Your speaking less so make it count when you do

Consider this . . .  In today’s social media world, with people always having their smart device at the ready. Where you can easily communicate with someone by showing or sharing a photo or a video clip, or by sending them a text message. Where perishable pictures do the talking – why do you need to speak well – or speak at all? Let me share my views on this matter and on learning.Continue reading

Commanding Abbott beats Nervous Rudd

Leaving aside who won the battle of the ideas, in last night’s leader debate, the person – who won the battle of the body language, speaking and presence, consistent with a leader of state who is a top performer – was Tony Abbott.

I scored:

Tony Abbott: 8/10           Kevin Rudd: 6/10

Abbott has made some major changes in his debate presentation.

Abbott’s positive moments were numerous and included:

  • His articulate, measured delivery in his closing speech, painting a positive vision for Australia and her people. He marked himself as a leader with his reflection back to his first speech in Parliament and his use of ‘we’re lifters not leaners’ statement.
  • His ‘ownership’ and occupying of physical space and his overall commanding presence, at and around the lectern.
  • His measured speaking cadence. There was a touch of Obama in his delivery.
  • In the moment ability to retort to Rudd’s statements, and having the confidence to look at Rudd when Rudd was speaking.
  • Not needing to look down to his notes when speaking. (This is a major positive change in Abbott from prior debates).
  • No displays of the pugilistic, extended jaw, brawler from prior debates.
  • Elimination of ‘uhm’ fillers in his delivery. (Another major positive change).
  • The use of rhythmical phrasing in explaining his points.

Abbott’s negatives were few and included:

  • His flair for the obvious, first statement in his opening speech. Something to the effect of, “This is a debate between myself and Mr Rudd.”
  • His artificial, scripted, stern facial expression at the end of his opening speech.
  • Overplaying his measured speaking delivery.

Rudd’s positive moments were almost absent. He did make some on the spot retorts to Abbott but they were limited.

Rudd’s negatives included:

  • A poor, nervous, first 30 seconds to his opening speech. His voice was weak and thin. He rushed his delivery and face was pasty. Overall he looked dazed, unprepared and caught off-guard when the moderator invited him to open the debate.
  • Mispronouncing words, clipping the ends of words and syllables in words. He seemed distracted. It was as if he thought he could just wing the debate, but his face, body and speaking were undermining him.
  • The need to look at his notes particularly for his opening and closing speeches. This indicated that he was not ‘across his brief’ and consistent with the unprepared affect he displayed.
  • Artificial over-gesturing that distracted attention from his words and ideas. Rudd, who in my view has regularly concocted and scripted his gestures to ‘play well with the audience’ now seems unable to speak without them.
  • Not having the confidence to look at Abbott while Abbott was speaking. Rather he ignored Abbott and gazed downward at his notes. In effect, the lingering affect was that Rudd wasn’t tough enough to look at Abbott – wasn’t tough enough to face-up to Abbott’s verbal assaults.
  • A rushed delivery and lack of vision in his closing speech.

Tony Abbott’s body language and 28 second silence clip explained

Tony Abbott may become Prime Minister of Australia. Leaving aside the policies and ideas of Abbott, here is my analysis of how he presents himself and his ideas – in terms of body language, speech and manner – consistent with that of a leader of a state who is a top performer.

The analysis is based on Abbott’s public presentation of himself since becoming leader of the opposition.

Rating of Tony Abbott’s body language, speech and manner

– Overall rating as a leader of state: 5.5/10

– One word description: Pugilistic.

– Lacks a projection of an over-arching bearing, vision and world view.

– Physical carriage of his body is in a swaying, side to side manner, similar to a boxer about to enter the ring for a prize fight.

– Speaking voice is unengaging. The voice is monotone and flat with a halting cadence, punctuated with ‘uhm’ and other vocalisations.

– Lacks verbal options and easily provoked when under pressure. An example of this was his performance in a Seven Network, Parliament House interview.

Abbott was unable to speak for 28 seconds, and projected a menacing face and body language to the interviewer. It appeared, with his repetitive head nodding and close proximity to the interviewer that Abbott was struggling to contain himself from being physically violent.

Here is a clip of the interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wT9XS_TvzQ

If I was coaching Abbott, my feedback would be as follows:

– Lighten up. Take your job seriously but take yourself less seriously.

– Project dignity when under pressure. Understand that he/she who loses their cool – loses.

– Have the courage to offer an aspirational vision for the future of Australia, her people and for the world (versus focusing on political point-scoring).

– Stand up and sit up straight (versus hunching over). Walk with a straight, forward moving (versus swaying) gait.

– Project relaxed (versus tense) energy in your face and upper body.

– Trust yourself to let your ideas flow (versus editing your utterances before speaking them). This will reduce the ‘uhm’ interjections and the halting speaking manner.

– Add variety to your voice. As a metaphor for variety, think of your voice as the wind and your audience as sailors on the open seas. If the wind (your voice) is varied, the sailors (your audience) will be alert and will pay attention to the wind (your voice and your messages).

Julia Gillard tears and Tony Abbott’s limited speaking explained

The emotion, waver in the voice and tears of Julia Gillard this week, were real. The episode with the Australian flag given to her by the helicopter pilots and the Jordan Rice matter touched her deeply. Her performance must be viewed with the backdrop and context of one of her first Queensland floods, media performances, and with the realities of politics.

Gillard’s political minders would have seen the condolence speech as a way to repair Gillard’s woodenness and tone deafness in her first Queensland floods press conference – where she came across, through her emotional tone, more like she was giving a litany of budget cuts versus expressing unvarnished, human compassion for the monumental losses of people.Continue reading

How J Gillard hope outpointed T Abbott larrikin in first debate

Leaving aside who won the battle of the ideas and focusing on the battle of the words, voice, body language, presence and feeling tone, consistent with those of a prime minister and leader – Julia Gillard won tonight’s debate.

Gillard confirmed her own deep, genuine belief in herself as a leader, and in a positive hope for the future of the country. Debates are about emotional identification with voters. They turn on the revealing of a candidate’s personality, character and temperament. With this template to judge Gillard on – many voters will find her personality, character and temperament appealing.Continue reading