Painfully long – that’s how I’d describe my list of unseen Oscar movies. But I just celebrated a minor victory when I watched The Iron Lady, which details the life of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. In addition to being a testament to Meryl Streep’s continued excellence (come on, there really is no equal), the movie also speaks to the incredible impact that behavior has on a communication experience.

In one memorable scene, members of Parliament jeer and mock Thatcher for “screeching.”

Did you catch her snappy response? “If the right honorable gentleman could perhaps attend more closely to what I am saying, rather than how I am saying it, he may receive a valuable education in spite of himself.”

Seems like a good retort, at first. Like Thatcher, we assume that if we say the right words, the audience will hear us and understand. But it isn’t that simple. The message has to come through us, and if our behavior isn’t consistent with our content, we can block our own message.

We’ve blogged before about Albert Mehrabian’s classic “Silent Messages.” From this book came the research that shows vocal and visual outweigh the verbal when you have a conflicted message. What does this mean? If what we say doesn’t match how we say it, people might not get it. It means that something as simple as Thatcher’s naturally high pitch and nasal tone could detrimentally effect how others perceived her.

This has profound implications on our daily lives! We tend to spend 99 percent of our time working on a speech, meeting agenda, or PowerPoint deck and we’re lucky if we even consider how we’re going to deliver it. But what people see and hear from us does impact the communication experience.

Bringing it back to Margaret Thatcher, she made changes in her behavior so her ideas could be heard and taken seriously. She received vocal coaching to reduce her “screeching.” She learned to project her voice at a louder volume and in a lower register to command respect and authority. The results were remarkable.

Learn from the Iron Lady.

Video yourself and watch it back. Record a voice memo of yourself on your iPhone. Then, consider how you come across both vocally and visually. Is there anything blocking your message from your listeners? What adjustments in your behavior will help the message come more clearly through you? Taking these steps will ensure that others receive a valuable education from you (spoken in my most punchy British accent).

For three days last week I heard (and experienced) over 100 leaders speaking to an audience of 11,000 – including a couple dozen Senators and Representatives, Presidential candidates, authors, celebrities, and news anchors. (Most of the videos are available here.) It was an amazing experience at CPAC. This post is purely about the insights from this total speaking immersion – not the politics. What can we learn from the experience each person created for the audience? How did these folks handle the pressure? And what is the penalty when using the teleprompter as a crutch? (I sat in line with a teleprompter every day, and observed closely.)

• Best speaker – Senator Marco Rubio from Florida. If this was a contest he’d win in a walk. Most inspirational, funny yet fiery, didn’t even use notes, let alone a teleprompter. Powerful messaging as well as congruent and confident behavior. My guess is he will be in the White House some day, other things being equal.

• Biggest lesson – Don’t read speeches. Period. It is best by far to know your material and refer to notes. If you have to have a script, know it so well you can just refer to it. And if you have to use the teleprompter, learn to use it well. It amazes me how few people learn this skill. And one of those who does use it well is…

• Biggest Rock Star – Governor Sarah Palin packed the house, and she was the last speaker after three long days of just listening to speakers! And she didn’t disappoint this crowd who were her people – raucous continuous applause. Her message was not new, but was powerfully delivered. As stated earlier, she used the teleprompter very professionally – about the best I’ve seen. When she was done, thousands of people hovered trying to get an autograph, or even a glimpse, for a good 30 minutes.

• Worst speaker – hate to point out a worst, but it is worth the lesson. Florida Governor Rick Scott’s reputation preceded him as he accomplished a huge upset to get elected in 2010, so I was surprised at how poor a communicator. One of the worst examples of reading a speech (and this by teleprompter) as he spoke in a monotone. I’m sure he didn’t mean to give the air of arrogance with his head tilted up, but he did. I was surprised he got elected communicating like that. But then, he probably doesn’t communicate like that every day – but then why become mechanical on the biggest stage. Such a waste.

• The three GOP primary candidates who were there:
  • Senator Rick Santorum was most passionate with a clear message. He rarely referred to his script – he knew his content and was energetic with good eye communication to the audience (interesting, as this is his major weakness in interviews and one-on-one communications). Clever to have his entire family on stage behind him for the whole speech.
  • Speaker Newt Gingrich is probably the most gifted extemporaneous speaker of the three, particularly with glibness sprinkled with surprise. He can wander but he stayed on message at CPAC, effectively proposing his stump speech points.
  • Governor Mitt Romney was weakest. He used the teleprompter pretty well, but he was mechanical, and became cadenced which felt inauthentic. (Teleprompter reading tends to encourage repetitive cadence.) And even while forceful he was held back – he always seems to be playing the role of running for President.

This post is too long anyway, so I’ll pause for the key point here, and then if you want you can go on and read some notes on the many other speakers – most good, some not so. But either way…

• Don’t think because you say the words, people will get them. A speech is not about information as much as it is about the experience – the communication experience the listener has with you for the entire time of your communication.

Sure, the experience includes the messaging, but it doesn’t matter how great your messaging is if you get in the way. People can tune out speakers in a few minutes if not seconds, and we tend to ignore this fact at our peril. The unconscious cues – and there are dozens of key ones – go a long way at getting our message across – or not. Spend three days listening to hundreds of different communication experiences like I just did, and it will be even clearer.

_____________________________________

Notes on some of the other notable speakers at CPAC:

Governor Mike Huckabee - no teleprompter, excellent and funny. Candor, fire. Why don’t all speakers look at Huckabee and Rubio and channel them.

Governor Bobby Jindal – great presentation with facts. Reeled off his Louisiana accomplishments, but with fire and energy and no arrogance. This is not the Bobby Jindal who did so poorly in making the State of the Union rebuttal in 2009.

Jay Sekulow – strong and straight. Fiery also.

Governor Bob McDonnell – no teleprompter, and he walked the stage! Surprisingly the only one to do this, and he was very effective. Also told stories,  and forceful.

Carly Fiorina – excellent, and so much better than as CEO at HP. No teleprompter, and used a script well as reference.

Ann Coulter – funny we expected, and she was. Also outrageous, as she could only get away with. I was impressed that after her start she did have a message, not just comedy.

Laura Ingraham – good like Coulter. Used a pen with script – seeming to mark things off as she went along. She wasn’t of course, but it was an interesting, and effective, technique.

Al Cardenas – Dynamic content from this head of the convention. He is a very rough hewn, high energy guy as we saw in several introductions and spontaneous communications. But when he gave his primary keynote speech, he reverted to the teleprompter, and his energy seemed to be sucked from him – he just flattened out.

Senator Jim Demint – Knew his message and delivered it well, no notes. Conversational but not casual.

Senator Mitch McConnell – Minority leader was OK, comfortable, but the teleprompter also made him static. Lost emphasis.

Congresswoman Michelle Bachman – One of the best users of the teleprompter and OK. But have seen her better in her stump speech, coming from the heart.

Congressman Jim Jordan – not as well known, but he will be. He had a small paper with notes, and didn’t need them. He was powerful, informal (no jacket) but focused. Strong message.

Speaker John Boehner – used teleprompter badly. Audience liked his message, including him tearing up once, but he became mechanical in reading.

Governor Rick Perry – best I’ve seen him. Fiery, with notes that he didn’t use. Spoke from the heart, pauses, didn’t forget anything. Not the Rick Perry of the early debates.

In Summary: When you speak from the stage, or anytime you speak and it’s important that you influence, be highly energetic. Don’t think your words will carry your message. The total communication experience will carry your message – or kill it.

Why doesn’t Romney catch on? And why has Cain so quickly climbed the popularity ladder?

These are a couple of key questions that provide important insight as to the value of the debates – perceived authenticity. Perception is in the eye of the beholder.

If the presidency was to be typecast, the perfect candidate is Mitt Romney. He looks good, has great political and business experience, is giving stellar debate performances – but people don’t seem to take to him. Plastic is a word that comes to mind.

I’ve often mentioned that Romney should muss up his hair a little to be real, but that’s just symbolic for doing SOMETHING to appear, and ‘be’, authentic. He DOES look like he’s playing a role. He’s careful and measured. We wish we could see him with more of a ‘forward lean’ – not so posed and ‘nice.’ Bluntness would be refreshing, and way out of character. Yet it would give some important authenticity points.

On the other hand, Herman Cain is almost a polar opposite – blunt, brash and bold. In this recent debate that was his favorite word for his ‘9,9,9’ plan – BOLD. We have no question he means what he says – we do not question his authenticity. And most importantly, he smiles often in his bluntness. We tend to like him. He is authentic. We trust him.

We trust and believe and follow those who are authentic. Authenticity is primarily established by behavior, not by message. But it has everything to do with whether our message will register on the listener (or voter in this case.) It has everything to do with leadership.

Everyone (well, many) wanted Chris Christie to run for President. Why? Because there is no question Chris Christie is a leader. And he is the poster child for authenticity. Many may not like what he says, but they believe what he says. He just endorsed Romney this week. Perhaps Romney hopes that some of his refreshing candor will rub off. It doesn’t work that way. What Romney needs to do is express his own brand of refreshing candor. That would be refreshing.

He can get away with jumping on a soap box, and that’s for one main reason: he’s a great communicator. Yup, we’re talking about Matt Damon. Sure he’s popular, a talented writer and performer, etc., but so are many actors. This guy knows how to use specific communication tools to rally an audience and most importantly, come across sincere.

So here he went again, hitting a homerun while speaking at the Save Our Schools March a few days ago, not only to support his mother (a teacher and fellow activist), but all teachers who are fighting standardized test score-based funding. Regardless of how you feel about the subject, anyone can appreciate Matt’s ability to pump up the crowd.

Check out this clip so you can see what I’m talking about (or see the whole thing here).

Matt artfully matches his behavior to his content to come across genuine. Here are my keepers and improvements (have to keep it balanced feedback!).

Keepers:

• Story (one of our SHARP principles) – he weaves the point of his speech around his experiences in public schools. This personalizes the message, gives him credibility, and is memorable. When listing out all the growth he experienced in school, he brought it back to the point by saying, “None of these qualities that have made me who I am can be tested.”
• Concise – he’s up there for about five minutes, but but still gives a memorable and meaningful talk. No need to go on and on if you can do it succinctly.
• Vocal variety – he speaks clearly, with plenty of variation to avoid the monotone. He also takes time to pause and pace himself, which is especially important when speaking over a mic to a large audience. He gives them time to hear the ends of his sentences, and ups the ante.

Improvements:

• A lot of I, I, I – common mistake in messaging is to talk a lot about yourself when you’re proving the value of your idea, product, or service. To be the most influential and affect change, take every opportunity to make the message about your listeners.
• Reading – at the end of the day, when you look down to read, you’re breaking connection with your audience. It’s best to organize yourself and speak off the cuff while using eye communication with your listeners (we need to get him a Decker Grid!).
• Nonwords – um’s and uh’s creep in there. They chip away at the experience you create when speaking. Better to pause instead of inserting a filler word.

High hopes for Matt as a communicator going forward, even a Top 10 spot! (Maybe not as high as Michael Moore suggesting he run for President in 2012, though.) Anything stick out to you, in terms of what went well, and what could be improved?

Last year’s list featured Captain Sully as the Best, while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was hands down the Worst. There was quite a stir from readers as Sarah Palin was listed among the best, and President Obama among the worst.

Two shoo-ins for 2010: Sebastien Piniera, President of Chile looks to be leading the pack on the best list. And one of the worst (if not THE worst)…Tony Hayward, now former CEO of BP.

What about the rest of them – communicators from business, sports, entertainment, and politics? How did communications make or break them?

• Is Mark Zuckerberg among the best or worst?
• Will Steve Jobs land another spot on the best?
• It’s been a political year…will Obama and Palin repeat, and on which list? Who might join them?

As always, you can expect some obvious and some obscure, but all will have a key teaching point around communications for all of us.

In the meantime, we’d love to hear from you. Weigh in with your thoughts. Who’s in your 10?

First of all I want to confess I’ve not reviewed Obama recently because he basically is the same. In delivery. Think of teleprompter, predictability, cadence, professorial, etc. See here and here for a lot more detail. But tonight I was challenged by Michael Hyatt on Twitter, who said;

@MichaelHyatt: I’d like to hear @BertDecker ’s analysis of the President’s speech. It’s difficult to comment apolitical.

Now Michael is a friend, and a HEAVYWEIGHT (sorry for the caps) in the blogosphere and Twitterland, as well as respected CEO, so I couldn’t refuse. Otherwise I would have passed it by again.

Content

It IS hard to be apolitical, as I try to stay away from the politics of the content in most reviews. But in this 19′ speech anyone could have said “What’s the point.”

• An apolitical comment would be that he wanted to be front and center, use the Bully Pulpit, and declare the war over and reshift our priorities as a country. Did he? I don’t think so.

• A political comment (that I heard elsewhere) would be that he wasn’t really as interested in Iraq and America at war as he was about changing the domestic agenda of the country. I’m not sure that’s true, but his manner would probably reflect this view more accurately.

The Obama Experience

Here are the opening few minutes of his speech in good quality. For experiencing the communication of the President, you really only have to look at the first minute. It doesn’t change. (But look here to get the entirety in less quality.)

• Boring – He has no passion or emotion. Granted he is talking policy and he will be quoted and dissected, but a little passion in voice and face now and then would help his believability and influence immeasurably. And he had no stories or SHARPS that would make his message stick.
• Cadence – Ever since Fred Armison on Saturday Night Live got his cadence down while playing Obama, I can’t look at the President himself and not think of Armison. It is a rhythm that becomes sing-song, and contrived, and does not lead to a feeling of conviction and authenticity. Which leads us to…
• Professorial - It’s not just me that see’s our President as more and more professorial (academic, informational and aloof) in both demeanor and presentation, it is becoming widespread. Professorial is fine in the classroom, not so fine on the playing field. That is not the communication of a leader.

I could go on, but this is already too much politics for an ‘objective’ communications blog. But thanks for the prompt Michael – this get’s the juices flowing.

More importantly, what do YOU think?

___________________________

I want my life back,” wails BP Oil CEO Tony Hayward. Well, he really doesn’t wail, but he might as well have. Leaders lead, they don’t plead.

The BP Oil disaster on the Gulf Coast needs more than a good communicator, it is a terrible tragedy no matter who is at the helm. But BP does need a good communicator to make the best of an awful plight. Unfortunately, they have CEO Hayward, who has been his own worst enemy.

CEO’s have to be ready to lead with authenticity – where one’s perceived behavior as well as focus really counts. This CEO fails on both accounts.

Authenticity – what you say and how you say it

Hayward has been off from the beginning.  A month ago he appeared aloof – look at his manner in this clip (and above) at an early press conference.

I was appalled at his apparent smug and arrogant behavior. I don’t know him, but if that’s his natural style, I’m surprised he’s CEO. Then again, this is a company that made $10 billion profit last quarter! So where were his advisors? Where were his coaches? Why wasn’t he trained in advance so he knew how to act when the pressure was on. This was not the way.

“I Want My Life Back.”

So here we have a multi-millionaire CEO ‘wanting his life back’ in the face of the families of 11 people killed on ‘his’ oil rig, and tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands who will lose their economic life because of his oil. OK, not ‘his’ oil, but he has to speak as if it’s his oil. And he has not. What he did have to do was apologize for his remarks. The problem was, and is, we believe he meant it – that he cares only as it affects BP and himself.

Defense is not the best offense

Throughout these first 40 days of the disaster, Tony Hayward was the spokesperson – yet almost all of his statements smacked of defensiveness. First he says the effects will be very, very modest. More recently, in response to the fact that those cleaning the beaches were getting sick from evident oil fumes, he inferred that it could be “food poisoning!”

His appearances, and performances, were so bad that a national Cable News show ended their newscast with an editorial excoriating Hayward and saying, “Act like you care!”

It was just announced that Admiral Thad Allen will now make all the updates on the Gulf Oil disaster. (He’s good by the way.) Although politics are no doubt also involved, it is not surprising that both BP and the administration wanted Tony Hayward off the air. He did nobody any good, particularly himself.

Lessons for us all

We will all be called upon to speak under pressure in important circumstances. Be prepared. It is not just the CEO’s like Hayward that have to be ready, though the stakes might be higher in his case. It’s all of us. In this video and social media age, we are all on television. If we don’t know how we come across, and where our heart and our message is, we may be doomed to fail when it counts the most. And it doesn’t have to be.

No doubt that Tony Hayward would like his life back. And I bet he’d like to start this communications experience over again – after maybe a heart check and a little training too.