A week ago I spoke to a gathering of young adults who you just might be hearing more about in the years ahead…
The Emerging Leaders for Oregon are a group of young business professionals who have much in common – and little in common. Some are attorneys, political directors, sales reps, university directors and consultants… but also conservatives, liberals and those fiercely independent. So at first glance, you may strain to find where their lives could possibly intersect.
But as I would discover at an impromptu reception before I spoke to them last week, they all share a common passion. They’ve seen what my generation has done with the political process and believe there’s got to be a better way. They believe that the words “consensus” and “cooperation” should not be relegated to lofty political speeches but should be integral to how those we elect conduct their lives.
So what did I tell them? We talked about a few topics related to cutting through the noise of the political process but I could see one specific moment where heads nodded at each other knowingly. Here’s what they heard & saw…
In my recent blog 5-Minutes to Make an Impression? , I referenced some research conducted by Indian researcher, Nalina Ambady. In her landmark study conducted with college students (referenced in the bestselling book, BLINK), she showed how quickly people form impressions. Not hours… not minutes – but in 5-10 seconds of their initial impression of you. But what made her research so powerful is that those impressions were amazingly accurate!
So in the weeks prior to this speaking opportunity, I did my own version of Ambady’s research. Here’s how it worked.
Oregon had an extremely close gubernatorial election cycle and for the first time since 1987, it appeared like the Republican candidate just might be able to win the tightly contested race. Ultimately, the democratic candidate won by a single percentage point - 22,000 votes.
So I took video from their one and only televised debate. First, 20-seconds of video of each candidate (with no audio) and showed it to some of our workshop attendees around the country. Next, 15-seconds of their voices only responding to a question. Our test groups were totally unaware of who the candidates were or their particular political affiliation.
After watching those videos, I asked them, “Which of these candidates would be the most effective public servant?”
Here’s what our test group saw & heard… see what you think.
“Candidate #1″ (20-seconds of video – no audio)
“Candidate #2″ (20-seconds of video – no audio)
“Candidate#1″ (15-second audio-only answer to a question)
“Candidate #2″ (15-second audio-only answer to the same question)
_________________________Now the results _______________________
20-seconds of video-only impression – 86.1% selected the actual winner (Candidate #2)
15-seconds of audio-only impression - 91.6% selected the actual winner (Candidate #2)
As a stunning confirmation of Ambady’s research, people unfamiliar with Oregon’s political landscape accurately selected the winner. Here’s the morale to this story for our candidates and for presenters/communicators everywhere.
It would seem we spend the vast majority of our time preparing “what” we are going to say (stump speeches, sales pitches, leadership communication…) and virtually no time on “how” we’re going to say it (eye contact, purposeful gesture, relaxed movement, confident-articulate voices). Does this stuff really count? One political candidate in the State of Oregon learned the hard way that there’s more to communication than the raw message itself.
How are you preparing for your next big presentation?
How much time do you spend on “how” those important messages will be delivered?
Maybe it won’t cost you an election, but don’t be surprised if it does cost you a sale -a budget approval – your employees confidence or even that management role you’ve always wanted.
