Booher BanterYour Resource for the best ideas to improve communications skills.

On a less-auspicious occasion, think what a skilled screenwriter could do with this plot, given the opening scene.  Consider all the past presidents, presidential hopefuls, and would-be veeps gathering on the set to wish their opponents well in front of the cameras:  Al Gore, Al Sharpton, John Kerry, Jesse Jackson, Dan Quayle, Bill and Hillary Clinton, George and Barbara Bush.  To top it off, Dick Cheney shows up in a wheelchair, with a back injury from lifting heavy boxes. 

If our country were facing less-serious circumstances, a scriptwriter might have been tempted to turn it into a “Comedy” for movie rating purposes.

But up until today, no-drama Obama has been given a “Romance” rating by the media.  Granted, the historic occasion of the election of the first African American added to the romantic theme.  Plus, the emotional impact in witnessing any inauguration and the peaceful transition of power puts a lump in the throat of all patriotic Americans.  So Obama’s last few weeks and certainly this past weekend of pre-inaugural celebrations have added to the romantic storyline building up to today’s speech.

So what rating does the actual long-awaited historical speech earn?

I’d categorize it as “Action-Adventure.”  “Action” in the sense that it was meaty.  “Adventure” in the sense that it may have surprised both sides of the aisle in what he did and did not say.

The Plotline
The plotline was surprising—in that it was so, …, well, …. predictable.   Surprising, yet predictable?  Stay with me here.  Given the romance leading up to the swearing-in and actual speech, I expected something magnificent to mark the moment.

From this man with a short résumé who rose to power on his rhetoric, I expected a masterpiece.  From this eloquent campaigner, who has kept audiences of up to 80,000 spellbound with his words, I expected an encore.  From this inspiring speaker, who engaged the electorate with his energy, who set the example of leadership through language, I expected to see the same powerful delivery and hear the same rousing words.

Okay, let me get specific:   I was looking for great alliterative lines or memorable metaphors either to mark the momentous historic occasion or to launch his presidency. 

Consider Lincoln’s: “…and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Consider JKF’s:  “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

Roosevelt’s:  “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.”

There was no such line for school children to quote a decade from now.  (His phrase “the price and promise of citizenship” has potential, but the “this is” sentence beginning suggests that it was not crafted to be quoted later.)

That’s not to say Obama’s not a master of the strong verb.  He is. That’s not to say he doesn’t understand sentence rhythm.  He does.  He delivered these strong meaty lines, particularly to terrorist groups:  “You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.”  “To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.”  

Let’s just put it this way:  The movie trailers, the ads, and the anticipation of the occasion led me to expect more.  It wasn’t a cliff-hanger.

The Performance
Rather than the great vocal variety we saw him use on the campaign trail, every line was delivered in almost the same way—same volume, same pace, same intensity, same rhythm.  

Likewise, about gestures and facial expression.  Same, same, same.  Gone were the wonderfully smooth, expansive, open, inclusive gestures of his campaign speeches that underscored his key points.  Today, he looked saddled with the weight of the office already on his shoulders.

The Theme
With theme, Obama’s drama succeeded.  In any presentation or speechmaking course (ours included), the first order of business is to consider your audience and determine your core message to that audience.  Obama had three audiences: 

• The masses of citizens
• Members of Congress that he needs to cooperate with him to get his plans accomplished
• Leaders and citizens of other countries

He posed a unique question to the first two:  “Does government work?”  This is not the typical question discussed each time the administration changes hands:  “How big should government be and what should or should it not get involved in?”

His theme of personal responsibility set the “Action-Adventure” part of the plan he hopes to lead the country through the next four years.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter’s courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent’s willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

…. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility—a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficulty task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

In concept, his speech was right on target.  Clear. Focused on the challenges this country faces.  Back to the fundamentals of what makes the country work:  charitable people with good common sense and a desire to be productive.

Let’s hope Congress was listening to that theme of personal responsibility as well.

A Blockbuster Hit?
Will the Obama drama about to open in the global theater be a box office hit during the next four years?  Looking at my 401K and considering my kids’ future, I certainly hope so.  Besides that, you know what they always say, “Bad rehearsal, great performance.” 

Here’s wishing him well.  We need four years of a #1 Blockbuster hit.

Posted at 5:01pm in Communication—Oral, General Communication | Permalink | Add Comment » |

At the risk of sounding hysterical, let me make a broad generalization:  Poor grammar has become an epidemic.  Everywhere you look, grammar gremlins greet you. 

In a recent email in my in-box:

“Completing this analysis can have a tremendous positive affect on your business.”

On a political campaign billboard:

More Doctors, More Nurses, Less Bureaucrats

On a crawler across the TV screen:

Stay tuned for a two hour special.

In a press release from a Fortune 500 company:

“The labor and the process-intensive nature of maintaining regulatory compliance often drives substantial cost for modern pharmaceutical firms.”

On a website from a major financial company:

“Allowing you to focus on your analysis ensuring that you deliver results on time.”   (written, punctuated, and intended as a complete sentence)

In a national journal:

“Democrats will start by trying to pass a quickie stimulus package later this month, and persuade an departing Republican president to sign it.”

Does anybody notice or care?  Evidently more than a few do.  On Facebook, groups of grammarians have joined for such common interest.  Their mission: to fight poor grammar in the social networking community.  Two key reasons come to mind:

First, image.  One Facebook group is even called “I Judge You When You Use Poor Grammar.”  Obviously, the more than 300,000 members of that group consider poor grammar harmful to their image and to the image of other social networkers.

Second, clarity.  Clarity can be at stake in sentences such as the following:

“Phones will be installed in every office, and they will repaint the walls.”  (Phones will repaint the walls?)

“O.J. Simpson said his lawyer was sad and depressed.”
(Or did the writer actually mean, “O.J. Simpson, said his lawyer, was sad and depressed”?)

Chances are that both of the sentences above sounded correct to the authors’ ears—but they didn’t write what they meant.  Understanding the essentials of grammar can not only save you from embarrassment, but from the frustrations of misunderstandings when you thought you told someone exactly what you needed them to know.

Here’s the conclusion I’ve come to:  People don’t get as worked up about the issue of grammar as I do because they don’t know what they don’t know.  It’s much the same situation as with cars for me.  I don’t get as worried as a mechanic would about a certain rattle under the hood, because I don’t recognize the rattle as a warning that the car’s engine is about to blow a gasket.  But just because I don’t recognize the seriousness of the situation doesn’t make it any less so.  Likewise, for grammar deficiencies.

Here’s a quick quiz. See if you can choose the correct word or find the error in the following: 

1. He mailed multiple invoices to Joe, Sue and (I, me).
2. Carol, Whitney, and (myself, I) are involved in that project.
3. You may make contributions to (whomever, whoever) you wish.
4. People do not buy products (which, that) seem overpriced.
5. I see the situation a little (different, differently) from my experience in sales.
6. The car drives (well, good) in most road conditions.
7. (Fewer, less) employees are taking vacations due to heavy workloads.
8. Darla has (over, more than) twenty years of experience in human resources.
9. She considered it (an, a) honor to be invited.
10. Working long hours with many family responsibilities, time off can be as important as a raise.  (What’s the error here?)

How did you do?   Compare your answers to the correct answers below.  (And consider this:  This quiz didn’t cover questions on some of the major issues such as subject-verb agreement or punctuation.  Those kinds of mistakes can actually reverse the meaning of a sentence.)

Want more? Go to www.BoohersRules.com to test your skills further with a complimentary 25-question assessment.  Find out where your grammar skills are strong and where you could brush up on these fundamental skills.  In a tough economy, you don’t want to give a boss “one more reason” to drop the ax.

 Answers:

1. me
2. I
3. whomever
4. that
5. differently
6. well
7. fewer
8. more than
9. an
10. “Working long hours” is a dangler! Who’s working long hours in this sentence?

Posted at 2:01pm in General Communication, Grammar | Permalink | Add Comment » |

Recently, a reader wrote because he was concerned about his style and wanted to change its effect on others and the resulting consequences for himself:

Dear Dianna:

I would like to learn to improve or change my demeanor, intonations, mannerisms and style of communication.

I received some feedback that I need to be “softer,” maybe less declarative and brash.  I have been asked on a number of occasions over the years if I am ex-military.  I am kind and good-hearted and I don’t ever want to sound condescending or harsh.  I have no desire to offend anyone.  I suppose my straightforwardness doesn’t come across the way I intend.

Do you have any courses that would address this issue?  I am articulate and intelligent, but I want to have a different presentation that draws people in.

Thank you.
Don

Now before a number of military people become offended about the label “ex-military communication style” in the title of this blog:  Off the top, let me say that my husband is an Army colonel, and I have great respect and appreciation for those who serve in our military.  Certainly, there’s a need for aggressive, direct communication in the military!  We’d be in a heap of trouble without it.

Generally, what people mean with that stereotypical label comes from the movies or from first-hand experience in boot-camp!  Typically, they’re describing speakers or communication characterized by the following:

• Direct, to-the-point
• Non-emotional, detached
• Loud
• Forceful
• Prompt (in responding to questions)
• Decisive (in charge)
• Commanding, demanding, telling (not asking)
• Declarative statements (not questions)
• Rigid body language (at attention)
• Blank, non-expressive facial expression

All good and necessary things to accomplish military missions.  But this body language and some of these habits don’t work so well for interactions and goals outside the military.

People use an overly aggressive, harsh communication style inappropriately either because they are 1) unaware of that style, or 2) aware of the style but don’t know how to change it, or 3) unconcerned about how they come across to others.

Don’s email makes a very important point:  Someone’s communication style certainly does NOT always convey or reveal their heart or intentions. He sounds like a sincerely nice person with a great desire for self-improvement—and the appropriate humility to make changes.  I’d say that makes for a perfect combination.

Here are a few tips I suggest to “soften” an aggressive communication style to come across the way you intend in everyday interactions:

• Consider whether you could accomplish the same purpose with a question as with a command.
  Use questions to lead others to rethink their ideas rather than always using declarative statements.  People prefer discovering their own errors and gaps in logic rather than always having someone else point them out.
• Consider your purpose for a comment.  Often you can better accomplish your purpose—and improve the relationship—with an “I wonder if… or “what-if…” tone when offering a suggestion or feedback as opposed to an “I know so” tone.
• Pay attention to the intensity of your facial expression, particularly your eyes and your mouth.  Many people have a stern demeanor when they intend to have only a firm look.  Add a smile occasionally—with your eyes as well as with your mouth.
• Consider lowering the volume when you speak.  Be firm, audible, and clear, of course. But remember that people associate a loud volume with aggressiveness.
• Follow the subjects that others introduce rather than frequently changing the subjects that others introduce.
• Leave a little space between when others finish a comment or question before you begin.  Avoid “stepping on” their words.
• Avoid a rapid or staccato speaking rate, which is often perceived as an expression of anger.
• Be careful about invading others’ space.  If people tend to back away as you speak, you’re sitting or standing too close.
• Pay attention to your gestures.  Use upward, open gestures.  Avoid pointing fingers and downward gestures.

The key to successful human relations rests with your ability to flex your communication style to forge stronger relationships with a broader band of people.

Posted at 4:13pm in Communication—Interpersonal, General Communication | Permalink | Add Comment » |