Always check your message has been received.

Last week I was involved in a rather tricky situation, where a group of children were delayed returning home from a late night performance. There were 2 messages that were not received and this resulted in the coach the children were on being delayed; the children being very tired and distressed and worried parents waiting for the coach to return.

One of these messages involved an individual 'TEXTING' a message to the person in charge. The other involved an individual leaving a 'Voice Mail' to say she was travelling independently. In both cases, these individuals believed their responsibilities had stopped once they had left these messages. However, the person's phone that they'd left the messages on wasn't working. These were important enough messages, which affected a number of adults and children, yet they didn't check whether or not they had been received. They also did not tell the person in charge in person, but relied on impersonal messages.

Before we had mobiles (and I don't mean the 1980s bricks), we ensured messages were passed on; we confirmed they had been received. Now, it appears, for some people, that leaving a message or texting is 'good enough' without them checking a message has been received.

The message today is: check the right person has received your message; if necessary asking them to phone/text to confirm, or - even more impressively, tell the person face to face.

Executive Voice is running a half day Masterclass Speak, Connect, Engage on 7th July in Central London.

Shh: walls have ears Triesman

What struck me with the whole Triesman scandal at the weekend was not that Britain's attempts at hosting the World Cup in 2018 have been scuppered, or even that a man in a position of authority was trying to impress a woman young enough to be his granddaughter. It was that in a position of responsibility and as a figure head of an organisation, he made unguarded comments to someone he didn't know well. He presented himself as untrustworthy; unprofessional and not suitable for the role he was paid to do.

Recently I have had unconnected conversations with two successful female entrepreneurs. One said she is very careful where she has work related conversations, as she never knows how might overhear a comment about one of the multi-national companies she works with. She respects the confidentiality of the work she does, and wishes to avoid competitors hearing about projects she is working on. She even avoids mentioning company names now, unless she is in her office with trusted people. It possibly sounds far fetched but this businesswoman is aware that her reputation is that of being utterly professional and trustworthy.

The other entrepreneur supports business people to fulfil particular projects. Even for an initial meeting, she is aware of her clients being candid about themselves. Unless she picks a suitable location where others can't eavesdrop, she is conscious of a private conversation, not being private! Again, this lady wishes to be utterly professional; respectful of the client's confidentiality and to find somewhere where her clients feel comfortable.

My message today is that the term "Walls have ears", is a warning to all professionals and entrepreneurs. Be careful who you share information with, and where you share it!

Executive Voice are delivering a 1/2 day masterclass "Speak, Connect, Engage" on 7th July in Central London. More Details.

Working together: the challenge of your role within a partnership

This is an interesting one: the image on the left, by Andrew Parsons, shows the recent press conference hosted by David Cameron and Nick Clegg following their collaboration and coalition.

A lot has been written about their relationship; analysis of the body language and behaviour; analogies with arranged marriages and what they said and how. Some commentators have considered how long the relationship will last, others are scathing.

I am not interested in that; I don't have a crystal ball, so am not able to predict the future. What I am interested in, is how individuals are able to present themselves as an individual and within a team. How they are able to work together to create a 'united front' on the world stage.

Cameron and Clegg were political rivals until very, very recently. Through circumstances they are now having to lead the country through a very challenging time. Whilst I don't know either man personally, my understanding is that they are both very intelligent, ambitious individuals, who are"Alpha Males". To form a partnership of this kind, there have to be adjustments, and they have to learn where the boundaries are within that relationship.

The behaviour of the two during the press conference was awkward and almost flirtatious. There were times when neither was totally clear about how to behave; who should speak first; who should take over. Of course this was an enormous challenge since a week earlier they were political rivals, and in fairness, there was little time to adopt a 'Role' for the performance. Also, although Nick Clegg's party was the 'junior' party in the alliance, the Lib Dems gave the opportunity for the Conservatives to take power. So NC being subordinate might not be appropriate.

So learning from this scenario, this is what I believe would assist individuals and companies in this position;

• Designate the 'roles' of everyone involved in a press conference.
• Decide who is going to say what.
• One person should lead the press conference; it doesn't need to be the person in charge.
• The 'lead' person in the conference should be the first going on, off and taking questions.
• In the case of NC and DC, if there is an issue over roles for NC, he should call a press conference when DC is on paternity leave; he'll get his chance then.

For more information on how to make an impact attend our half day masterclass Speak, Connect, Engage on 7th July

TV appearances don't necessarily translate well on the radio

I have focused on the vocal and performance side of the TV debates in my last blogs and emails. It was interesting to watch this short video following the final debate on Thursday night. Some undecided voters watched the debate on TV; seven others listened on the radio. The sample then voted on who had 'won' the debate. It was an interesting result: on the radio Gordon Brown made more of an impact; on the TV Clegg did.

Here is the video

Whilst the sample of 7 is very small, it was interesting to note that the vocal performance of GB was significantly more engaging on the radio where the more media savvy DC and NC made more of an impact visually on the TV. I have mentioned in previous blogs that impact is not JUST the visual appearance, but the vocal one too. In a different age, when TV was not such a powerful and immediate communication stream, the result of the election might be very different.

So we come to our three leaders. How did they perform on Thursday from a vocal point of view. As a performance, we had two leaders who were performing both faces of Janus: one leader looking backwards and reflecting on his experience and what an advantage this would be for the company, the other looking forward; encouraging voters not to dwell on the past but to have a change to move the country out of the recession.

David Cameron: This chap has worked hard. Following his first appearance, he has really upped his game; taking a number of tips from his rival NC. He looked much more comfortable; he engaged with the live audience as well as looking into the camera at times for the TV audience. His speech was measured, with him consciously speaking slowly and clearly. The impact of speaking slowly and clearly: particularly if you have a resonant voice, gives the impression of confidence and authority. This was something DC projected well. His deliveries were confident, and the voice was lower pitched, unlike the first week; he didn't appear frightened but gave the impression he could lead the country and deliver some alternatives to the present economic plans.

Nick Clegg: Ah, Nick Clegg, the media savvy politician. Everyone has learnt from NC's media performance: look in the camera; flicker your eye lashes; mention the questioner's name etc. However, NC looked uneasy and vocally, his throat was closed causing the voice to be weaker. It gave the impression of someone that was out of his depth, lacking confidence and uncomfortable. In addition to this, his posture was less confident than before. His shoulders were slightly up and forward leading to tension in his upper chest/neck and shoulders area: hence the unclear voice. Given the dynamics of GB and DC trying to out punch each other, NC had become the uncomfortable spectator and occasionally chipped in with appropriate hand swinging. He was still engaging when he had his space to speak, but it is interesting to note that he didn't score very well with the sample LISTENING to him on the radio. He adopted the tactic of repeated 3 or 4 key messages: again and again... If you were to close your eyes when he speaks, you would receive a number of different messages about him, what he has to say and what he thinks about himself. He is a very good visual actor.

Gordon Brown; Ah, poor Gordon. Suffering from 'mic-gaff' the day before did not put him in the most positive frame of mind. Physically and visually, GB looked like a broken man; much older than the other two leaders; posture was defeated and he looked tired and pale. He was still aggressive towards the other two leaders, although Dimbleby managed the situation well: preventing GB talking over the other two, too much. He was leaning in - weight on the balls of his feet. However, there was a tone in the voice which suggested a level of desperation.
Interestingly, his performance came across far more positively on the radio, with the sample voting 6:1 in his favour. He has the advantage of a lower pitched voice, which gives the impression of experience, power and authority. He was also clear and direct in his message that he had experience of dealing with the 'World Stage'. Visually, his body language prevented him conveying this, but on the radio, the voice was able to show this 'role'.

In the end, it will be fascinating to see how the election pans out on Thursday. The three leaders have all developed their skills throughout the three TV debates. In order to impact further, I would like to see NC and DC focus on their voices - DC to find a way of dropping the tone of his voice to add gravitas to his performance; NC to relax his jaw, neck, shoulders and upper chest area. This will lead to his voice becoming more resonant. For GB: he needs to think about raising the voice production into his resonating chambers in the face. This will lead to the voice being far more focused. Also, he needs to lift up his ribcage so that he can take deeper, more relaxed breaths. This posture would assist in him conveying a more confident, less broken persona...

More details of our course Speak, Connect Engage