Three Ways to Lose Your Audience - Eblin Group | Eblin Group

http://eblingroup.com/2012/09/three-ways-to-lose-your-audience.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2Fscotteblin+%28Next+Level+Blog%29

Three Ways to Lose Your Audience September 13 2012

A little over a year ago, I wrote a post called Three Signs Your Slide Deck Stinks.  I think it got the most comments in the history of this blog as I invited readers to share their pet peeves from presentation land.

The Slide Deck Stinks post comes to mind because I've attended a lot of presentations lately.  While I've heard some great ones, I'm sorry to say that there have been some bad ones too. In an age when practically everyone has a source of endless distractions (the smart phone) at their fingertips, it's easier than ever to lose your audience in two minutes or less. I've seen a lot of presenters do exactly that.

You probably have your own list of things presenters do that cause you to check out. I encourage you to share them in the comments so we can all learn from each other (or at least enjoy a good rant.) If I was writing an open letter to anyone who has to present (which I guess I am actually), here are three things I would beg them to avoid if they don't want to lose me and the rest of the audience:

Expect Me to Just Listen for 45 Minutes Straight: Please structure your presentation so you get me and the rest of the audience involved in the first two minutes and then give us something else new to do about every eight to ten minutes after that. Please don't expect me to listen to fact after fact for 45 minutes or more without checking out. Ask us a question that requires a response or show of hands. Show a relevant (but short) video.  Give us a simple exercise to do with a neighbor that illustrates your points. Ask us to jot down a few thoughts and share them with each other. Almost everyone these days has ADD. Work with that by mixing things up.

Talk in a Monotone: I don't expect cartwheels and handstands, but please bring some energy to your presentation. Above all else, please drop the monotone delivery.  It literally puts us to sleep.Vary your pace. Use some inflection. Raise your volume. Lower your volume. When you're practicing your presentation (and I hope you are) record yourself and play it back. I'll bet you'll be surprised by how flat the delivery is. Dial up the energy.  Most presenters (myself included) can't dial it up too much.

Take Yourself So Damn Seriously: Some of you presenters are so serious up there that you're scaring me. Let's get real; most presentations are not about life and death topics so let's not act like they are. Pretend you're having a conversation with a bunch of friends. (It certainly worked for Bill Clinton at the Democratic National Convention.) Laugh a little. Smile.Connect with us.

OK, if you were writing your own letter to presenters what would you ask them to do to engage you or absolutely avoid so they don't lose you?  Please share in the comments.

Thurston Howell Romney - NYTimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html?smid=fb-share

Thurston Howell Romney

In 1980, about 30 percent of Americans received some form of government benefits. Today, as Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute has pointed out, about 49 percent do.

In 1960, government transfers to individuals totaled $24 billion. By 2010, that total was 100 times as large. Even after adjusting for inflation, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown by more than 700 percent over the last 50 years. This spending surge, Eberstadt notes, has increased faster under Republican administrations than Democratic ones.

There are sensible conclusions to be drawn from these facts. You could say that the entitlement state is growing at an unsustainable rate and will bankrupt the country. You could also say that America is spending way too much on health care for the elderly and way too little on young families and investments in the future.

But these are not the sensible arguments that Mitt Romney made at a fund-raiser earlier this year. Romney, who criticizes President Obama for dividing the nation, divided the nation into two groups: the makers and the moochers. Forty-seven percent of the country, he said, are people "who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care of them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."

This comment suggests a few things. First, it suggests that he really doesn't know much about the country he inhabits. Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare?

It suggests that Romney doesn't know much about the culture of America. Yes, the entitlement state has expanded, but America remains one of the hardest-working nations on earth. Americans work longer hours than just about anyone else. Americans believe in work more than almost any other people. Ninety-two percent say that hard work is the key to success, according to a 2009 Pew Research Survey.

It says that Romney doesn't know much about the political culture. Americans haven't become childlike worshipers of big government. On the contrary, trust in government has declined. The number of people who think government spending promotes social mobility has fallen.

The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. As Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution has noted, the people who have benefited from the entitlements explosion are middle-class workers, more so than the dependent poor.

Romney's comments also reveal that he has lost any sense of the social compact. In 1987, during Ronald Reagan's second term, 62 percent of Republicans believed that the government has a responsibility to help those who can't help themselves. Now, according to the Pew Research Center, only 40 percent of Republicans believe that.

The Republican Party, and apparently Mitt Romney, too, has shifted over toward a much more hyperindividualistic and atomistic social view — from the Reaganesque language of common citizenship to the libertarian language of makers and takers. There's no way the country will trust the Republican Party to reform the welfare state if that party doesn't have a basic commitment to provide a safety net for those who suffer for no fault of their own.

The final thing the comment suggests is that Romney knows nothing about ambition and motivation. The formula he sketches is this: People who are forced to make it on their own have drive. People who receive benefits have dependency.

But, of course, no middle-class parent acts as if this is true. Middle-class parents don't deprive their children of benefits so they can learn to struggle on their own. They shower benefits on their children to give them more opportunities — so they can play travel sports, go on foreign trips and develop more skills.

People are motivated when they feel competent. They are motivated when they have more opportunities. Ambition is fired by possibility, not by deprivation, as a tour through the world's poorest regions makes clear.

Sure, there are some government programs that cultivate patterns of dependency in some people. I'd put federal disability payments and unemployment insurance in this category. But, as a description of America today, Romney's comment is a country-club fantasy. It's what self-satisfied millionaires say to each other. It reinforces every negative view people have about Romney.

Personally, I think he's a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not — some sort of cartoonish government-hater. But it scarcely matters. He's running a depressingly inept presidential campaign. Mr. Romney, your entitlement reform ideas are essential, but when will the incompetence stop?

Frank Bruni is off today.

How To Run Your Meetings Like Apple and Google :: Tips :: 99U

http://99u.com/tips/7220/How-To-Run-Your-Meetings-Like-Apple-and-Google

20 Inspiring Quotes from Winston Churchill

Sent to you via Google Reader

20 Inspiring Quotes from Winston Churchill

Winston Churchill was loved and hated by many. He was an iconic leader who was known for his rebellious and stubborn nature. But it was these traits that saw him achieve a great deal with his life.

Churchill has much to teach us about courage, persistence and leadership. He pushed through years and years of failure to eventually hold office for an incredible 60 years. He was known for facing problems head-on and for 'never ever giving up.'

Churchill is referred to as one of the most influential people in British history, so why not learn from his successes and failures?

Here are 20 of my favorite Winston Churchill quotes. Read them slowly and take away a nugget of inspiration from the man who was known for his no nonsense approach to life.

20 Inspiring Quotes from Winston Churchill:

1. "Attitude is a little thing that makes a BIG difference."


2. "Success is not final, failure is not fatal, it is the courage to continue that counts."


3. "If you're going through hell, keep going."


4. "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."


5. "Never, never, never give up."


6. "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity, an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."


7. "You have enemies? Good. It means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."


8. "Eating words has never given me indigestion."


9. "When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber."


10. "The price of greatness is responsibility."


11. "Out of intense complexities, intense simplicities emerge."


12. "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil tears and sweat."


13. "The empires of the future are the empires of the mind."


14. "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak, it's also what it takes to sit down...

Dan Ariely on the Truth About Dishonesty, Animated

Sent to you via Google Reader

Dan Ariely on the Truth About Dishonesty, Animated

"It's all about rationalization."

From the fantastic RSA Animate series comes an illustrated distillation of behavioral economist Dan Ariely's new book, The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone — Especially Ourselves, which you might recall. Here, Ariely highlights some of the fascinating psychological mechanisms that steer our moral compass — and often do so in directions different from our self-conception as righteous people — explaining everything from why we cheat on our diets to how the world ended up in a massive financial crisis, and offering lab-tested behavioral insights on what we can do about it all.

If you think about the whole financial crisis, we've taken people and we've put them in situations which basically are guaranteed to blind or, at least, to distort their vision. And we expect people to overcome that.

We all have a tendency to think of people as good or bad. And, we say, as long as we kick the bad people, everything would be fine. But the reality is that we all have the capacity to be quite bad, under the right circumstances, and I think in banking we've created the right circumstances for everybody to misbehave. And, because of that, it's not such a matter of kicking some people and getting new people in — it's about changing the incentive structure. Because, unless we change that, we're not going to get forward.

For a closer look at The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty, see these annotated excerpts from a chapter on the relationship between creativity and dishonesty.

Masters of the Earth, via onlinemastersdegree.com

Created by: www.OnlineMastersDegree.com

Indy Bikehiker: HOW I VOTE: 5 CONSIDERATIONS

http://www.indybikehiker.com/2008/04/five-considerations-i-make-when-voting.html?m=1

HOW I VOTE: 5 CONSIDERATIONS

How I bring my Christian faith and perspective into national election choices

As Christian clergy and a community advocate, I face quandaries in national elections. I'm not a single-issue voter. I resist being ideologically stereotyped. And I resent distortion-ridden voter guides. I choose to sort through the paradoxes in candidates, parties and platforms. People of earnest faith have tough choices in the voting booth.

Here are five considerations I make when it comes to public leadership and the democratic process in national elections. I try take these to heart, also, as I live as an engaged citizen between elections. These help me bring the breadth of my faith and hope into electoral politics, even though they make choices less clear-cut.

1. WHAT DOES IT DO TO THE POOR? I ask of any candidate or administration's positions, policies and proposals: What does it do to the poor? This is a bottom line in both Hebrew and Christian scriptures. It was to the poor who were being crushed by domination and struggling within their communities that Jesus of Nazareth primarily addressed himself. Domestic poverty and policies that impact the poor globally may not factor much in most elections. But all are diminished and the promise of democracy is betrayed when concerns of the poor are either ignored or pandered to while the real agendas are set mostly for the preservation of moneyed advantage.

2. BEWARE LITMUS TESTS. I don't expect a candidate to be my brand of Christian or a professing Christian at all. I don't expect them to line up with all my values or presumedly right positions. Politicians love to wear righteousness on their sleeves and court faith votes and "values" voters. Beware: personal piety and pandering does not necessarily translate into sound leadership or policies that reflect scriptural integrity. It seems to me, for instance, that many politicians, once elected, have taken Christian groups for a ride over the past 30 years, giving only lip service to a very limited range of Christian concerns. Instead of holding candidates up to narrow litmus tests, I expect democratically-elected leaders to uphold the Constitution and lead with utmost wisdom, compassion and diplomacy in behalf of all the people.

3. COMPASSION BEYOND CLICHÉS. I look for a candidate whom I perceive will actually lead compassionately--not just claim to be compassionate. George W. Bush loved to claim he was a "compassionate conservative" while gutting real support and opportunities for the most vulnerable and leaving the much-vaunted faith-based initiative high and dry. How will the candidate give voice to those who are vulnerable and dominated? Will he or she be moved by more than lobbied self-interest, partisan pressure or news media reactions? Beyond personal benevolence, will the candidate seek to make America fairer, instituting policies that counter prejudices, extend equal rights and opportunity, and end poverty? Will he or she hold truth, human rights, and civil liberties higher than economic expediency?

4. USE OF VIOLENCE. I ask: How has a candidate responded to violence or used violence? In what measured ways will he or she likely act to prevent, respond to, or use violence in the future? Life is sacred, and killing--for convenience, by slow, suffocating neglect, in criminal acts, in capital punishment, or in battlefield action--has devastating consequences even when "good" results. We also know that violence begets more violence, the spiral increasing in intensity and breadth every time it is even "justifiably" used. The specter of the use of deadly force is, to me, a critical concern in elections. Will the candidate lead, not so much by the threat of violence and militarism, but with the winning power of sound policies, personal influence and diplomatic persuasion? Will the candidate use power responsibly and with an eye to ending violence abroad by the hands of Americans? To what extent will he or she influence all nations to abandon nuclear weapons programs, reduce and guard existing nuclear weapons caches, and turn away from militarism as the dominant method of crisis intervention and problem resolution?

5. AMERICA'S ROLE IN THE WORLD. Finally, I consider how candidates envision America's place and role in the world. I continue to be concerned about an aura of American empire that threatens our nation's effectiveness as a global neighbor. Whatever the intention of a global war on terrorism, the interpretation and application of it has resulted in Americans and American-based interests being resented, hated, and unwelcome in more places by more people. This undermines redemptive spiritual and compassionate outreach efforts as well as economic market development. So, how will a candidate address this macro issue? Do they see it as a "winner take-all" battle, an ideological game, a religious war? Do they perceive enemies and rivals more than neighbors and potential partners? What direction will he or she take for the immediate and long-term future for America's place in the world?

Certainly, I consider more than this when I vote. But, to me, these are primary. They reflect my understanding of the Bible and my sense of neighborliness and community in local, national and international dimensions. They reflect broad values and principles, not prescribed positions and pet policies.

I am not so naive as to imagine I will ever a see the candidate who perfectly fulfills these five considerations.  If so, they would likely not be electable!  But I consistently find electable candidates who demonstrate sensitivity to these considerations, not as a matter of pandering or promise-making, but as a matter of character, perspective, and responsible action.  Such people will receive my vote.

I welcome your comments and/or questions in the spirit of dialog. Share yours by clicking on "comments" just below. They're moderated only to reduce incivility. Shalom!

Mitt Romney, Liquidationist - NYTimes.com

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/mitt-romney-liquidationist/

Mitt Romney, Liquidationist

How times have changed. Back in 2004, Greg Mankiw declared, in the Economic Report of the President, that

Aggressive monetary policy can reduce the depth of a recession.

But now, after the Fed has finally moved a bit in the direction of doing something about the Lesser Depression, Mitt Romney – supposedly advised by Mankiw among others – is outraged:

[T]he American economy doesn't need more artificial and ineffective measures. We should be creating wealth, not printing dollars.

That word "artificial" caught my eye, because it's the same word liquidationists used to denounce any efforts to fight the Great Depression with monetary policy. Schumpeter declared that

Any revival which is merely due to artificial stimulus leaves part of the work of depressions undone

Hayek similarly decried any recovery led by the "creation of artificial demand".

Milton Friedman – who thought he had liberated conservatism from this kind of nonsense –must be spinning in his grave.

The Romney/liquidationist view only makes sense if you believe that the problem with our economy lies on the supply side – that workers lack the incentive to work, or are stuck with the wrong skills, or something. And that's just not what the evidence says; instead, it points overwhelmingly to an insufficient overall level of demand.

When dealing with ordinary, garden-variety recessions, we deal with inadequate demand through conventional monetary policy, namely by cutting short-term interest rates. Until recently even Republicans were OK with this.

Now we face a more severe slump, probably driven by deleveraging, in which even a zero rate isn't low enough, so monetary policy has to work in unconventional ways – in particular, by changing expectations about future inflation, so as to reduce real interest rates. This is no more "artificial" than conventional monetary policy – harder, yes, but it's still about trying to get the market rate aligned with the "natural" rate consistent with full employment.

So where are Romney and his party coming from? Basically, they've thrown out 80 years of economic analysis and evidence because it doesn't fit their ideological preconceptions, and they're resorting to dubious metaphors – "sugar high" and all that – as a substitute for clear thinking.

What you really have to wonder about is all the not-stupid economists who have aligned themselves with this guy and that crew. Probably they imagine that once the election is past sensible economics will return. But the odds are that they are wrong, and that they're sacrificing their own credibility to put charlatans and cranks in the driver's seat.

How Managers Get in the Way « Leadership Freak

http://leadershipfreak.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/how-managers-get-in-the-way/

How Managers Get in the Way

"Most of what we call management consists of
making it difficult for people to get their work done."
Peter Drucker

Four ways managers get in the way:

1. Meddling – Managers that roadblock work stay too close and talk too much. Your people want you to let them work. Stop by to encourage and ask questions, briefly. Express interest, give direction, and get out of the way. Stay close enough to monitor progress.
2. Meetings – Too many meetings that include too many people that share too much detail. Meetings are expensive. A one hour meeting with 8 people in attendance costs their combined salaries plus lost productivity. Remember, you don't get anything done in a meeting. Things get done after meetings. Send a memo.
3. Butt covering reports – Requesting too many reports that include too much irrelevant detail that takes up too much space in file cabinets and on networks. One reason you ask for all the detail is to cover your butt. It's a business culture issue. Fear based cultures lack vitality, freedom, and performance.
4. Projects rather than people – It's instinctive to focus on projects and deliverables. However, it's more effective and efficient to give clear direction, encouragement, and motivation to your people than it is to get directly involved in long-term projects. People deliver projects, not meeting or reports.

Enhancing productivity may not be about doing more and working harder. It may be about meddling and meeting less, fewer reports, and focusing on people.

How do managers make it difficult to get work done?

Tags: enterprise-it

This entry was posted on September 14, 2012 at 6:03 am and is filed under Managing, Meetings and agendas, Mistakes, Taking others higher. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Wait, We're Winning the War on Poverty? A New Study Says: Absolutely

Sent to you via Google Reader

Wait, We're Winning the War on Poverty? A New Study Says: Absolutely

In the forty years between 1970 and 2010, real GDP per person doubled, the U.S. spent trillions of dollars on anti-poverty measures, but the poverty rate increased by two percentage points. Just yesterday the Census reported 46.2 million people living in poverty in 2011.

That's the official story. But a new paper from Bruce D. Meyer and James X. Sullivan says it's missing everything. "We may not have won the war on poverty, but we are certainly winning," they write.

When they looked at poorer families' consumption rather than income, accounted for changes in the tax code that benefit the poor, and included "noncash benefits" such as food stamps and government-provided medical care, they found poverty fell 12.5 percentage points between 1972 and 2010.

The graph below tells the story. The official poverty rate (shown in DARK BLUE) is higher today than it was in the early 1970s. But when you measure after-tax income (RED) or consumption (GREEN), the story changes: Poverty rates have declined steadily, and dramatically, since the 1960s.

What's the story? Tax cuts for the low-income combined with tax credits for parents (such as the child tax credit) and working poor (like the Earned Income Tax Credit) accounted for much of the collapse in poverty, the authors find. Increases in Social Security also helped poverty rates fall under 10 percent by the new measure. For all the attention we give to taxes falling on the top 1% since the Reagan administration, it is equally true that effective tax rates on the bottom quintile have been halved in that time.

 
It sounds disastrously wrong to claim that we're winning the war on poverty 24 hours after the Census reported more people living in poverty than the combined populations of California and Missouri. But this report isn't suggesting that the war against poverty is over, merely that it is advancing. Even after a gen...