Presentation Styles

Remember when I wrote the post, "If you look bad, you are bad"? Well, this post is kind of an extension of that one.

Specifically, I'm writing about presentations to others. I've heard people say that when you get up in front of others to speak, the only way you can look really put together and professional is to speak extemporaneously: no notes, no nothing. I guess they think speaking in an impromptu manner like that reflects great ability. I'm sure it does. I'm also pretty confident that very few people can pull that off. I can't. This type of communication can lead to lengthy, rambling discourses if you're not very careful. No, thanks.

Another way to seem really prepped is to memorize what you want to say before getting up before your audience...kind of like being an actor in a play. That looks really good...if you can pull that off. What happens if you get interrupted and get off track? There's a story about General Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson, of Civil War fame, who used to memorize his lectures to his students at the Virginia Military Institute. When a student would ask a question or Jackson would get interrupted, his only course of action was to start his memorized lesson all over again. The memorized way of presentations is, therefore, limited because it is very inflexible. It also gives little opportunity for interaction with the audience.

People can just read out the text of their presentation word-for-word. That can get the point across, but most presentations these days have PowerPoint slides accompanying them. I absolutely hate it when someone writes thoughts or points on a PowerPoint presentation and then reads them verbatim to me. I can read. If presenters are just going to regurgitate what's on the screen, they can just email me the presentation and give me a deadline to have watched it on my own.

I'm someone who loves bullets in a presentation. Bullets give your audience some information without giving them too much. They have to listen to you to get the full picture. That's a good thing. I'm also one who believes in writing things down so I don't forget anything. My suggestion is to lay out your presentations in a bulleted format and then practice expanding on the bullets. This allows you to be and look prepared. You can have a laptop or monitor in front of you so you can look at the bullets and talk about each without having to read over your shoulder and talk to the screen. One important point is to have your notes on 3x5 cards in front of you or have a hard copy of the presentation in case something goes wrong with the AV or you have an extra point or two that you want to jot down and have in front of you for the talk.

If you look good while presenting, you may or may or may not have anything compelling to say. However, if you mess your presentation up by being too rambling or by being too stiff, you'll lose your audience. You won't appear professional and you won't have gotten your points across.

Prepare smart and you'll be great. Do you have any thoughts on the best way to make public presentations? What works best for you?

Step away from your people's work

I had someone mention to me that where she works, when people complete a project, the boss often redoes the work. Why would that be?

• Perhaps it is because the work produced is not up to the boss's standards. Perhaps the expectations were not totally clear so the boss had to change content.
• On the other hand, perhaps the boss likes work to be a certain way and the product has to look exactly like what the boss prefers.
• Finally, maybe the boss only trusts the work that he or she cranks out and anyone else's is just going to be less than suitable.

One of the examples above is about substance. The other two examples are about style and preference. If the quality of work turned into us, as bosses, is of substandard quality, we need to help our people understand what's wrong and give them the chance to correct the material. If the work is styled in a manner that isn't "us", we need to let it go. As the old saying goes, "there's more than one way to skin a cat". Our way is probably different than that of our team and it may not even be as good.

Either way, redoing our people's work is a sure way of stifling creativity and helping our folks become disengaged...two things we just can't afford.

So, I say again, "step away."

"No excuse, sir."

I was taught that, when I screwed up or my people screwed up and my boss wanted to know why, I had only one immediate answer: "no excuse, sir". I was accountable for my actions and those of the people under my supervision. I was acknowledging that accountability and making no excuses. Now, in most cases, unless I was just getting a good hard core butt-chewing where no explanation was wanted, I would be given a chance to explain what happened. There are times for explanations and there are times just for acknowledging accountability. There's never a time for excuses.

My point is this: as leaders, we need to stand up and be counted (this kind of goes along with my earlier post "your people"). We need to be mature and confident enough in our abilities and our values, that we don't hesitate to speak up when accountability is sought. Plus, what good are excuses anyway? They just make us look like we don't have a good handle on the situation or our team. They certainly don't move any initiative forward. Hopefully, we've been communicating often enough with our bosses, and both our and their expectations are properly aligned so we aren't even tempted to make excuses.

Is this too hard core an attitude? Is the "no excuse, sir" answer only applicable in an organization like the Army? Is there ever a good reason to make excuses?

Why Doesn't Coaching Work?

Coaching works. Sure it does, if it's done correctly. So why is it that so many managers say that they coach their people, but it doesn't seem to improve their performance more than for a short time? It appears that we need to explore whether or not we're coaching correctly. This post isn't about the mechanics of coaching, although you can find info about that right here.

We all have deadlines, don't we? We're expected to be more efficient and effective than ever before...get more done with less. Along with all our own tasks and duties we, as managers, have to help our people be better, too. It's all about continuous improvement, right?

We're told we need to shadow and coach our folks. Our answer is "we teach and coach our people regularly...at LEAST twice a year...and since we only have to evaluate them once a year, that's twice as much as we're required to do." OKaaaaay. That's a problem. We often see coaching as an event instead of a process. We look at coaching as "See one, Do one, Teach one" and that leaves the CRITICAL component out: follow-up. Maybe we should modify that adage to "See one, Do one, Teach one, Follow-up regularly". I don't know. It just doesn't have a "ring" to it anymore.

It's true, however. Coaching often succeeds or fails based on our team members internalizing what we teach. One of the best ways to help our people integrate our teaching into their work habits is to make follow-up and feedback regular components of our group's schedule.

Yes, it in an investment on our part and we may have to realign priorities and scrutinize our task lists to ensure we're focusing on the right opportunities. I submit to you that regular coaching that includes follow-up and feedback are right opportunities.

Do you think coaching is all I've cracked it up to be? If so, how do you ensure it happens along with everything else you have to do?

Your people

Have you ever heard the phrase "falling on your sword?" In today's business, it typically means taking a strong position regarding an idea or value. It can also mean taking responsibility or blame for the actions of a person or group of people.

Earlier in my career I was tempted, at times, to fall on my sword for a cause or position on a certain idea. You know what? In business, there's no idea worth taking a sword for. As long as what you're told to do isn't illegal or immoral, you're bound to follow the directives you're given. Let's face it, it's only a job.

As far as I'm concerned, there's only one reason to ever fall on your sword: for your people. When you're a boss, part of your job is to keep the garbage off your people so they can focus on their duties and keep the organization operating. Sometimes your people mess up. Maybe it's because they were being stupid or maybe it was an honest mistake. The thing is, you know how people like to have someone to blame.

You have two choices:

• Step out of the way, point toward the offender or offenders on your team and say "there they are."
• Step between the attacker and your people. Take the charge straight on.

It's practically a solemn bond. If your team is being picked on or unfairly treated, it's your duty to protect them...to fall on your sword, if necessary. Perhaps your team member needs to be disciplined. That's OK. You'll take care of that yourself...inside the privacy of your team.

So, what do you think? When, if ever, is an appropriate setting to fall on your sword?

Are Leaders Born or Made? So What?

I was interviewing management candidates to run one of my company's offices in the Southeast. One of the questions I liked to ask was "Do you consider yourself a natural leader?"

That begs the question that's the title of this post: "are leaders born or made?" Maybe it would be better to ask "are most leaders born or made?"

One can argue that very few natural leaders have ever existed in the world, leaders who innately know how to inspire others to follow and hopefully accomplish feats and goals they never believed possible. On the other hand, could we not argue that all parents are natural leaders as soon as their children are born? If the definition of a leader is that others follow, then every parent is a leader for at least a little while. Maybe we should exclude parents from this discussion.

I've personally only known one or two people who I could consider "naturals" as leaders. All the rest had to learn it. For me, I just know that, in the adult, non-parenting world, I am not a natural leader. I think I'm a decent leader (of course, that's open to interpretation depending on who you ask and based on what time period we're talking about). Or rather, I'm a decent leader now and in the recent past. I spent a lot of time being schooled by the Army about how to be both a manager and a leader. That helped. What really helped me was failing at leadership over the years, recognizing my failures (either on my own or with help from others), and then caring enough to try and do better. It reminds me of an outstanding doctor who once told me, "you know why I'm head and shoulders above the other doctors around me? It's because I'm standing on a pile of bodies." Leadership is often like that, too.

Like I said, I was not born a leader. What about you? If you weren't born a leader, are you a decent leader now? How do you learn to be a leader?

I'll leave you with a comment I heard from a sergeant when I was in the Army. The comment was, "I wouldn't follow that man into battle." The meaning was, "I wouldn't trust that man with my life or the lives of my people." That man was the commander and, supposedly, the leader.

Would your people follow you into battle?

How are you contributing to your organization?

We're all busy, aren't we? There's so much on our calendars that it feels there's not enough time in the day, especially when we're asked to do more with less. We go into meetings and brainstorm ideas to improve processes, increase efficiencies, and enhance ways to help our customers. Then we scurry back to our teams, back to our offices, and focus on what we need to do to complete the mission.

When we're so busy and so focused on getting our own jobs done, we often miss out on opportunities to strengthen the organization we're trying to help. There's a good chance that during the meeting we just attended, there was an opportunity to work with others -- some kind of initiative or project that needs doing and people don't have the time to do. We may have even suggested the idea ourselves, but when the time came to "pony up" and lead or join the project, we stayed quiet and let others shoulder the burden.

If we "pass" on opportunities outside our normal jobs every time they come up, we may be shortsighted. What could we have harvested out of being part of a project team?

• We could have networked within the organization, learning more about others, building relationships, and possibly learning about opportunities that could help us move ahead in the future (just like networking on Facebook, LinkedIn, or Plaxo, as well as in person outside the company). The more people we know and work with, the stronger and richer our lives can be.

• We might have broadened our scope of knowledge. Knowledge helps us be better, more well-rounded individuals who can live more fulfilled lives because of our experiences.
• We could have used the opportunity to help the organization where we work...and where we hope to continue working. I don't think anyone would argue that we want to work at the most successful, robust organizations in the world.
• We could have showcased our talent and abilities. We could have made deposits in our "credibility" banks and received kudos from the executives for our contributions.
• We might have felt a sense of accomplishment that comes from working in concert with other talented individuals.

I don't think any bosses would expect we're on every work or project team that comes up. However, if we sit quietly every time there's an opportunity to contribute outside our own jobs, we may be missing the boat.

What do you think about membership on project or work teams? Do you think it's worth the extra effort?