Most executives who, charged with delivering a critical message to a particular target audience, step out front, armed with loads of information and PowerPoint slides, are obsessively and primarily focused on the intricacies of the CONTENT they need to impart. 

By shifting this obsessive focus on content, however, to the (prior researched) SPECIFIC VALUES of a particular audience, a presenter will invariably become more relevant and resonate more deeply with an audience. 

The simple sentence that will help accomplish this during preparation, practice and the eventual presentation is: “What this means to you is…”

Variations can be, “The benefit to you is…”, or “This affects you insofar that…”. 

Try repeating this sentence to yourself as you prepare your talk and use it liberally in your actual presentations. It will remind the audience of why they’re listening and what they stand to gain from following your advice. 

It’ll also keep your message on track and from veering off on tangents that are of little concern or importance to your listeners and only serve to confuse or distract from your objective. 

To you, this means you’ll be perceived as a more confident and compelling presenter with a clear message of value.

And while crafting and delivering relevant messages that mesh one’s goals with an audience’s objectives is challenging for even the most seasoned presenters, they are only part of the uphill journey to understanding. What often derails one’s best efforts in persuading a skeptical group is neglect in considering the influence of their personal values and beliefs. 

Backing this notion is recent brain research from the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics and the Universities of Amsterdam and Utrecht. 

The study had participants read statements that clearly clashed with their personal values, as in the example of ‘I find euthanasia an acceptable practice’, read by orthodox Christians. (The word ‘unacceptable’ was used for non-Christians). The instant the word ‘acceptable’ was perceived by a participant of orthodox faith, brain measurements registered a strong reaction of disagreement—within one fifth of a second—before subjects even had the chance to fully appreciate what the message might be saying and form an opinion. According to the study’s authors, this resistance to a message-defining and values-opposite word also significantly influenced the analysis of meaning for the rest of the message. 

This is valuable information for anyone expressing a novel idea or controversial proposal, reminding them that instead of being able to remain objective, a listener’s brain will raise a red flag with lightning speed after a single disagreeing word, framing the content that follows in a correspondingly negative light.    

The need to incorporate an audience’s value and belief-systems into one’s message isn’t news to capable communicators. And the brain research on how quickly personal value systems are activated, framing an entire message, drives home the point that gathering intelligence on one’s audience’ personal value systems prior to presenting a message—especially to a skeptical audience—is a critical first step toward success. The next step being the careful selecting of words and crafting of sentences that aim to keep minds open rather than shut them down before one’s message has a chance to get through in its entirety.  

What are the words that create instant resistance in the brains of your audience?

Van Berkum, J. J. A., Holleman, B.C., Nieuwland, M., Otten, M., & Murre, J. Right or wrong? The brain’s fast response to morally objectionable statements. Psychological Science, Online July 2009

Case in point, a friend and I recently had dinner at a spot in mid-town Manhattan that several people recommended for its delicious food with a French flair. To avoid making a short story long, the food was good from what I remember, but the service was dreadful. A surly waiter—hold your French clichés—an ignorant hostess, and an overall sense of “we don’t care”. 

Since most of our face-time was with the waiter, I’ll single him out for a moment. He came across as arrogant, unwilling and generally bothered to have to work. And yet, as miserable as he was, it wouldn’t be fair to blame him for his attitude and behavior. 

I blame the person that hired him. The person that trained him. The person that manages him, coaches him and enables him with a culture of tolerance in a business category that is straight-up customer service. 

The term “culture” loosely interpreted means “how we do things around here”. And the stakeholders, the bosses, the managers, the investors, the influencers are the ones that have the responsibility of shaping the culture of their place of business. Ideally in favor of both employee and customer. 

This means they have to be hands-on, ear-to-the-ground, 360-degree aware, socially intelligent and intolerant of behavior that violates the culture that creates a thriving, productive and welcoming environment. Of course, this applies to any business, not just restaurants.

And yes, like all of us at one point or another, the waiter could have just had a bad day.  You’ll just have to figure out if you want to pay the cost to have him as an ambassador for your personal brand. 

How committed are you to shaping your culture?

Accept the reality that the internet is open to everyone, and pictures, video clips, online profiles and other personal information will be seen by people to whom you wouldn’t show them in the offline world. Particularly posting unguarded images and content on websites like Facebook, MySpace and YouTube tends to inflict harm on people’s reputations when they least expect it. If you decide to create your own pages and profiles on any of the social networking sites, consider that even the profiles of your friends and others you link to can have equally embarrassing consequences, even if you monitor your own content closely. Time to axe the friends with drunken party pictures and remove the video of the boating and sunbathing trip in liberal Spain. If you care about your reputation, that is.

2. Compromising Emails

 Research from the trenches–conducted by Weber Shandwick and The Economist Intelligence Unit–reveals that 87% of global executives have either sent or received one electronic message (private e-mail, text or Twitter) by mistake. The research further states that while some e-mails are sent by accident, about one in four executives report that they’ve forwarded a private e-mail to someone else on purpose. Considering the millions of emails that are sent daily, the potential for reputation-dinging email-fallout is disconcerting to say the least.

The solution, besides making doubly sure you don’t accidentally hit the ‘reply-all’ button, send emails in a heightened emotional state, or share confidential information with unauthorized others, may be more technology. You can install outbound email monitoring technology–if you’re working for a larger organization chances are this is already in place–or rely on your colleagues to monitor your emails for you. Email security provider Proofpoint commissioned a study, carried out by Forrester Research, which found that 41 percent of organizations with 20,000 or more employees have staff on payroll that either read your emails outright, with their attention trained on confidential information you may be leaking, intentionally or by accident, or they are analyzing your emails automatically via the aforementioned email auditing technology.  

But when you’re the boss, even that may not help. CEO of Whole Foods Market John Mackey suffered a major lapse in judgment when he wrote an email to his board about the potential acquisition of competitor Wild Oats Markets, labeling the move as “the elimination of a rival.” This kind of language violated Federal Regulation rules and promptly landed Mackey in hot waters, primarily because the errant email made its way onto the desks of the Federal Trade Commission. But this was not Mackey’s only blunder as you’ll see in the next category. There are clearly a number of ways by which you could harm your reputation via email–the least of which would have you being called out by corporate monitors for violating their email policy. And that could get you fired.

3. Controversial Blogging

It’s bad when a line employee does it–companies frown upon this, frequently firing the offending blogger–but it’s a bona fide reputation-killer when a top-level executive does it. Back to e-mailer and Whole Foods chief John Mackey, who also turned out to be behind years of anonymous blog postings that, among other unflattering things, questioned the value of competitor Wild Oats’s stock, even predicting impending bankruptcy for the rival, all with the intention to buy Wild Oats once the shares hit rockbottom.  

NPR program All Things Considered reported on its website that the Whole Foods CEO’s online conduct was  considered “unethical and embarrassing” by business and legal experts. His controversial blogging practice earned Mackey a subsequent SEC investigation and a permanent stain on his reputation. Advocating what you believe in, in your blog postings is a good way to build your reputation. But make sure that it is done ethically, with transparency and that it doesn’t conflict with your brand message or it will end up burning you in the search engines.

4. Leaked Memos 

Leaks to the media often come in form of memoranda, the unintended disclosure of which can have embarrassing consequences for their authors. And of course, the likelihood that they’ll end up online with their authors’ name in bold font is as certain as an eastern sunrise. There’s the New York Times report of a memo that was intended for the French Diplomatic Corps by the British Ambassador to Afghanistan, leaked to the French media, predicting that the NATO-led military campaign against the Taliban will fail. The ambassador added that the best solution for the country would be to install an “acceptable dictator,” according to the French paper who received the leak. Just Google Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, and witness the British ambassador to Kabul’s permanent gaffe on his online resume.

Not an issue for the average C-level executive you think? Then consider a Wall Street Journal report about Yahoo!’s new CEO Carol Bartz. The new chief executive was upset that someone at Yahoo! leaked her first company-wide memo to the media, after which she sent an admonishing memo to staff that promptly made its way to the media again. In the second leaked memo she referenced the first one by writing: “Plug the leaks”, and, “I hope whoever did it, feels bad enough to come forward and resign.” She added, “Maybe we should have a weekly bounty on such people. I will throw in the first thousand dollars.” The full memo includes other frank language that the CEO clearlywouldn’t want the public to see. It’s obviously embarrassing for the new Yahoo! Chief, and until she gets the issue under control, she has to anticipate that any internal communication may find its way to the outside. The perception that is created from the start, dinging her reputation, is that she has no control over her staff at Yahoo!. The solution is likely to involve a more intimate dialog with staffers until they respect her enough to stop sabotaging her communication efforts.

5. Misstatements and fabrications

One of the most reputation-damaging and embarrassing mistakes executives make that inevitably gets plastered all over the internet, is an outright lie or fabrication of facts. Bloomberg News reports a story in which Microsemi CEO James Peterson has lied in SEC documents about having earned two degrees from Brigham Young University. The University however confirmed that Peterson received no degrees from them. To make matters worse the CEO initially went on the offensive, denying the accusations in an issued press release titled: Microsemi’s CEO Peterson Denies Misrepresenting Degrees From BYU.  

In the release, Peterson stated that he “categorically” denied having misrepresented his degrees. This came after Bloomberg News first reported the allegations. Since then, Chip-maker Microsemi’s stock has dropped 54 percent. Peterson’s punishment, according to Bloomberg, was to pay $100,000 to the company and forgo a bonus for the current fiscal year. In addition, Microsemi reportedly will also delay vesting their CEO’s stock grants by one year. No question though that the reputation loss Peterson suffered will be the biggest cost of his fabrications.  

Charles Elson, director of the University of Delaware’s John Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance weighs in on the issue, posted online of course: “It’s not the degree, or lack thereof, it’s the misstatement to the board and the public that’s the issue.” He added, “When this has happened at other companies, the CEO has been terminated.” 

And whether or not this CEO will ultimately regain the trust of his board and his shareholders, the damage to his and the company’s reputation is done and visible for anyone who’s able to type their name into a search engine. Hundreds of postings are waiting to tell the story.

6. Slow or no reaction to rumors and criticism 

Here again we can learn from the corner office of the executive suite as to what not to do in an era where everyone has a voice and everyone will be heard. Take former Home Depot CEO Robert Nardelli who was widely criticized in the media for his enormous compensation package–$200 million plus–when the company hadn’t been performing well for years. Nardelli, however, who was prone to stone-walling the media and even openly encouraged his directors to boycott a pivotal annual shareholders meeting in 2006 due to an anticipated PR attack by organized labor, did nothing to silence his critics. His lack of communication and perceived arrogant behavior, focused most of the media coverage Home Depot received, around its CEO as a “poster-child for excessive executive compensation”. News of Nardelli’s $210 million severance package only reinforced this distinction when he was ousted from Home Depot just a few months after the 2006 shareholder debacle.  

Then—again in the top job at Chrysler—Nardelli seemed to repeat his mistakes in not being transparent about his pay at the auto giant. The headline in the International Herald Tribune said it all: “Chrysler CEO’s silence about his pay does not help repair his reputation”. Stone-walling or hoping that bad press will die down and critics move on to other things is wishful thinking, particularly when shareholders, interest groups, and the media, including bloggers, are keeping ever closer tabs on executive compensation and the wheeling and dealing of Wall Street. A clear and transparent communication strategy is in order to protect one’s own reputation and that of the organization one represents.

7. Lack of executive presence on the web 

I mentioned earlier the importance of having a well-designed website due to research findings that a vast majority of executives look for information and overall impressions about others on the web; particularly on your website. The quality of your presence on the web is the first–and often only–chance you get to project credibility and earn initial respect. This need to impress is exacerbated by the fact that people have infinite choices for providers for just about any type of service or product presented online, as well as the reality that people make a snap decision–within seconds–whether or not they want to explore a relationship with you further.

A well-designed and structurally sound website is not necessarily cheap though it doesn’t have to be prohibitively expensive either. When approaching a design firm, make sure that your brand message shines through in every aspect of your site and that the user experience is first and foremost in the site builder’s mind. You will have to provide this information to them based on your customers’ stories and the experiences they are looking for from your company.

In the next chapter that follows in the book, we delve deeper into the art and science of reputation management and what to do when you’re faced with a crisis that threatens to destroy your reputation and limits your chances of achieving a stellar executive presence.

You can get the book here: http://bit.ly/avP7LT

1. Focus on the issue

Negative comments and ‘digital hostility’ can quickly turn personal. For the most part commenters enjoy virtual anonymity and don’t feel the need to adhere to standard rules of social conduct. While that certainly reflects on them and their credibility, don’t get sucked into a nasty and personal back-and-forth that will ultimately dent your reputation. Focus on legitimate arguments that are wrapped within the comments and respond with facts and professionalism. If you can point out fallacies and come across as level-headed and informed in the process, you win extra points.

2. Engage/dismiss with humor

Sometimes the comments are so obviously (pick one!) biased, ridiculous, ignorant, wrong, outdated, vulgar, misinformed, stupid, vile et cetera, that either no response is needed–the rest of the community will feel the same as you–or a well-placed witticism by you that will put the ‘hostile’ in his place. Nothing is as truthful or carries the sting as that of a witty remark at the right place.

3. Respond quickly if a response is needed

By letting negative comments with substance sit without responding, you’re depriving yourself–and your personal brand–of an opportunity to set the record straight or get a key message across. If it’s warranted, don’t practice ostrich-politics and make your well-thought-out point known as quickly as possible. The end-result may be a win-win where misunderstandings about you/your brand are cleared up and a wider community benefits.

4. Be prudently aggressive about pointless hostility and flaming

Make your terms of conduct known and invite constructive criticism, while giving a clear heads-up that sheer hostility, profanity and vulgarity are a waste of time, add no value to the conversation and will find their way straight into the digital recycle bin without ever seeing daylight (pixilation?). Those who object to this are the ones you couldn’t care less to hear from anyway.

5. Invite others’ feedback

If negative comments about an issue you posted add up, you may put it out to a wider audience to respond to get a 360 view of sentiments, perspectives and arguments on the issue. It shows you are interested in real dialogue as opposed to simply pushing a biased point of view. The perceived inclusiveness of this approach, not to mention potential resulting insights, will gain you points from a much wider community.

6. Clarify when in doubt

When you feel negative comments may contain a legitimate concern or source of pain but can’t quite discern what exactly the commenter is referring to, ask questions back to clarify the issue. Use their exact words in quotes, i.e. “…you totally suck in communicating with your customers…” and ask, what experiences they’ve had specifically that makes them feel this way. Then you can respond to the commenter and the issue with some confidence.

7. Don’t sterilize your forum or comment section

It would be easy to go overboard with administrative functionality and simply delete or censor any negative commentary about you and your brand. Don’t. It will become real boring for the community that bothers to write in if all they’re seeing are comments that praise you and whatever you’re promoting. As long as it’s substantive, negative feedback has an important place and gives a needed other-perspective.

And finally, get a copy of William F. Buckley’s book ‘Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription’ where over decades as editor of the National Review he answered hostile letters (as well as friendly ones) and ’stink-bombs’ from readers with a kind of wit and intellectual depth I haven’t seen since anywhere else.

On that note, his equally talented brother F. Reid Buckley wrote the foreword to my book, Executive Presence, which I treasure (the foreword that is).

Interruptions, heckling, rude or emotional in-the-heat-of-the-moment outbursts can happen to anyone speaking in high-stakes situations. From contentious shareholder meetings to a pitch you’re making to the executive board, you may face a skeptical crowd; you may get disdainful or irritated facial expressions; you may get questions that hit below the belt—perhaps even shouted at you. Preparation is key, so I thought I’d share my seven steps for managing hostility in your audience here:

1. Have an objective.

Having a firm objective for your speech, presentation, or discussion can help you stay on message when the audience is unfriendly. A clearly defined objective is imperative in most formal and informal presentation situations, as it allows you to keep your focus on your points, while quickly recognizing when critics are trying to undermine your position. Particularly in an emotionally charged environment where some audience members may become quite vocal in promoting their opposing views, it is perhaps easy to doubt the truth and value of your own position. But if you are clear on what you want your audience to know, you will be more confident when the skeptics and “grenade rollers” are trying to distract you.

2. Stay calm.

By keeping your own temper in check and responding to hecklers with reasoning and facts instead of emotional outbursts, you are increasing your chances that others in the audience will see you as the more level-headed communicator and may thus be more inclined to give your position fair consideration.

3.  Be positive.

Having a positive and optimistic attitude differentiates the leaders from the followers. You cannot expect to make a winning impression and convert others to your way of thinking with a negative attitude and demeanor. Showing an audience the possibilities of your vision with passion and enthusiasm will go a long way in convincing them that you’re on to something. All great communicators know that genuine optimism and enthusiasm are irresistible and often contagious.

4.  Get prepared.

Preparation is critical when you are facing an audience that is inclined to dismiss or oppose what you have to say. If you know which of your arguments the audience most likely will reject, you’ll be in a better position to prepare an effective talk that addresses these issues specifically and with sound evidence. Gather as much information as you can about the attitudes, interests, motivations, and problems of your specific audience, in order to get a clear idea about their disposition to your ideas. The more detailed information you have, the better you’ll be able to relate to their unique perspectives and prepare for their opposing views.

5.  Stick to the facts.

Consider the evidence you have collected to bolster your claims. When you’re under the stress of personal attacks, resist the gravitational pull to reach for proverbial straws when making your arguments. Clearly you are on thin ice with this strategy. Stick to the facts, and repeat them often if you have to. But don’t give in to the temptation of using questionable data that you couldn’t verify, and that does not originate from positively reliable sources. Stick to what you can prove beyond reproach when the heat is on as you present your message, otherwise you’ll leave yourself wide open for your critics to jump all over your brittle evidence and shaky argument.

6.  Be aware of your body-language.

A frequently cited study—often misinterpreted—conducted by Professor Albert Mehrabian, a researcher at UCLA, found that we get most of our information from someone’s nonverbal communication and vocal tonality—when we’re trying to communicate our attitudes about something that is. The language your body speaks is more reliable and telling than anything your words say. Therefore, whenever you find yourself speaking to an audience, you should know that the nonverbal signals you’re sending give them a much clearer idea of what the true meaning of your message is. That’s why, if you yourself have doubts about the credibility of your information or you are not sure if the position you represent will hold up to expert scrutiny, your words, vocal tonality and body language will signal incongruence, which a critically thinking audience will immediately sense and draw conclusions from.

Make frequent eye-contact and let your physical expressions and vocal tone naturally support your message. By focusing on your conviction and the value of your message, and maintaining a mental connection with the audience as you look them in the eyes, you are showing them that you stand by what you say and that you mean what you say. 

7.  Establish common ground.

Think about all of what you have in common with your audience. The awareness of important commonalities can be a strong bridge that will support your statements to your listeners. We all share certain universal experiences that connect us as human beings in spite of our many cultural, political, educational, and socio-economic differences. Particularly in front of an audience that is strongly opposed to your ideas, it is critical that you capitalize on those common human experiences by bringing them up early in your talk. With this strategy, even the most hostile audience can’t help but relate to you on at least some level, and therefore feel less negativity toward you during your talk.

When you can handle a hostile audience, you’ve developed top skills as a public speaker. You are ready to shine in any professional speaking situation. Now all you need to do is get out there and share your message so that audiences can benefit from your ideas.

Of course I’d be interested! I had the privilege of doing live commentary from Sky News’ London headquarters on ”Super Tuesday” in 2008, when the outcome of the U.S. election was anything but a slam dunk for Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton and John McCain looked just as likely to gain the edge over their opponents come November’s election night. 

The upcoming elections in Britain–while not of the same historical magnitude as Barack Obama’s meteoric rise and election in the U.S.–would still be a nice gig, particularly since live U.S. style debates between the candidates make their debut for the first time ever in the UK election process. Spectacle-wise it will match the U.S. elections, no doubt. Watching the polished media-savvy super-politician David Cameron square off against the introverted, shy and somewhat shleprock-natured Gordon Brown will remind some viewers of the bullfights in Spain, with Matador Cameron all glamour, style and slicing rhetoric that will have his opponent seeing red, and Brown, well, we all know how the bull usually ends up. (If you’ve never tuned into C-span when it’s questioning hour and Britain’s MPs lay into the ruling party’s cabinet with questions and fervor that would make U.S politicos’ blood freeze, have a look and you’ll know what I mean. Debates really are debates in British politics, and deep knowledge, anticipation and Q & A readiness can mean the difference between a bloodbath and a victory lap in the public eye.)

But back to the point of this post. Yes, I would have been very interested to critique Cameron’s, Gordon’s and the other fellow’s communication and rhetorical battle of wits for Sky News, live, from London. But, alas, I slept right through the call. Mr. Williams friendly inquiry from London registered on my voicemail at 4 AM with my phone gently vibrating an arm’s length from my head, I’m sure. When I called back to happily accept the assignment an hour or so later, James regretfully and politely informed me that they had filled the slot and assured me that I’ll have first dips again next time.

So why a taste of my own medicine? Because, as I say in my new book, Executive Presence: The Art of Commanding Respect Like a CEO, when the media calls, be ready to jump. When you have the chance to show your wares to a potential audience of millions, hitting the snooze-button is the last thing you’ll want to do. Or having your phone on ‘vibrate’ for that matter.

You think that’s politically incorrect?  It gets worse.

“Baby-faced African-American males with chubby cheeks, small noses and large foreheads will be considered over less cuddly black colleagues with linebacker resumes. Female candidates should be able to demonstrate leadership skills as defined by masculine stereotypes while maintaining their femininity, as defined by same.”  

You’re right, this couldn’t happen.  At least in print.  The sad truth is, though, that it happens all the time as a reality of the American management landscape.

Nobody will admit to it, either.  Yet it clearly and jarringly reflects the results of research into the reality of conscious and unconscious hiring and promoting practices of most Fortune 500 corporations in the United States.  And because it is a cultural phenomenon rather than a published corporate edict, changing it falls as much into the hands of applicants as it does employers.

Research bears this out.  A study by journalist and author Malcolm Gladwell, he of New Yorkermagazine and BLINK fame, shows us how corporate boards choose tall CEOs in vastly disproportionate numbers over more height-challenged candidates.  The Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University finds that black business leaders have a better shot at a CEO post if they have cherubic and baby-like features – call it the Teddy-Bear effect – versus their white peers who fare better with more masculine and mature faces. 

Nobody is saying it’s fair.  The research says that it just is.

Women, it could be argued, face perhaps the biggest perception hurdles. Male-dominated executive boards and senior management project their own perceptions of preferred leadership styles into the hiring process.  When they are looking at their corporate ranks of high-potential candidates in context to the succession pipeline, research shows they tend to favor those most similar to them, not only stylistically, but perhaps anatomonically, as well.

These days it takes more than an impeccable track record to ascend to the top floor. It seems that women and minorities must first get a Ph.D. in perception management before they can even position themselves to navigate the labyrinth that leads towards the C-level suite.

Bottom line accountability and proven talent, wonderful.  Ability to hold one’s own in the old boy’s club – priceless.

Ironically, research also shows that this male-dominated paradigm may not be working.  Extensive research by Catalyst, the leading organization for advancing women in business, says that corporate performance is positively impacted in those companies with the highest concentration of women on senior management teams.  Such firms outperform those companies where women have low representation, as measured by return on equity and total return to shareholder.

In contrast, women CEOs are currently at the helm of only 3.5% of Fortune 500 corporations, while black CEOs occupy the chief-executive’s office as a mere 1% of the Fortune 500.

Given the snail-pace at which these numbers are shifting in the right direction, and the fact that most corporate diversity programs are doing more harm than good, at least according to Harvard diversity researcher Frank Dobbin, different approaches are obviously needed.

There is no shortage of theories out there as to why minorities get stuck on the road to organizational power.  Many point to socio-economic disadvantages that limit entry to strategically important schools and social circles.  Explanations also include the lack of cultural blending within so-called power groups, and the pervasiveness of deeply ingrained gender-bias and stereotyping in the dominant corporate establishment.

These theories are backed by validating research.  And yet, even with verifiable bottom-line impact, companies seem slow to respond to the need for change.

And while eradicating bias and stereotyping is more often wishful thinking than the result of formal training and education, there is something stakeholders can do to contribute to a more diverse representation of leadership in America’s biggest companies.  And it starts by looking in the mirror.

To change the game we need to change the rules by which it is played. Leaders in white-male dominated cultures need to check their own perceptions and biases and, in addition to screening candidates for credentials, competence and diligence, they need to consciously focus on 21^st century cross-gender and ethnicity leadership skills such as social intelligence, personal branding, interpersonal influence, relationship building, conflict resolution, reputation management and media savvy. These are the personal and political skills that boards and senior management should look for in their ranks of executives if they are to successfully position their organizations in the minds of an increasingly diverse, connected and vocal society of bias-conscious consumers.

Similarly, women and minorities in business must learn strategies to better manage the perceptions of those who hire and promote them. In this age of social media, everything we do, say and write is visible.  The ability to manage one’s reputation and personal brand and to engineer buy-in with all relevant constituencies will become a critical asset in navigating the corporate ladder toward the executive suite.   

© 2009 Harrison Monarth

One thing became obvious; the concept of storytelling isn’t all that clear to everyone, and the assignment of crafting a story in only six words produced hundreds of political slogans, proverbs, partial allegories, pitches, activist statements, five-word stories, seven-word stories, quotes from Julius Caesar, Voltaire, the Boy Scouts, Lincoln, Ben Franklin, Martin Luther King and Forrest Gump, as well as numerous catch phrases, copied and pasted six-word stories from across the internet, and a few original six-word stories.

And while there are certainly a number of definitions of what makes a compelling story, Hemingway’s example—For sale: baby shoes, never worn—set the standard for the contest.

Hemingway’s enduring six-word tale works because of the natural human need for resolution. We can’t help but try and fill in the blanks in his dramatic narrative in order to complete the picture or tell the story. Our brain wants closure and has the ability to form almost instantaneous conclusions from relatively little information. Provided the given information adequately sets the stage and taps into established mental models we all carry.

The story Hemingway modeled works because we can put ourselves in it. We easily relate to it via the universal human experience. And any time we become emotionally engaged in the story we have a stake in its outcome. When our brain gets engaged and starts assembling the pieces of data that form a complete and vivid message, that story becomes even more memorable, benefitting both storyteller and audience.

Here then are the three six-word stories that most resonated with us. The winners of a signed copy of Executive Presence: The Art of Commanding Respect Like a CEO (McGraw-Hill 2010) are:

1) One night. Working together. Fired separately.
Posted by Sanjay Malhotra

2) Jobless. I will start my own.
Posted by Kate Alexander

3) FOUND: Engagement Ring on Brooklyn Bridge
Posted by Sam Worman

Aside from our top three, there were a number of others we liked and which deserve honorable mention:

Her heartbeat wasn’t on the sonogram.
Posted by Sarah Schlott

Story challenge. Voices in head. Addicted.
Posted by Curt Valmy

Crime Report: Jill. Up Hill. Jacked.
Posted by J. Allan Tyler, Ed.M

Door Closes; Her Chanel Perfume Remains
Posted by Melanie Wahl

It worked but nobody bought it.
Posted by Graham Courtney

Everyone ready? We go on three!
Posted by Mark Cichonski

I (1) Have (2) Trouble (3) Meeting (4) Expectations! (5) …..
Posted by Rick Corcoran

Been to OZ, now in Kansas.
Posted by Trish Boone

Growing old, mandatory; growing up, optional!
Posted by Joseph Gater

She was fun, I was constant.
Posted by Dan Clark

Unbelievably hot. Taking my clothes off.
Posted by Kate Alexander

Hi, honey. I am not home.
Posted by Kate Alexander

Last dry match in the storm
Posted by Robin Reed

Logged on, read blog, was fired!
Posted by Bettie Mader

Betrayal; blind anger; a knife. Regret.
Posted by Laura Smith Dunaief

We know. We don’t want to.
Posted by Beth Lanes Battinelli, PhD

My resume was fine years ago!
Posted by Bryan Williams

Congratulations to the three winners! And thanks to all for participating. I hope this process was helpful to anyone who has a stake in developing more concise and compelling messages that resonate with audiences on an emotional level.

Cheers!
Harrison

Executives and other professionals who speak and present in potentially hostile, contentious and otherwise stressful situations must be aware of ‘emotional leakage’ and maintain congruency in the message they’re trying to send. Realistic anticipation and effective rehearsal are key to a successful presentation here, as in all situations.