or comfortable. If the listener is comfortable, they will trust what you say, be engaged, cooperate with your suggestions, and speak well about you to others. If the listener is nervous, reverse all those responses.

Comfort is not only caused by a feeling that the listener likes the speaker, but that the speaker has behaved in such a way that the listener can trust that the experience itself will be pleasant. Essentially, the audience can relax because the speaker is confident and exudes an attitude that, not matter what may happen during the presentation, the speaker will remain in control and unflustered. In order to be comfortable, the listener has to know for certain that the worth of the presentation does not rest solely on the worth of the content, but in the quality of the delivery. Listeners may indeed become nervous if they are worried about how the content of a presentation might affect their lives (Will a new process be difficult to implement? Will a new policy be a hassle?). However, listeners can be just as nervous about whether the presentation itself will be difficult to endure. So nervousness isn’t just about what the speaker is likely to say, but about how well the speaker says it.

The nervous-or-comfortable reaction is the guiding force behind a listener’s decision making. If we like the messenger, we are more likely to follow the message. Sadly, many presenters approach their presentation incorrectly. They focus solely on the content, the meat, of the presentation. They ignore the fact that a listener will typically react with nervousness or comfort based, not on the entire presentation itself, but on the first thirty seconds of the presentation. If the first half-minute inspires a good response from the listener, you are in good shape. If, within the first thirty seconds, the audience is nervous about how well the rest of the experience will go, you have a lot of work to do to win back the crowd; if you can win them back at all.

One way to correct this mistake is to follow the old adage, Well begun is half done (often attributed to Aristotle, but was an oft-used axiom long before his birth). Even though most audiences will judge whether an experience is worthwhile within a few moments, many presenters focus their attention of the middle of the presentation. While it is true that all the statistics, charts, graphs, and recommendations are important, they are worthless if people have checked out before you get to that part of the presentation. So giving some thought to your opening is certainly worth the effort. The first few lines of your presentation should not simply be an attempt to buy time to get to the point, but to put the audience in the best frame of mind for the outcome you want.

Think of the greatest speeches throughout history. Each had an desired outcome, and the opening lines supported that goal. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave his Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation, he needed congress and the public to support his appeal to declare war; “Yesterday, December 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy…” did that. When Martin Luther King needed to inspire unity for civil rights at a time when it was dangerous for minorities to advocate for themselves, his I Have a Dream speech began with, “I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.” And when Abraham Lincoln wanted his audience to reflect on the tragedy of war, as well as to honor those who had fallen, he created The Gettysburg Address, what is considered to be one of the greatest speeches in modern history; opening with, “Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation…” None of these speeches started with, “Hello everyone. Thank you for having me, it is a pleasure to speak to you today.”

Of course, it would be foolish to suggest that workplace presentations should be approached with the same sense of grandeur or gravity as world leaders addressing matters affecting the country or the world, but the job of every orator is to put the audience in the best frame of mind; to instill comfort from the outset that the presentation will be worthwhile, as well as worth listening to. If your first few lines are just a weak jumble of sentences, you show the audience you haven’t given the effort to justify asking for their attention. Give the first few lines of your presentation, pitch, or speech the respect they deserve. If you do, the meat of the presentation will be better received by your audience.

Stevie Ray is a nationally recognized corporate speaker and trainer, helping companies improve communication skills, customer service, leadership, and team management.  He can be reached at www.stevierays.org or stevie@stevierays.org.

In the pecking order of communication, face-to-face will always reign supreme, because the evaluation centers of the brain are treated to all the subtle signals they need in order to judge whether the other person can be trusted. Next in line is voice-to-voice, with text bringing up the rear (which is suited to serve the brain’s needs only slightly better than semaphore (if you are younger than 50, Google it).

Face to face meetings are a treat for the brain, but nearly impossible when your offices are spread across the universe. So how do you ensure a good outcome when all you have is your voice? Let me offer some tips. These tips are based on research that has discovered that the brain takes a great many cues about how to think from how the body is moving.

Rule 1: Stand

Thinking quickly and creatively while sitting certainly isn’t impossible, but sitting for too long signals to the brain that it is time to rest. Standing while on the phone can energize your thinking and amp up your communication. If standing is impossible, at least lean forward so your back isn’t resting against the chair.

Rule B: Pace

The brain actually thinks fastest when the body is engaged in repetitive, rhythmic movement. This is why taking a walk is a great way to break loose mental log-jams. If you pace while speaking on the phone, your mental energy level will increase; making it easier to listen, respond, and engage.

Rule Next: Smile

Phone sales professionals and customer service reps have long heard the adage, A smile can be heard, but smiling while on the phone goes far beyond simply having a pleasant demeanor. This is because of the two-way path of communication between the brain and the body. The brain may tell the body how to move (I feel happy, so let’s have the facial muscles smile), but the body also tells the brain how to think; which is why, if you force a smile, it is impossible to stay angry.

Positive facial expressions affect both the speaker and the listener. When you smile while speaking, your facial muscles signal to the brain to convey a positive message. Smiling has also been shown to increase creative thinking. And studies have shown that the listener can actually hear if the speaker is smiling, even without visual confirmation. The brain’s auditory cortex is highly sensitive, and designed to pick up subtle signals in the speaker’s voice. We are not consciously aware of this process, but it greatly affects our decision-making.

Rule After Next: Gesture

When you gesture while speaking, your physical movements not only reinforce your thinking, but gesturing helps your brain communicate with more impact. Gesturing also improves your word choice and the timbre of your voice. A good friend of mine, John, is a voice-over professional. He gets paid to lend his voice to TV commercials and corporate training videos. He is one of the top three voice-over talents in Minnesota. I have seen other voice-over talents during recording sessions, but wanted to see why John was hired so much more than the competition, so he allowed me to watch a recording session for a TV commercial. While I sat with the sound engineer, John was positioned in a glass recording booth. The first thing I noticed was that, while other people simply held the script by hand and spoke into the microphone, John made sure there was a music stand to hold his script; leaving his hands free. The other thing I noticed was that, even though John was speaking only to a microphone, he gestured wildly.

By all appearances, you would have thought John was speaking to a large audience. I asked the sound engineer if this was common and he said, “No. Most people just stand there and talk, but that’s why this guy is one of the top paid people in the business. As a recording engineer, I have heard hundreds of people doing voice-overs, and the ones that use their body just sound better.” When I asked John about it later, he said, “Yeah, it took me a while to be comfortable using my body when I spoke. At first, it feels kind of silly.” I asked, “How did you get over feeling goofy?” He said, “When I realized that, with at least fifty people auditioning for the same commercial, I always get the job. Believe me, taking money to the bank takes away feelings of doubt.”

Rule Last: Don’t Sound Like You Are On the Phone

A work environment changes the nature of our speech, but being on the phone takes away even more of our “vocal humanity.” This is why it is so important to be conversational. One of the most damaging signals to the listener’s brain is when it hears disingenuous tone of voice. Phone conversations, especially at work, can sound false because we lose much of the up-and-down pitch and vocal variety that occurs during normal speech. We level off our vocal pattern, taking away its vitality and life; and also its believability.

Tip

Having a wireless headset allows you to stand, pace, gesture, and converse more easily than being tethered to a handset. If your job requires phone interaction, invest in technology that will help you perform your best. And, if you feel silly using your body while on the phone, just think of John taking his checks to the bank while his competition is still waiting for the next audition.

Stevie Ray is a nationally recognized corporate speaker and trainer, helping companies improve communication skills, customer service, leadership, and team management.  He can be reached at www.stevierays.org or stevie@stevierays.org.