Creative Streak

#5: How to Break Your Presentation with Conversation

This is one in a series from my earlier post "10 Things You Can Do To Help Your Audience Listen Better."  It covers initial points on how to ask questions of the audience, how to lead exercises, and how to facilitate discussion and debate.

This post originates from an earlier one (“Want To Show How Intelligent You Are?”) although that purpose was slightly different.  There, my point was that presentations should be clear, succinct or prioritized – not an elaborate display of brain power, or an unending litany of details, facts and charts.

Related to that post, my point here is that lecture-based presentations – that is, when you do (nearly) all the talking – are often not effective at helping the audience listen.  You might be able to carry the burden of the speech for 10 minutes or so, but if your presentation stretches longer, say to an hour … well, even your mother wouldn’t find you that interesting.

There are several ways to break from the lecture and build rapport through discussion.

• Ask questions
• Conduct exercises, or
• Lead discussion and debate

Want To Show How Intelligent You Are?

Perhaps it's because my body doesn't know what time zone it's in, but one thing has been sticking in my craw since I got back to Chicago. I've sat in a dozen workshops and meetings over the past few weeks, and among all of the presentations, one element was consistent.

Of the time allotted to them, many presenters filled up the agenda with themselves – I call it “ME” time – leaving little room for Q&A and/or keeping audience interaction to a minimum. These meetings looked like Drawing A.  

In contrast, a few presenters chose to use the agenda to get their organised points across quickly, spending the remaining time with key people discussing and debating the recommendations. These meetings looked like Drawing B. 

I understand why the A people chose to facilitate the meeting the way they did. They wanted to get the maximum amount of information across to their audience, to show how much they knew their topic or recommendation, to show they were thorough and comprehensive.

Afterwards, when I asked why, the reasons were various. One said they reported to someone who was anal-retentive and controlling. Meetings were meant to agree on decisions: instead, they turned into opportunities for their boss to micro-manage information. Others realised they were justifying their employment or position in uncertain economic times. Most admitted that the idea of editing their thoughts never occurred to them.

Ironic, isn’t it? What they ultimately wanted to achieve (to show value, get promoted, keep their job) was in direct opposition of what they actually did in their PowerPoint presentations.

I applaud the B people who elected to facilitate their meeting differently. They chose to convey their recommendations in messages which were clear, succinct or prioritised. They’d learnt that distilling a sea of information down to its essential points demonstrates as much (if not more) command of the topic as filling up a slide up with charts, graphs and detail. Their response to the anal retentive boss was to show they could differentiate between strategic data and minutiae. Their response to a tenuous position was to show their efficiency and effectiveness.

Lunch, Woodworking and Creativity (and Not Necessarily in That Order)

I enjoyed lunch earlier this week with two colleagues when the conversation turned to creativity. I came away with a couple of thoughts for a new post, but when I tried to glue them together into a coherent theme, I realised I had already written the post – but on my other blog.

To re-cap, in the six weeks since I’ve been back in the US, I've spent time at my parent’s farm refurnishing stuff which sat in storage for a decade. That was a time-consuming task by itself, but I decided to add a creative project into the mix - turning some scrap lumber with 'Eklund history' into a headboard for my new apartment. When I started to make sense of my lunch notes, I realised the key points were essentially demonstrated in the headboard project. (And some others were riffs from others, alas.)

The Two Most Important Questions for Brainstorms?

I recently was on the train, riding between London City Airport and the Tower Hill station. Bored (tired?), I picked up a French magazine a young woman left on her seat next to me. Biba, I think it was. Anyway, my rudimentary French was sufficient to read one of the big headlines: “The One Question You Should Always Ask On Your First Date.”

Sadly, I don’t know enough French to figure out what the vital answer might be to a 16-year-old, but it made me think what might be the one question you should always ask in a brainstorm. *

I started making a list of questions over the next few weeks until I eventually weeded it down to two questions: What if? and Why not? 

Creativity and Conflict: Competing (1 of 5)

This is the first in a series of five posts going into more depth on the five modes of conflict outlined in the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), developed by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann as part of their research in the 1970s.  My interest here is two-fold: to understand how conflict affects teams, and to reflect how creativity may help to manage conflict. The introduction to these posts is here, which includes links to the other modes.

The first of the five modes of conflict is Competing, which describes when a person is assertive (they satisfy their own concerns) and uncooperative (they do not satisfy the other person’s concerns). Even though the aim of this mode is to win, and often at any cost, it is not a "win-win" situation. The other party's concerns are un-met, so this mode is "win-lose."

In my experience, the Competing mode is chosen (or preferred) by people who fall into two camps:

1. They either intuitively or deliberately take an pro-active or aggressive position in tense situations, or
2. They fear conflict so much that they over-compensate by going “over-the-top”

Competing should be used primarily in situations when the outcome is extremely important to you. You need to be assertive, so your two options are Competing and Collaborating. Ideally, Collaborating is a often a better option - it's "win-win" - but when this mode is not an option, Competing at least ensures you meet or satisfy your concerns. Ideal situations for the Competing mode include those times when you must make a decision, you must assert yourself, or you need to protect or defend your interests.

However, Competing has significant drawbacks. Most of all, it can strain or damage the relationship with the other party which, in turn, provokes a variety of negative responses: ongoing confrontation (especially with future negotiations, such as revenge), or lower motivation, interest or initiative. In other words, use Competing only when necessary – not as a default or commencing style.

If Competing is the Appropriate Option ...

... here are some questions to inspire your creativity to create options which might minimise negative emotions or resistance.

How can you build your credibility?

To persuade the other party in a constructive way requires you to make your case, not just dictate.  One way to persuade in the Competing mode is to explain why.  Be transparent.  Be clear.  Be rational without appearing aloof.  If any part of the decision reeks of a hidden agenda, your credibility is shot - and that's one asset you can't afford to damage.

Bits & Bytes, May 29

Again, some miscellanea from around the Internet.

Adults, Play and Creativity

Two posts on ‘play’ for adults, particularly in business. On one hand, it’s fairly well-known that play is an important ingredient for adults, both in creative thinking and in learning. On the other, I know there's real hesitation from the Regular Person who doesn't understand what we often mean by that statement. A random search on Google has some questionable suggestions by creative experts, such as “Learn to cut loose, even at work!” or “When you’re writing your next report, think like a child!”

I'm not sure this is a good example of playing at work, but a few weeks ago, at a workshop for a financial services company in Melbourne, an executive and I were analysing how to improve her 78-page slide presentation for an upcoming meeting of the Board of Directors. Her immediate supervisor demanded she put all of his slides in the presentation, but then said "But feel free to make it your own." (Talk about Creative Paradoxes, see below.)

After getting our heads around the complex topic, we began to joke about how we might turn the presentation into something playful. “What would the Board of Directors never expect?” And, "What would make her presentation a surprise?” Or, “What if the Board were in control of the presentation, instead of her?”

Some Problems in the World Are Not Bullet-izable

Some days I wake up to a marvelous gift (via e-mail). This morning, my friend Hertha sent me the New York Times article on the U.S. military and its use of PowerPoint, entitled We Have Met the Enemy and He Is PowerPoint.

I love this sentence in particular, "Commanders say that behind all the PowerPoint jokes are serious concerns that the program stifles discussion, critical thinking and thoughtful decision-making." To the end of that sentence, I'd add in "... and creativity."

Let me say now, I love PowerPoint. Use it constantly. It is infinitely flexible, easy to use, and when used properly, can add incredible impact to any project. The operative words in that sentence are: "when used properly."

Unfortunately, the vast - 99.99%, if you ask me - of people only use it merely to justify writing paragraphs in bullet points. Just last week I saw a colleague in a agency here in Sydney swipe and copy paragraphs from an Acrobat document and paste them into a bullet point. Just out of curiosity, I counted the final tally of words on the slide: 217, in 7 point Helvetica. When I asked her if the word size was a tad microscopic, she said, "Perhaps." She immediately bolded all of the text, then said, "There, done and dusted."

Indeed she was. I got a call a few days later saying their agency didn't win the pitch. "The client didn't think our ideas were very creative," she said, extremely disappointed because the ideas were in fact fantastic.

A few thoughts to consider.

• If you use PowerPoint frequently, learn how to use it. Find a local class or workshop. People, PowerPoint is not going away any time soon. Trust me, life's easier if you aren't trying to practice your fluency at the same time you're writing a document. I also don't buy the argument any longer "I don't have time to go to training." If you can negotiate two meetings which are scheduled at the same time, then you can negotiate planning a workshop into your diary. 

Help for the 'Left-Brainers'

Here are two related blog posts, both written by Mitch Ditkoff of Idea Champions in Woodstock, New York. The first article - 10 Ways To Help Left Brainers Tap Into The Best of Their Creativity - should give all types of facilitators some helpful recommendations to improve group brainstorms. I've added a few thoughts below from my experiences working with "left brainers."

• Meet with the ‘left brainers” in advance. Whether he/she is the client, a key brainstorming team member, or a key influencer, I find getting in front of them as quickly as possible to explain the brainstorm agenda helps to get questions answers before the meeting itself.
• Understand their opinion. Sometimes “left brainers” bring the organisation’s politics into the brainstorm – whether it’s previous brainstorm attempts, a question or concern about idea ownership or ‘selling-up’ in the organisation – even understandable questions about Six Sigma v. Creativity. Again, meeting with them in advance, or at least attempting to understand their POV often helps as the facilitator to diffuse any negative situation in a brainstorm.
• Let them come late. Sometimes the “left brainer” doesn’t want to come to creative part of the brainstorm anyway. I have an agreement with one frequent client of mine that she won’t come to the brainstorm until we’ve begun the organising and selecting stage. Here, she can be invaluable to help shape ideas to ‘sell’ into the organisation.

Seven Different Types of Meetings

One book that keeps finding its way to the top of my shelves is How To Make Meetings Work, by Michael Doyle and David Straus.

One book section lists the seven different type of meetings, which I've listed below with some of their tips - and a few of my own - to consider prior to planning or facilitating your next meeting.

Problem-Solving Meetings

• Make sure the problem is well-defined and agreed-to by key decision makers in advance of the meeting.
• What problem-solving methodology or tool will you use during the meeting? Agree to it in advance, and make sure someone is fluent in the methodology.
• Energy is critical: attendees must want to solve the problem, or feel urgency to solve it.
• Incorporate plenty of time for discussion and debate.
• Engage a neutral facilitator depending upon the discussion and debate you expect.

Decision-Making Meetings

• The key decision maker must be involved, if not attend the meeting.
• Identify the coaches (the positive influencers to the decision maker) to determine how to win or leverage their support
• Identify the gatekeepers (the negative influencers to the decision maker) and the bomb-throwers (the ‘devil’s advocate’ type of people). Determine how to minimise, neutralise, or think ahead of them to counter-balance or address their concerns.
• Keep the number of attendees to a smaller number than a larger.
• Make sure team knows how they will be impacted by decision, that they have responsibility for the decision. At the same time, do not steam-roll.
• And last – perhaps most important – don’t fake a decision-making meeting. Be honest.

Prioritising Meeting Items

Many people are familiar with the Time Management Matrix - a simple tool which helps to prioritise tasks, based on whether they are Urgent or Important, or both, or neither.

The general rule of thumb is to plan the bulk of your day focused working on Urgent/Important tasks, get the Urgent/Non-Important tasks out of the way as soon as possible (or at appropriate breaks), plan ahead to get Important/Not-Urgent tasks started, and leave Non-Urgent/Non-Important tasks to the side until they become either Urgent or Important.

Sadly, we live more and more in a world where "status meetings" are catch-all events in many organisations. Most of them are unfacilitated and without any sense of prioritisation ... and no, "chronological order" is not prioritisation.

As a way to counter-balance, if not correct these unfiltered status meetings, consider using the Time Management Matrix to categories the items into the four areas to determine their spot on an effective meeting agenda.

1. Urgent-Important Items should directly link specifically to the purpose of the meeting, and should be discussed as soon as possible on the agenda. They almost always involve the key decision makers. Unless you have all the time in the world (and who doesn't, in our lazy, carefree world), focus on fewer items in this category than more. Or, prioritise the these items in case time is lost on discussion and debate. Also, make sure you have enough time after the presentation of each item for discussion and debate.