Partner Article

Three things presidential candidates ignore at their peril

By Ben Houghton, CEO, Noggin

At Noggin, we are passionate about supporting leaders; helping them to deliver their messages and win over their audiences by making small and sometimes subtle changes in the way they communicate. Last Sunday we stayed up to watch the presidential debate and closely examined the contrasts between how Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton communicate. Rarely have there been figureheads as polarised in their approach as these two, and what is exciting is that we get an opportunity, through the debates, to compare them whilst standing shoulder to shoulder.

“Presence” in the presidential debate

One of the lenses we use to look at leadership behaviours is best described through the word “presence”. To us, presence is a process – the process of being “present” to the ways your communication and behaviour are impacting others in any given moment.

In the run up to the second debate, I heard one of the political pundits point out that because this debate is in a town hall format (where questions come from the audience and the candidates are unaware of what they will be asked) the candidates will need to be ready for anything.

Being “ready for anything” is key factor for leaders, in contrast to them thinking it is possible to be “prepared for everything”? It’s about your presence as a leader and having the emotional agility to be aware of what is going on which impacts on your and others in any given moment.

But what does this look, sound and feel like in practice?

At Noggin, we asked ourselves this very question a few years ago, and our answer led us to develop our own model for emotional competence. This model captures the essential elements of “presence” and is simple so that leaders can draw on it when reflecting on their own behaviour. As some of you will know, we’ve called this Noggin’s ABC Model, as it describes the three things you ignore at your peril – being “Attentive”, “Balanced” and “Connected” when you communicate and behave. Using Noggin’s ABC model in the context of the most recent presidential debate, here are our observations and comments:

Attentive

On Sunday night, we observed Hilary as being “Attentive” to the audience in her responses. She acknowledged each person when they spoke and directly linked her answers to what they had asked. She also referred to one of the audience members by name and checked back when the content of a response to a later question also matched an earlier one.

In contrast, Donald’s answers were often not relevant to the question asked. He also made little effort to direct his answer to the individual who had asked the question.

When it comes to being “Attentive”, we think Hilary had greater presence. Typically, when someone gets this right, a person feels important and valued, and our sense is that Hilary gave herself more chance of making the audience feel valued by her behaviour toward them.

Balanced

Donald spoke in generalities – “it’s a disaster”… “I am going to reduce taxes”… “Deal with these terrorists”… “You’ll have the finest healthcare” – but there were little, if any, specifics about what he meant or how he would achieve this. Speaking in generalities can be influential, since those listening can fill in the detail in a way that makes sense to them. At the same time it can also switch off those needing real facts and plans.

Hilary, by contrast, spoke in a more “balanced” or rounded way – she explained what was important about issues and also answered with lists of specific actions and plans “Number one, I would…” “Number two, I would…” “Number three, I would…”

When it comes to being “balanced”, our hunch on what we observed is that the audience felt more capable of making a decision, based on the way Hilary put information to them, as opposed to Donald.

Connected

From a rapport point of view Donald “prowled” around the room when Hilary was talking. He said he was “telling it how it is”, which on one level speaks to being genuine, but on another level points to a lack of care. Hilary, however, listened to Donald’s responses and smiled genuinely when he said something outlandish. She was also unflappable and maintained her state throughout. She kept calm in the face of some pretty harsh finger pointing from Donald who was far more excitable. She wasn’t over dramatic whereas Donald was clearly wound up by the moderator’s rules.

At the end of the debate, Hilary walked straight up to connect with individuals from the audience, closely followed by husband Bill, and daughter Chelsea. Donald headed straight to his family and weirdly shook their hands.

When it comes to being “Connected”, we think it was more likely a draw. Known as the most unlikable candidates in recent history, both have struggled to connect at a deeper level with voters. Trust is an issue for both candidates and takes longer to effect than a 90 minute debate. We are not sure this debate will have made much difference to either candidate – we’ll call it a draw.

Final thoughts

Since we came up with our ABC model of emotional competence, we can’t stop seeing the world and other people’s behaviours through this lens. If it wasn’t making observations on the presidential debate it would be someone somewhere else I’m sure.

I will leave you with one last thought. A US Republican once said about Bill Clinton, a highly charismatic personality: “I hated him before I met him; I hated him after I met him; but boy I simply loved the guy when I was with him”.

And that is presence.

This was posted in Bdaily's Members' News section by Ben Houghton .