I need your advice, please.
Recently as I write and speak about the five planning questions from Rapid Presentation Planning (the e-book available at Cobalt), I’ve been increasingly uncomfortable with Question Two:
What do you want people to being doing differently when you’re finished?
Planning backwards from the response you’re looking for is important. It mirrors Covey’s ‘Start with the end in mind’ principle from the 7 Habits.
However, deciding what response you want people to have is dodgy for a couple of reasons.
First off, it makes it seem really easy to get people to do what you want. In the real world, this is not true. Communication is always a gamble. You put an offer out there and get a response. It can be tempting to process people rather than talk to them. Remember: people, not objects.
Secondly, I think that being too focused on what you want people to do can mean you get lured into manipulation, and covert means of achieving your outcome. It’s difficult to communicate authentically if you have secret plans. Hence, you search on ‘Sales’ in Amazon.com Business and Investing books section and you have 78,378 titles to browse through.
So, I’m thinking of changing the question to:
What do you want people to be able to do when you’re finished?
Focusing on ability reminds us that we can only offer choices to the people we’re communicating with.
It reminds us to facilitate a process, rather than force/entice people down a particular route.
It reminds us that the people we’re talking to are thinking people, who like being given the option to make their own decisions.
What do you reckon?
As ever, perceptive.
Influence/Manipulate – same same as they’d say in Asia. The other really decides if what I’ve said is ‘ok’ or manipulative.
Which is where authenticity is so key. Being authentic of self. And respecting of the others self.
Being respecting of others – as capable people who will move when it makes sense to them. Few people appreciate being talked to as children (including lots of kids!) Considering pre-existing questions is useful here.
And sense is that wonderful mixture of thought, feeling, logic, intuition and emotions.
It’s not that I can’t should not have a perspective or an interest, or that I need to be ‘balanced and present all sides’. Not everything is a formal scientific debate. Some presentations are about balance, others have a passion of ‘though hell should bar the way’ conviction. Authenticity here too.
Hi Joanne
Yeah, I think you’re right – authenticity is key.
I think that manipulation is when there is no *transparency* – ie when something is being done covertly to have people take a course of action that they wouldn’t otherwise take.
I’m now talking about this question as:
‘What do I want these people to be able AND MOTIVATED to do when I’m done?’
This allows for the passion of the speaker, but reminds us that there is choice from the other side.
Thanks for the input – makes me think and re-think. Which I always like…
Hi Andrew –
I think this is a very thoughtful piece. Not many people think about the fact that it is hard to get people to change their behavior based on a simple speech or presentation. Nor do many people think about whether there are ethical implications to trying to manipulate people to do something — even believe they must have your product.
Thanks for opening a discussion about these issues and encouraging us to think about them more fully.
I am a freelance corporate speechwriter. You might want to take a look at my web site (www.starkscommunications.com) for sample speeches and other writing.
Best wishes to you.
Cindy Starks
ajk1zy That’s way more clever than I was eexptcnig. Thanks!
8nO9Y5 ejhfrreowhfs