Why We Do The Zoom Wave

shutterstock_1854699226.jpg

Over the past 14 months, millions of people working online have created a new norm to end a video meeting. I’m talking about that awkward, overly-exaggerated wave we do before signing off: the Zoom wave.

Elizabeth Chuck, a reporter for NBC News, recently asked body language experts about this phenomenon. Here were her top findings on WHY we do the Zoom wave:

1) Clicking that little button to “leave” a meeting feels abrupt, sometimes even rude. Like me, you too have likely received this email after a video meeting, “Sorry I ended the meeting so quickly. Didn’t mean to sign off like that!” By contrast, waving is an unambiguous signal that we all agree … this meeting is now over.

2) We wave because we’re hungry for social connection. After a year-plus of social distancing during covid, we want to end a meeting in a positive, polite way that strengthens relationships (however possible n in a world that’s become increasingly virtual!).

Chuck’s article goes on to explore why the Zoom wave feels exaggerated or child-like. The answer is simple: we only have that tiny video box. No one can see hand gestures down by our keyboard, so we raise them high enough to be captured in the frame. This is especially true when we’re in a ‘speaker’ setting (using a video box about 1 inch x 1 inch).

When not using a Zoom wave, I recommend using the bottom third of your screen for hand gestures. (Here’s a terrific example.) Keeping hands low in the frame prevents them from blocking our face. It also makes them appear natural, while still being visible. For more on hand gestures, check out this short article from the Washington Post. (It’s from 2015 but it covers the fundamentals extremely well!)

To read more about Chuck’s findings, click here. Otherwise, please reach out if you’d like become a more charismatic, compelling public speaker.

shutterstock_1707351916.jpg

Zoom Fatigue (& What To Do About It)

Over the past 14 months, millions of people have begun working from home due to COVID-19. The most common complaint I hear — and can relate to — is the difficulty of attending endless hours of online meetings.

In Feb 2021, Stanford Professor Jeremy Bailenson studied the psychological implications of online platforms. He found four specific causes of “Zoom Fatigue.” (This term, by the way, applies to Microsoft Teams and other online, video platforms.)

Below I’ve listed Bailenson’s 4 findings and his proposed solution for each. I’ve also added a few of my own tips.

1) Finding: “Excessive amounts of close-up eye contact is highly intense.” Solution: Don’t use the “full screen” option for Zoom; in other words, make the video windows smaller to reduce the impact of being stared at constantly. Other options: if you use two monitors, drag the Zoom window to a secondary monitor, so that it’s out of your direct line of sight.

2) Finding: “Seeing yourself during video chats constantly in real-time is fatiguing.” Solution: When appropriate, right click your photo and select “hide self-view” button. Other options: set up more phone calls! I’m now much more deliberate about which calls require video and which don’t.

3) Finding: “Video chats dramatically reduce our usual mobility.” Solution: Set up an external camera farther away from the screen so you have more freedom to move. Other options: Use a standing desk. This allows you to have better hand gestures and move to illustrate a point. It’s also far less restricting than sitting (and better for your body!).

4) Finding: “The cognitive load is much higher in video chats.” Solution: Turn off your camera and go into “listen only” mode. Other options: Create group norms around meetings (especially recurring, internal ones) where it’s acceptable to have video off unless you’re directly involved in the conversation.

To learn more about Bailenson’s study of Zoom Fatigue, I encourage you to read this helpful summary of his work. Next time you’re presenting, remember the #1 rule of public speaking: think about your audience and the many video meetings they already waded through that day.

shutterstock_1832629489.jpg

General Morrison’s Case Against Sexism

shutterstock_1586115367.jpg

Last month, a colleague and I taught an online speechwriting course to 27 military folks. One of the speeches we analyzed was given by Lieutenant General David Morrison, Australian Chief of the Army, in 2013.  At that time, the Australian police and Army were investigating misconduct alleging that male service members had distributed material demeaning to women on the Army’s email network.

Each time I re-watch General Morrison’s remarks, I’m reminded -- and impressed -- by his candor in setting clear expectations. His message? The Australian Army won’t tolerate sexism. If you think it’s acceptable to degrade, exploit, or harass women in uniform, then, he says, “get out.” (Then he adds, best of luck finding an employer who’ll allow that kind of behavior!)

 Over time, the allegations in this investigation proved true and General Morrison issued disciplinary action. In the meantime, a YouTube video of his remarks went viral. Later the government named him “Australian of the Year” citing his commitment to “gender equality, diversity, and inclusion.”

 Here’s the 3-minute video of the General’s speech and below you’ll find an annotated transcript of his remarks. It highlights, among other things, an organizational technique for speaking that I’ve found useful whether giving a speech that’s 2 or 20 minutes long. It’s called Monroe’s Motivated Sequence and includes 5 simple steps:

  1.  grabbing the audience’s attention;

  2. stating the problem;

  3. stating the solution;

  4. helping the audience envision the solution; and

  5. a call to action.

There’s plenty written about Monroe’s technique online. You can find detailed explanations here and here. (Or email me and I’m happy to discuss it.) Otherwise, read on for the most compelling case against sexism that I had ever heard in my 20+ years in the Air Force.

Transcript of General Morrison’s remarks on June 13, 3013. [My comments in bold.]

“Earlier today I addressed the media and through them and the Australian public about ongoing investigations in to a group of officers and NCO’s who’s conduct if proven, has not only brought the Australia Army into disrepute, but has let down every one of you, and all of those who’s past service has won them the respect of our nation. [The General’s stern presence on camera grabs our attention, along with this last sentence. He explains that the Army’s reputation has been tarnished without saying why just yet. I can almost envision myself back in uniform, standing at attention, listening to my commander. I can tell you: he’d certainly have my attention.]

There are limits to how much I can tell you because the investigations in to this network by both the NSW police and the ADF investigative service are ongoing. But evidence collected to date has identified a group of men, within our ranks, who have allegedly produced highly inappropriate material, demeaning women and distributed it on the internet and defences email networks. If this is true, then the actions of these members are in direct contravention to every value that the Australian Army stands for. [Monroe’s second step is to describe the problem. In this case, bad behavior in the ranks. He reveals enough while carefully withholding sensitive details of the investigation.]

By now I assume you know my attitude to this type of conduct. I have stated categorically, many times, that the Army has to be a[n] inclusive organisation, in which every soldier, man and woman, is able to reach their full potential and is encouraged to do so. Those who think that it is okay to behave in a way that demeans or exploits their colleagues, have no place in this army. Our service has been engaged in continuous operations since 1999, and in its longest war ever in Afghanistan. On all operations, female soldiers and officers have proven themselves worthy of the best traditions of the Australian Army. They are vital to us, maintaining our capability now, and in to the future. [The General makes the case against sexism not only on a moral level, but on a practical level as well. We need women in uniform and they’ve served with distinction.]

shutterstock_1019117407.jpg

If that does not suit you, then get out. [The 3rd step of Monroe’s model is to offer a solution. If you can’t abide by the Army’s standards of conduct, then leave. In the sentence below, he basically says … and hey, on the way out, don’t let the door hit you on the behind.]

You may find another employer where your attitude and behaviour is acceptable, but I doubt it. The same goes to those who think toughness is built on humiliating others.

Every one of us is responsible for the culture and reputation of our army and the environment in which we work. If you become aware of any individual degrading another, then show moral courage and take a stand against it. [Powerful use of pathos, evoking emotion around the term “moral courage.” You can hear it particularly well in the video. Here he modulates his voice, evoking disgust for those incapable of showing moral courage.] No one has ever explained to me how the exploitation or degradation of others, enhances capability, or honours the traditions of the Australian Army. [This paragraph and the following one are excellent examples of step 4: helping the audience envision the future you, as a speaker, are proposing. He couldn’t be clearer in his expectations.]

I will be ruthless in ridding the army of people who cannot live up to its values. And I need every one of you to support me in achieving this. The standard you walk past, is the standard you accept. [This became one of the most quoted lines of the speech. Nice use of anaphora or repetition at the start of each phase.] That goes for all of us, but especially those, who by their rank, have a leadership role.

If we are a great national institution, if we care about the legacy left to us by those who have served before us, if we care about the legacy we leave to those who, in turn will protect and secure Australia, then it is up to us to make a difference. If you’re not up to it, find something else to do with your life. [Anaphora – repetition of the word “if.] There is no place for you amongst this band of brothers and sisters.” [General Morrison ends his remarks with a clear call to action. You have two options: uphold the standards or get out. In addition, he offers a modern twist on phrase “band of brothers” from Shakespeare’s Henry V.  By adding “sisters,” he turns a gendered phrase into a more broader, inclusive one.  Ending the speech with this word also underscores his main point: the Australian Army includes brothers and sisters alike.]

Done reading or watching General Morrison’s speech? Share your thoughts with me at rose@rosespeechwriter.com. – Rose

 

 

Online Presentations: Place Camera at Eye Level

When you place your camera at eye level, good things happen! (1) You talk directly to people (not “down” to them). (2) You can use natural hand gestures in the bottom 1/3 of the screen. (3) Your body language underscores your message. (Upright postu…

When you place your camera at eye level, good things happen! (1) You talk directly to people (not “down” to them). (2) You can use natural hand gestures in the bottom 1/3 of the screen. (3) Your body language underscores your message. (Upright posture says, “I’m present! I’m listening!” Slouching or leaning back deep in your chair says, “This is my 6th Zoom today … I don’t really want to be here.”

Last week I watched a webinar hosted by a professor at Harvard Business School. She was sharing some ground-breaking research and I was eager to learn about her findings. The material she presented was exceptional and she was clearly a rising star on the faculty.

There was only one problem: how she delivered the material. As I explain in this short video clip, her camera lens was too high. She peered up at us, the audience, from the bottom of her screen. It reminded me of being back in kindergarten at Birch Meadow Elementary School. Imagine me, a scrawny little thing, staring up at my teacher’s big desk — a wooden behemoth stacked even higher with papers and a globe. Walking up to that desk felt intimidating.

The Harvard prof reminded me of staring up at an authority figure. Only in this case, she was looking up at us, the audience. We were peering down on her from above. She’d flipped the script, inverting the position of teacher/student or expert/audience. The result? It felt like she was asking our permission to speak rather than commanding our attention. The placement of her camera had undermined her credibility.

Societal norms explain why.

In western culture, authority figures often physically and literally loom above us. Judges sit high on a platform. (Think the Supreme Court.) Speakers deliver remarks from a stage to an audience seated below. In Congressional hearings, elected officials sit high up in chairs beaming down on the individual testifying on the Senate floor below.

Another common mistake with camera placement is the opposite of what we’ve been talking about: people peering down at their audience. Here’s a short video example of staring down at your device. Let’s face it: no one wants to be looked down upon.

C-suiters who make this mistake further accentuate the existing power imbalance between them and their employees. Said differently, leaders should convince people to embrace their big new idea through evidence and persuasion – never by towering over them, or worse, intimidating them.

When your body language and words don’t match, what happens? People believe your body language.  A CEO can talk endlessly about encouraging workers to speak up but, if he talks down to people, he likely won’t elicit much by way of grassroots innovation.

The Take-Away

The ideal placement of your camera is eye level. Look straight ahead at the camera lens itself. Don’t just glance in the general direction of your monitor or laptop. If your camera lens isn’t at eye level, it’s easy to fix it. (Seriously, there’s no need to buy a fancy, expensive tripod.)

shutterstock_1689401389.jpg

  • If the lens is too low, prop it up with a few books or a sturdy box.

  • If the lens is too high, simply stand up or move it to another location.

Once you place your camera correctly, your head and body should be in the center of the screen. This will help reduce distractions for your audience and keep your message on center stage. I’d also recommend standing about an arm’s length away from your device. (Think formal cocktail party.) This will create enough space between your device and your body to use more effective hand gestures, which should show up naturally in the bottom third of the picture frame.

All told, moving your camera to eye level will pay off handsomely in your next online presentation. You’ll not only look more polished and in command of your content. You’ll come across as a more credible speaker who talks “to” and “with” people instead of down to them.

Rhetoric in Action: What Senator Klobuchar Got Right

My spouse and I were in the car last week when we heard Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) on National Public Radio. She was half way through her opening statement during the confirmation hearing of Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

“This Committee is gathered today for what I consider one of its most solemn duties, and one that I take very seriously.” Senator Amy Klobuchar builds ethos or credibility by saying in effect, ‘yo, this isn’t just another Congressional meeting.’

“This Committee is gathered today for what I consider one of its most solemn duties, and one that I take very seriously.” Senator Amy Klobuchar builds ethos or credibility by saying in effect, ‘yo, this isn’t just another Congressional meeting.’

It was about 8am, the start of morning rush hour on I-5 South. I was driving. Traffic was heavy.  I kept my eyes on the road, while tinkering with the volume button on the radio.

There was something in her speech – honestly, I wasn’t sure what – but she had captured my attention. I wanted to catch every single word and, as a professional speechwriter, I wanted to figure out why.

A few days later, I re-read Klobuchar’s remarks and jotted down my thoughts. I’ve included them below in bold. What did she get right? What could she have done better? And what made her words “stick” in the car that morning?

Of course, speeches are written for the ear, not the eye, so here’s the video. Scroll down for more and let me know what you found moving (or not).

###

Transcript of Senator Klobuchar’s remarks to the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 12, 2020. (My comments in bold.)

Welcome, Judge Barrett.

This Committee is gathered today for what I consider one of its most solemn duties, and one that I take very seriously. [Builds ethos or credibility. This isn’t just another Senate Judiciary Committee meeting.]

Federal judges, Senators, the President of the United States, we all take an oath to uphold the Constitution. We make promises. To do justice. To tell the truth. At its core, that’s what judges do, right? Figure out the truth. Figure out justice. [Repetition, twice in fact (!), both with 3- or 4-word sentences. The punchy, short sentences catch our attention.]

My mom - a second grade teacher - spent her life teaching little kids what was right or wrong, what was true or false, I still believe it matters. And so do the American people. [Personal story that succinctly expands from a focus on ‘me’ to ‘we.’ (Click here for more on this idea from Harvard’s Prof. Marshall Ganz.)]

But we are dealing with a President who doesn’t think truth matters. And he has allies in Congress, who in the past, defended our democracy, but are now doing his bidding.  

Senators who clearly set out the precedent that the President in an election year should wait. That we should have an election and that then the people choose the President and the President chooses the nominee. That was your precedent.

It has been said that the wheels of justice turn slowly. Injustice, on the other hand, can move at lightning speed – as we are seeing here today.

We cannot, and you watching at home should not, separate this hearing from the moment we are in, and from the judge he is trying to rush through. To respond to Senator Cruz, this isn’t a rush to justice. This is a rush to put in a justice  — a justice whose views are known and who will have a profound impact on your life.

And yes, these policies that the court decides, they matter. Where you can go to school, who you can marry, decisions you can make about your own body. And yes, your health care. 

The President knows this. [Simple, clear pivot to her next topic.]

We have a President who has refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power after an election. Every candidate does that. But not this guy.

We have a President who has fired or replaced five inspector generals, Senator Grassley. Who has fired an Attorney General, an FBI Director, and is now going after their replacements. 

We have a President who divides our country each and every day. He has called our military suckers and losers, he has refused to condemn white supremacists. And he has the gall to hold up a Bible as a prop in front of a church instead of heeding its words: To act justly. [Anaphora - repetition with the start of these 3 paragraphs.]

And now he says this election will end up in court. 

Why, Senator Cruz, does President Trump matter? He is putting the Supreme Court in place, in his words, to “look at the ballots.”  

Well I won’t concede that this election is headed to the Court because you know at home exactly what the President is up to. That’s why you’re voting, that’s why you are voting in droves.  [Keeps the audience at the forefront, where it should be for ALL speeches.]

Why are you voting? Well you that know your rights, your health, your health care is on the line. You know that they are trying to push through a justice who has been critical of upholding the Affordable Care Act, and they are doing it in the middle of a pandemic. 

You can see here in this room the misplaced priorities of this Republican-run Senate. And it’s in your hands to change it. [Call to action.]

Are they working to pass a bill to help Americans to get the testing they need to save their lives? Are they working to help the moms trying to balance a toddler on their lap while balancing a laptop on their desk? Are they trying to help our seniors, isolated, missing graduations and birthdays? Are they passing the bill the House passed that would help our economy?  [Use of rhetorical questions. Sometimes these are piled up so high, one after another, they become overwhelming. I, for one, could never answer them all, so I give up. I stop listening. This is example is borderline but what saves the day for me is the concrete images of the 2nd and 3rd questions: the toddler on the lap, the isolated senior. I see them!]

That’s not the priority. Instead, they choose to do this.

So no, we cannot divorce this nominee and her views from the election we are in. We didn’t choose to do this now. To plop a Supreme Court nomination hearing in the middle of an election. They did.  

So the reason people aren’t going to fall for this, is because it is so personal. The over 210,000 people who have died. The school cancelled. The small business closed. The job you don’t have, the degree you couldn’t get. [Short punchy sentences, all with the same grammatical structure.]

It’s personal to me because my husband got COVID early on. He ended up in the hospital for a week on oxygen with severe pneumonia. And months after he got it, I find out the President knew it was airborne but he didn’t tell us. We were cleaning off every surface in our house and my husband got it anyway. We didn’t know.  [Powerful example and use of pathos, evoking all kinds of emotions from sympathy to anger. She also confirms that this issue is personal; she and her husband have first-hand experience with COVID.]

And my dad at 92, he got it in his assisted living. I stood there outside his window in a mask, and he looked so small and confused. He knew who our family was but he didn’t know what was going on. I thought it was going to be the last time that I saw him.  [Ditto to above!]

He miraculously survived, but Marny Xiong, she didn’t. Marny was a rising star, the Chairwoman of the St. Paul School Board and just 31 years when Covid took her life. Her dad felt sick, she went with him to the hospital because he was scared, and then she got sick. Never got off a ventilator and died. 

The daughter of Hmong refugees whose parents fled Laos to a refugee camp in Thailand before arriving in Minnesota, Marny and her seven siblings grew up in St. Paul.

Their family? The American dream.

This is who this virus has taken from us. Someone who has left behind a mother and father, and seven siblings who loved her. And someone who undoubtedly would have made the world a better place. [Constituent story – example of Wharton Professor Deborah Small’s work about the power of highlighting a single individual. In other words, saying over 221,000 Americans have passed away from COVID (as of now) is a daunting stat. That said, sharing one person’s story is often more effective at moving people to action than a list of statistics.]

The President could have saved so many lives. 

Instead he’s been reckless, packing people in without masks for your nomination party, Judge Barrett. Thirty-five people got sick. The President himself ends up in the hospital and when he leaves Walter Reed, still contagious, he defiantly takes off his mask and walks into the White House. And then he lies and says the virus will magically go away.

The truth matters.  

And the truth is America that this judicial nominee has made her views so clear and this President is trying to put her in a position of power to make decisions about your lives.  

The Affordable Care Act protects you from getting kicked off of your insurance. That’s on the line. The President has been trying to get rid of Obamacare since he got in power. John McCain went in and stopped it with that big thumbs down.  [Concrete language – “kicked off” … “thumbs down” – as well as short, clear sentences …. This is the opposite of slick, political jargon about complicated ACA health care policy.]

Then they went and brought a case to the U.S. Supreme Court and they’re now trying to stack the deck against you right now.

The last time this was before the Court in a big way was when Justice Roberts—not exactly a blazing liberal—voted the same as Justice Ginsburg to uphold the Affordable Care Act. And this nominee, she criticized him.  

America, this is about you. It’s about these two girls up here. Evelyn and Maraya. Identical twins from Cambridge, Minnesota. Honor roll students, star athletes. They play on the softball team — one’s a pitcher, one’s a catcher. They also play basketball.

One of them got severe diabetes when she was very young. Does it matter which one? The pitcher, the catcher. They both deserve good health care. [Excellent story with concrete details and a nod to King Solomon’s parable about a mother’s love for her child. (In this case too, no parent should face such a decision.)]

“One judge” … lovely use of repetition to underscore the impact of a single judge in Senator Klobuchar’s remarks. [Photo credit: Tingey Injury Law Firm, Unsplash]

“One judge” … lovely use of repetition to underscore the impact of a single judge in Senator Klobuchar’s remarks. [Photo credit: Tingey Injury Law Firm, Unsplash]

They get that with one stroke of a pen, one judge can decide if millions of Americans, including their family, would lose their insurance.

One judge can decide if millions of Americans can lose their right to keep their kids on their  insurance until they’re 26 years old.  

One judge can decide that if seniors’ prescription drugs — which already are too high — could soar even higher. [Anaphora]

This is a judgeship that was held by an icon who voted to protect your healthcare. Ruth Bader Ginsburg. A woman who never took no for an answer. When they told her a girl shouldn’t go to law school, she graduated first in her class. And when they told her a man should argue landmark equal protection cases because maybe they’d have a better chance of winning, she did it herself and she won.  [Builds ethos with others who also view RBG as an icon.]

She never gave up. She had her own hashtag well into her 80s. The notorious RBG. And her last fervent wish was that a new president, the winner of this election, would pick her replacement.  

When you look at her opinions you realize, she wasn’t just writing for today, she was writing for tomorrow. 

To the women of America, we have come so far, and in the name of RBG we should not go backwards. 

As the rabbi said at Justice Ginsburg’s memorial in the Capitol, her dissents, her strong words when she would disagree with the Republican-appointed justices, her words were never cries of defeat, they were “blueprints for the future.” [A beautiful quote that Klobuchar echoes below.]

So to all Americans, this hearing, whatever these guys try to do, whatever you hear from me, it will not be a cry of defeat, it will instead be our blueprint for the future. 

Yes Judge, I think this hearing is a sham. I think it shows real messed up priorities from the Republican Party.  

But I am here to do my job. To tell the truth.  [Circling back to her opening words about truth telling.]

To all Americans, we don’t have some clever procedural way to stop this sham, to stop them from rushing through a nominee. But we have a secret weapon that they don’t have. We have Americans who are watching, who work hard every day, believe in our country and the rule of law, whether they are Democrats, Republicans or Independents. They know what this President and the Republican Party are doing right now is very wrong. In fact 74 percent of Americans think we should be working on a COVID relief package right now instead of this. [Touch of logos via this appeal to reason: nearly two-thirds of those surveyed think this confirmation hearing is a lower priority than a COVID-relief package.]

Let me tell you a political secret: I doubt that it will be a brilliant cross examination that’s going to change this judge’s trajectory this week. No. It is you. It is you calling Republican senators and telling them enough is enough. Telling them it is personal. Telling them they have their priorities wrong. So do it. [Call to action, use of anaphora, and something else. Using “secret weapon” and “political secret” builds a back-channel connection with the audience. We’re “in” on something special.]

And it is you voting even when they try to do everything to stop you. It is you making your own blueprint for the future instead of crying defeat. So do it.

This isn’t Donald Trump’s country. It is yours. [Call to action and a return to her focus on the audience.]

This shouldn’t be Donald Trump’s judge. It should be yours. [Epistrophe - repetition of the word at the end of a sentence.]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

###

Done reading and watching Senator Klobuchar’s speech? Share your thoughts with me at rose@rosespeechwriter.com. – Rose

###

Disclaimer: This blog is neither a criticism nor endorsement of the speaker. Rhetorical tools like these can, of course, be found in speeches by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike.  

 

 

What the Governors Get Right

They Aren’t Great Communicators

Yet We Keep Watching Anyway

As we hunker down during the pandemic, Governors across the country have taken to the airwaves. Much has been written about who has – and who hasn’t – delivered in the battle against covid-19. As a speechwriter, I began to track the appearances of our more effective Governors: Andrew Cuomo, Jay Inslee, Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, Mike DeWine and the like. I was intrigued.

How had some of them, I asked myself, risen to national prominence through the press conference, a comms platform that – let’s be honest – is far from riveting.

What had caused one writer to declare her love for Cuomo and another to label him the “Control Freak We Need Right Now?” How did Inslee, Newsom, and Whitmer (aka “that woman from Michigan”) leave their state peers in the dust? Why had Ohioans created a popular drinking game called “Wine with DeWine?”

What on earth were these leaders doing right?

Lipstick on a Pig

I worked in the Pentagon years ago writing for the Secretary of Defense. I had a colleague in the public affairs office, around the corner and a few doors down. He often said, “you can’t put lipstick on a pig.”

The speeches I wrote could be eloquent and stirring as, no doubt, I prayed they would be. But his refrain about the pig always reminded me of two things. Language, however beautiful, could never cover up bad news. (What comes immediately to mind … the haunting pictures of Abu Ghraib. I remember cringing at them under florescent lights in the bowels of the Pentagon.)

Second, the image of a pig with lipstick was a vivid reminder that big speeches – not retirements, not ribbon cuttings – had to have weight or substance. They had to be newsworthy to accomplish DoD’s goal: that is, influence our primary audience.

As I watched various press conferences on covid, my baseline for effective Governors was simple: results. They had to have made an impact. Flattened the curve or built overflow hospitals. Rolled out testing or rounded up ventilators. Otherwise, they were just putting lipstick on a pig.

Command of the Details

Governor Newsom was one of the first in the nation to issue a stay-at-home order. Decisive action like this helped flatten the curve and save lives in California.

Governor Newsom was one of the first in the nation to issue a stay-at-home order. Decisive action like this helped flatten the curve and save lives in California.

Here’s what else I learned … Cuomo, Inslee, Newsom, Whitmer, DeWine and others have a handle on the details. And that’s an understatement.

They know exactly how the Defense Production Act can and cannot help their state. They know the status of ICU beds: how many are in use today and how many will be needed tomorrow. They know the status of covid clusters in their state as well as intakes and discharges on any given day. They have proven to be capable administrators, pulling whatever levers of power they can reach, tapping whatever resources they have on hand with one goal: getting results.

Their mastery of detail confirms their competence. But it also shows how well they perform under pressure. For example, Newsom was the first to put a widespread stay-at-home order in place. Many have credited his foresight with flattening the curve and avoiding over-crowding at hospitals. How did he do when the feds shipped broken ventilators to California? Newsom snapped into action, quickly calling on Silicon Valley to fix them. Over time, he built enough capability to ship 500 ventilators to seven different states.

When Governors dive into the deets, it gives us a window into their ability to lead. We get to watch relentless problem solvers in action. Like a covid reality show, they tackle obstacles head-on in real time, week after week.

They don’t always win the day of course.  Newsom faced a backlog of test results in which some 65,000 people had no idea if they were infected or not. He admitted it was unacceptable and owned it, saying, “I have a responsibility as your governor to do better and to do more testing in the state of California.” Newsom’s next step? Appoint a task force and manage the hell out of the problem.

Press conferences let us watch from the peanut gallery as our Governors battle away. They wrestle the surly details to the ground and try to pin them fast. All amid a lack of national coordination and petty distractions from the White House.

And you know what? We cheer them on. We applaud each victory, however small. We celebrate with them, knowing that in the end, they are fighting for all of us.

We’re Adults (Tell us the Truth)

The Governors that people follow in a crisis respect us enough to tell us the truth, even when – especially when – things don’t look good. (And let’s be honest: that’s not easy for any politician, election year or not.)

Inslee out of Washington state has been clear-eyed about the scope of the pandemic from day one. Less than 4 days after the first covid-19 death in the country, he was out and about, visiting remote quarantine sites across the state. Early on, he shared the grim numbers on lack of ICU beds and sky-high projections for ventilators. He grounded his assessments in facts and science, never shielding Washingtonians from problems. These included the dire need for more testing kits and the time required to find a vaccination (estimated at 12-18 months, if we’re lucky). Lately he’s been talking about the importance of building “an army of contract tracers.”

He’s been forthright about the data. As of April 19th, the state had over 12,000 confirmed cases and over 650 deaths (an 8.6% positive testing rate). These numbers may not be as bad as hard-hit areas like New York and New Jersey. But they are still gut wrenching (especially the fatalities at nursing homes). Even so, Governors like Inslee share what they know because they believe we deserve to be told the truth, straight up.

Similarly, Inslee and others consistently cite the hard steps needed now to avoid a rebound of new infections later. This past week, Inslee has repeatedly discussed the specific thresholds needed to trigger a gradual back-to-work plan. “We need two things to move forward to the next phase,” he said on Apr 16th, “One, we have to have fewer numbers of infections and two, we need a much more robust testing and contact tracing organization.”

In a crisis, we want clear, no-nonsense language. We want cause and effect linked, no daylight between them. As highlighted in a recent NYT’s interview, “Leaders who trust people with the truth are trusted more in return.” We’re adults. Be honest. That’s what Inslee and others have given us and we’re grateful to hear it.

Remind Us Who We Are

We all know an effective press conference is more than just informational. It’s persuasive. People should shelter in place, stay 6’ apart, stay home when sick.

The more effective Governors are persuasive because they offer just the right dose of empathy among the facts and charts. They provide an emotional, personal touch at a time when many viewers are anxious and upset. In doing so, they remind us of who we are and what we value.

During a press conference on April 15th, DeWine showed a video of a husband-wife team. One was a principle research scientist. The other, a family physician. Over dinner one night, the wife mentioned the lack of N95 masks at the hospital where she works. Together, the couple came up with the idea to clean them – a process now being scaled up across the country.

But the video wasn’t just about the shortage of PPE. It was also a love story. The couple intertwined two narratives: how they brainstormed ways to sanitize masks and how they met, fell in love, and got married 18 years ago. (They were blushing and – I’m not exaggerating – giggling all the while.)

DeWine called it a story “typical of Ohio,” highlighting good, old fashioned mid-western values: solving problems, fixing what’s broke, and getting ‘er done. The video underscored the good of his community and I, for one, came away heartened by the easy, light moment DeWine had created.

Some people may see these digressions as corny or contrived. That might be true. But I also believe they add an emotional, heart-felt touch in a time when we’re thirsty for good news stories and real human connection.

There’s more to these leaders of course. Much more.

They ground their assessments in facts and science. (So sad, isn’t it, that we need to acknowledge this?) They dish out praise to others who make sacrifices for the greater good. They are humble, asking epidemiologists, doctors, and scientists to re-explain complicated terminology. They admit they don’t have all the answers but nor will they quit on us. They will live to fight another day. Tomorrow or the next day or the next. They’ll hold another press briefing, take another bite of the apple.

Let’s Keep it Real

Many of our Governors have, indeed, risen to the occasion. No doubt about that. But as communicators, I want to keep it real. They aren’t strong or compelling speakers. We’ve all watched DeWine and Inslee stumble out of the gate, cameras rolling. Others have garbled names and medical terms. Across the board, delivery is generally monotone.

My point is this. Our nation’s finest, our more capable leaders in this dark hour, aren’t charismatic. Not a Churchill or Obama in sight.

And the format our Governors have chosen to reach us? The press conference. On a good day, it is plodding and methodical. This is, after all, the information age. In an era of technological explosion with dozens of viable options, yet they’ve all fallen back on the sturdy, well-worn platform of yesteryear. 

And yet.

Day after day, I dvr Cuomo. I youtube Whitmer and the others. Millions of people – myself included – sit there as the clock ticks by 30 minutes, 45 minutes, over an hour. And many folks (again, including me) live far from the state they represent!

The king of nonsense. Governor Cuomo issues warnings (we don’t want to hear) and shares the numbers (even when they’re grim).

The king of nonsense. Governor Cuomo issues warnings (we don’t want to hear) and shares the numbers (even when they’re grim).

So Why Do We Keep Tuning In?

The press conference I belittled earlier?  Turns out, it’s just what we need. Calm and comforting. Slow and predictable. Perfect at a time when things are moving too fast, including the number of confirmed cases in the US, now pushing 800,000 as I write this.

Our most effective Governors communicate in a way that matches the moment. They are steady at a time when we seek reassurance. Caring as we seek comfort. They stand at the podium and read their remarks as the kind of deliberate, rationale leaders we crave right now.

Along the way, they remind us of our better selves and the values that drive us. As they step through the pie charts, call on medical authorities, and share the corny videos, they somehow give us a little glimpse of their humanity – by extension, ours.

Cuomo is masterful in this regard.

We all know he has a tough-guy image. And you don’t want to get on his bad side, as this article points out. Some have called Cuomo a bully in his pre-covid life, quite capable of elbowing out opposition. Others have liked his briefings to dinner with an Italian patriarch sitting at the head of the table. 

And just there, off in the distance, is Cuomo’s magic. Because of the tough shell he wears on the outside, we value each of his small, personal revelations. He doles them out just infrequently enough to leave us wanting more.

Last Friday, Cuomo said, “Now, my daughter is a young woman. She’s not one of the vulnerable categories. So, I have to talk myself through the facts, right? You’re talking about my child, right? You want to talk about emotion. Just, just goes up in you. So, I had to talk myself through the reality of the situation and the facts of the situation to calm myself. So, I understand fully the anxiety that people feel.”

We’ve been there. Gone through the same machinations. Is this allergies or something else? Was that a dry cough? Does my daughter have a fever? Is my son losing his sense of smell? Especially in the early days of covid, many of us scrutinized our health and the health of our loved ones more than normal.

And guess what? So did Cuomo. This little window into his own anxiety reflects our own humanity back at us.

So turn on the next press conference. Either one that’s he’s leading or any of the real leaders in this crisis.  It’s time to lean in.

We are desperate to know, yet again, that someone will protect the heroic doctors and nurses on the front-lines. That someone is monitoring the curve, watching the precious leading edge for a plateau or, even better, a downward tilt. That someone is consulting the experts on the new normal: what will it look like and how can we get there together. And above all, that someone loves us enough to show up, again and again, and do the hard work as elected leaders, fighting to keep us all safe.

###

Want more on this topic? I’d recommend this rundown of best and worst governors from Politico as well as this most excellent piece called, “We Need Great Leadership Now and Here’s What it Looks Like.” The New Yorker offers another terrific read, “Seattle’s Leaders Let Scientists Take the Lead. New York Did Not.”

Looking ahead, I have a number of webinars lined up to include Speechwriting School Online (starting May 6) and Military Speechwriting Training Online (Aug 4-7, 2020). Looking for a speechwriter, speech coach, or speaker? Let’s talk. Please email me at rose@rosespeechwriter.com.