Talk about pressure! Your entire future is at stake, and lies in the hands of a complete stranger. You know you have to make a good impression, so you start to talk to yourself for days in advance, in the car, in the shower, on the subway, practicing how to say just the right things. But what's the right thing to say to get what you want?
The answer is a simple Three-Step Formula that works any time you are faced with a communication that needs to have a specific outcome.
Step One is to identify with your interviewer. Make a statement that he or she can agree with to indicate that you have something in common. It could be as harmless as noticing he has a wet umbrella next to his door and saying something like "I see you got caught in the rain this morning, too," indicating a common experience. Perhaps you notice a painting or a trophy in his office, you can remark (sincerely) how impressed you are by the accomplishment, or how much you've always wanted to learn or have already enjoyed the represented activity. Open the door, but then let the interviewer take it from there. Let him decide whether he wants to take the subject any further, or if he wants to get down to business. If he does take it further, JUST LISTEN! Say as little as possible. Let the interviewer be the center of attention for as long as he wants. Later, he'll admire you for being a good listener.
Once an interview gets down to business, many people start (and many are asked to start) by talking about themselves. This is a trap and you must be aware of it. By talking about yourself, you are turning the spotlight on you. The spotlight should stay on the job that you want. The interviewer has your resume, it is all the history he or she needs. Consider your resume as an obituary of what you've done and move on to what you can do for the future of the company in that job.
That brings us to Step Two, which is to introduce new ideas to your interviewer. Talk about the job, about how having the right person in that job (not necessarily you) can change the direction of the company for the better. Before you schedule an interview, you should learn what the needs of the company are, and how the right person in that job can satisfy those needs. If the company needs to spin off a division, then an experienced manager is exactly what they need. If they're stuck in an advertising rut, then fresh new marketing ideas are what will fill the bill. If they need to impress clients by their cleanliness, a topnotch janitor will get the job done. Know the needs of the company, then demonstrate you know the importance that job is to satisfying those needs.
If necessary, ask the interviewer questions about the scope of the job, just to clarify that it is, in fact, a good fit, though the more homework you do about the position, the greater advantage you have. Offer two or three ideas about how the job (not necessarily you) can enhance the future of the company, and suggest there are numerous others you've been thinking about as well. This is the bulk of your interview, and the more ideas about how you can enhance the company's future, the better!
Finally, Step Three is to take the plunge and instigate the action. In other words, now is the time to ask for the job! Clearly formulate a final, closing statement in advance, so that when the time comes, there is no hesitation. Say something like, "This position is an important cornerstone to the future of this company, and as you can see from my resume, I am well qualified for it. This meeting has confirmed for me that this is a company I want to work for, and I trust you can see how much I bring to the table. I look forward to getting started. Did you have any further questions?"
If more questions are asked, simply answer them, always keeping the spotlight on the job and the future of the company rather than you specifically. When all is said and done, simply say, " I look forward to hearing from you within the week (or month, or whatever other time frame that has been set to fill the job. If you don't know, ask, then fill in the time in your final statement.)
Make sure you shake hands and look the interviewer in the eye when arriving and leaving. Thank him for his time on both occasions as well. Then walk out confidently, knowing that you've completed the best interview of the day!
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Friday, January 26, 2007
The Epidemic of Uh
If you're the kind of person who hates to get a song stuck in your head, you may not want to read any further, because if you do, you'll never be able to watch TV news the same way ever again.
Not so very long ago, people who spoke in public were generally obliged to be articulate and well-spoken. That's why they became our leaders, our news anchors, our experts and our noted storytellers, receiving accolades and admiration for their skill in using the tool of language.
Nowadays, the most common word (if you can call it that) you hear in almost any American public forum is "uh", along with it's annoying cousins "umm" and "ya know". Turn on any 24-hour news channel or C-Span, and start counting the number of times you hear these noises. (We do. View the results at our website www.speakology.com) It can reach the hundreds in an hour. It'll drive you crazy once you start to notice it.
Actually, in my old 1941 Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, uh and um aren't even in it, though newer dictionaries errantly include them. They shouldn't be there. Words, after all, are supposed to convey substantive meaning, a tangible object or an abstract idea. These syllables of noise do not. To say it is the sound of "thinking out loud" is just wrong. The only thing this cacophony of sounds indicates is that the speaker apparently has no idea what he or she is talking about, regardless of how many degrees, titles and credits they may have attached to their name.
Some might blame the advent of the 24-hour news stations for this epidemic, the talking heads who must interview anyone and everyone, regardless of broadcasting or speaking experience, simply to fill the airwaves with noise in order to prove they exist. That seems like the simple answer. Yet if that were the case, then why are so many so-called "professional" broadcasters some of the worst offenders? And how does that account for so many public and private leaders who are guilty of the same sad habits?
Let's face it. Whenever you hear someone use a lot of "ums" and "ya knows" you cannot help but doubt their credibility. So why do they do it? Why don't they realize just how much more intelligent they would sound if they simply replaced this obnoxious noise with what we in the listening public affectionately refer to as "a pause"?
Imagine, for a moment, what it would be like if the speaker was to eliminate these irritating and obnoxious sounds, and instead, you were treated to a grand moment of ..... silence. A beautiful, cool, clear breath of fresh air, allowing us, for an instant, to be drawn fully into the image the speaker is creating (or about to create) in our minds. Anyone who's ever heard Paul Harvey on the radio knows exactly what I'm talking about.
Not only does a pause give us time to reflect on what the speaker is saying to us, it also makes it appear that the speaker is carefully sorting through reams of knowledge in order to find just the right words to share with us, thus creating the impression of both intelligence and concern for our understanding, the absolute antithesis of "uh". Now THAT is a speaker we can admire.
Trained professional speakers, broadcasters, experts and our leaders should already know this, and should have enough discipline to be able to use pauses effectively, yet most of the time, they don't. Perhaps this phenomena is most aptly described by Dr. Temple Grandin as, "The bad has become normal." And it surely is bad these days.
Perhaps a bit of tough love is in order to raise the bar. Just imagine if Fox News or CNN were to begin to fine their anchors $10 for every "pause filling noise" they used instead of a pause. How long do you suppose it would take before we could eliminate this annoyance forever? (Though it might take big loss of pay before some of them can break the habit, it would be worth it!)
Another approach might be increased drug testing. You see, my husband has a theory (to which I originally guffawed, but now I'm having second thoughts), that the exponential growth in the use of these annoying "thinking" noises comes from the loss of short term memory caused by the smoking of too much marijuana. He thinks the more times they "um" and "er", then... well, you get the idea. Hmmm... suddenly it's a lot more fun to watch the news...
Not so very long ago, people who spoke in public were generally obliged to be articulate and well-spoken. That's why they became our leaders, our news anchors, our experts and our noted storytellers, receiving accolades and admiration for their skill in using the tool of language.
Nowadays, the most common word (if you can call it that) you hear in almost any American public forum is "uh", along with it's annoying cousins "umm" and "ya know". Turn on any 24-hour news channel or C-Span, and start counting the number of times you hear these noises. (We do. View the results at our website www.speakology.com) It can reach the hundreds in an hour. It'll drive you crazy once you start to notice it.
Actually, in my old 1941 Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, uh and um aren't even in it, though newer dictionaries errantly include them. They shouldn't be there. Words, after all, are supposed to convey substantive meaning, a tangible object or an abstract idea. These syllables of noise do not. To say it is the sound of "thinking out loud" is just wrong. The only thing this cacophony of sounds indicates is that the speaker apparently has no idea what he or she is talking about, regardless of how many degrees, titles and credits they may have attached to their name.
Some might blame the advent of the 24-hour news stations for this epidemic, the talking heads who must interview anyone and everyone, regardless of broadcasting or speaking experience, simply to fill the airwaves with noise in order to prove they exist. That seems like the simple answer. Yet if that were the case, then why are so many so-called "professional" broadcasters some of the worst offenders? And how does that account for so many public and private leaders who are guilty of the same sad habits?
Let's face it. Whenever you hear someone use a lot of "ums" and "ya knows" you cannot help but doubt their credibility. So why do they do it? Why don't they realize just how much more intelligent they would sound if they simply replaced this obnoxious noise with what we in the listening public affectionately refer to as "a pause"?
Imagine, for a moment, what it would be like if the speaker was to eliminate these irritating and obnoxious sounds, and instead, you were treated to a grand moment of ..... silence. A beautiful, cool, clear breath of fresh air, allowing us, for an instant, to be drawn fully into the image the speaker is creating (or about to create) in our minds. Anyone who's ever heard Paul Harvey on the radio knows exactly what I'm talking about.
Not only does a pause give us time to reflect on what the speaker is saying to us, it also makes it appear that the speaker is carefully sorting through reams of knowledge in order to find just the right words to share with us, thus creating the impression of both intelligence and concern for our understanding, the absolute antithesis of "uh". Now THAT is a speaker we can admire.
Trained professional speakers, broadcasters, experts and our leaders should already know this, and should have enough discipline to be able to use pauses effectively, yet most of the time, they don't. Perhaps this phenomena is most aptly described by Dr. Temple Grandin as, "The bad has become normal." And it surely is bad these days.
Perhaps a bit of tough love is in order to raise the bar. Just imagine if Fox News or CNN were to begin to fine their anchors $10 for every "pause filling noise" they used instead of a pause. How long do you suppose it would take before we could eliminate this annoyance forever? (Though it might take big loss of pay before some of them can break the habit, it would be worth it!)
Another approach might be increased drug testing. You see, my husband has a theory (to which I originally guffawed, but now I'm having second thoughts), that the exponential growth in the use of these annoying "thinking" noises comes from the loss of short term memory caused by the smoking of too much marijuana. He thinks the more times they "um" and "er", then... well, you get the idea. Hmmm... suddenly it's a lot more fun to watch the news...
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
State of the Union long on content, short on delivery
As usual, President Bush's delivery of the State of the Union was less than inspiring, not because his script lacked what Americans needed to hear, but because he, once again, failed to grasp the simple concept that HOW he delivers his message is significantly more important to his viewers than WHAT that message is.
Bush is not alone in this lack of understanding. Political pundits who subsequently analyze his speech invariably gloss over his delivery with a few vague adjectives (strong, weak, tired, flat), then skip merrily along to tearing apart the content of the message, which is easy because no matter what it is, it could never make everyone happy no matter how well written it might be.
Most Americans, on the other hand, will form an opinion of his speech based on HOW he said it rather than WHAT he said. What most of us feel about the speech is primarily derived from how Mr. Bush MADE us feel about it, and that comes entirely through his delivery, not his words. When the president's delivery is lackluster and uninspired, it's impossible for his audience to feel anything more than that.
Let's face it. We all instinctively know what characteristics we expect from a President of the United States. It is practically ingrained in us from birth. When someone says, "That person looks presidential," we know exactly what they mean. Whenever an actor portrays a president, he or she always know just what to do to look "presidential." That's one reason why Ronald Reagan was dubbed the "Great Communicator," because he had acquired the tools he needed to be a good presenter during his early acting career, and continued to hone them throughout his life.
Yet these tools are hardly exclusive to professional performers. Bill Clinton was a very good presenter, too, as was John F. Kennedy and FDR. Unfortunately, most viewers, including the political pundits, believe that the ability to appear presidential, particularly in difficult times like these, is something innate, incomprehensible and immeasurable. They believe that a person either has been born with the ability to make an effective presentation, or he hasn't, period.
Because of that errant assumption, many people don't even try to seek out and acquire the tools that could be of such benefit to them. Such is the case with President Bush. Despite the fact that being able to make an effective presentation (which includes the tools necessary to look "presidential") is, or should be, Job One for a president, this president has capitulated that responsibility, surrendering in the face of ongoing criticism because he believes he's doing the best he can. He hasn't learned what every actor knows, that these skills need constant honing, and that with the right tools, he could learn to be better.
There's still time for President Bush to regain some of his earlier power and popularity by improving his presentation skills. Just look at Al Gore. He's gone from Mr. Stiff in 2000 to Academy Award nominated performer in 2006, just because he learned somewhere along the line how to make a better presentation. If Al Gore can do it, anybody can.
Bush is not alone in this lack of understanding. Political pundits who subsequently analyze his speech invariably gloss over his delivery with a few vague adjectives (strong, weak, tired, flat), then skip merrily along to tearing apart the content of the message, which is easy because no matter what it is, it could never make everyone happy no matter how well written it might be.
Most Americans, on the other hand, will form an opinion of his speech based on HOW he said it rather than WHAT he said. What most of us feel about the speech is primarily derived from how Mr. Bush MADE us feel about it, and that comes entirely through his delivery, not his words. When the president's delivery is lackluster and uninspired, it's impossible for his audience to feel anything more than that.
Let's face it. We all instinctively know what characteristics we expect from a President of the United States. It is practically ingrained in us from birth. When someone says, "That person looks presidential," we know exactly what they mean. Whenever an actor portrays a president, he or she always know just what to do to look "presidential." That's one reason why Ronald Reagan was dubbed the "Great Communicator," because he had acquired the tools he needed to be a good presenter during his early acting career, and continued to hone them throughout his life.
Yet these tools are hardly exclusive to professional performers. Bill Clinton was a very good presenter, too, as was John F. Kennedy and FDR. Unfortunately, most viewers, including the political pundits, believe that the ability to appear presidential, particularly in difficult times like these, is something innate, incomprehensible and immeasurable. They believe that a person either has been born with the ability to make an effective presentation, or he hasn't, period.
Because of that errant assumption, many people don't even try to seek out and acquire the tools that could be of such benefit to them. Such is the case with President Bush. Despite the fact that being able to make an effective presentation (which includes the tools necessary to look "presidential") is, or should be, Job One for a president, this president has capitulated that responsibility, surrendering in the face of ongoing criticism because he believes he's doing the best he can. He hasn't learned what every actor knows, that these skills need constant honing, and that with the right tools, he could learn to be better.
There's still time for President Bush to regain some of his earlier power and popularity by improving his presentation skills. Just look at Al Gore. He's gone from Mr. Stiff in 2000 to Academy Award nominated performer in 2006, just because he learned somewhere along the line how to make a better presentation. If Al Gore can do it, anybody can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
