You Are Hereby Charged . . . With Faulty Logic

To All Presenters:

When is a picture of a tree not a picture of a tree?

When it's one A.M. and I'm trying to sleep?

When it's the Bodhi tree!

Right. Wait . . .what!?

Buddhists, baby! A picture of the tree of enlightenment carries with it a whole bunch of spiritual connotations for those who have the cultural experience required to crack the code.

One A.M. You know it's one am, right?

But you said an image has no connotation - it is what it is. The only connotation is implied by the context in which we place it.

Well . . . at least somebody's reading my blog.

I want to be supportive. But you were wrong. What might be a picture of a tree to you is a picture of the place where Buddha achieved enlightenment to millions of Buddhists worldwide - it's a sacred image with it's own implied context. That's a picture with a powerful punch. So, you need to go edit the blog.

Well, obviously.



THE POINT: An earlier post presented a faulty conclusion - but generated good discussion.

Rehearse . . . Please . . .I'm Begging You

To All Presenters:

Stop winging it.

We can tell.

Seriously.

Don't you people rehearse? Do you think the actor playing King Lear arrived downstage left in the first scene of the second act waving a sword in his right hand by accident? No! He rehearsed. He reviewed. He refined and made incrementally better.

He sought feedback and adjusted his movements, he found the best place for his props and assured they were there before the performance began. He listened to his vocal pitch and modulation and made changes as necessary to provide emphasis and increase understanding.

Why don't you put the same consideration into your presentations? Does your audience deserve less because department attendance at project presentations is compulsory? Let's pretend you began to treat your presentations like performances, with all requisite preparation implied, do you think your future audiences will respond better to your message? Will their follow through on your call to action be superior to any such response in previously recorded history?

As the de facto spokesperson for said audience I say, maybe!

But heckfire, at the very least following your future well prepared, and dare I say it, presumably entertaining presentation I will at a minimum be awake, alert, receptive and of the mind that you are no longer the boring unprepared bozo who just consumed an hour of my life I will never get back.

So on behalf of we -the implied audience -please review, rehearse, make ready in advance and otherwise come with clue lest I lead a swift and mighty rebellion against your poor presentation skills and the forcing of them upon us.

THE POINT: While it may very well be the first time you present this material, it NEVER has to look like it.

Sarah's Lament - Context and Visual Communication

To All Presenters:

What impact does context have on a message?


Sarah Palin has complained that a recent cover photo for Newsweek was sexist. The image in question is of her standing in bicycle shorts beside an American flag. The photo was apparently borrowed without permission from an earlier article in Runner's World magazine. Above is the Newsweek cover and below is the original image from the Runner's World story. I present it here in the context of other images (from a series of seven) Runner's World published.

If the image wasn't sexist when it was published in the context of like images by a fitness magazine, how does it become sexist when it's published solo in a news magazine? Frankly, I'm not sure it does - this case seems a bit more bluster than fact by a politico-celebrity with a book to promote. However, while the motivations here are debatable, we shouldn't underestimate the power of context and imagery.

The St. Petersburg Times recently published an article regarding the tragic workplace shooting in Orlando a few weeks back. In the article were two images, one larger - of a smiling Caucasian man. The other smaller, grainier and of a young African-American man in a white shirt.

Viewed separately the images represent exactly what they are - pictures of people. But when you put them below a headline which indicates one man is a murder victim and the other a killer you provide a context. When one image resembles a family photo and the other a mugshot further context is implied. The result? Readers may perceive they are viewing images of a family man and the young minority male who murdered him. It isn't until they read the article the correct context of the photos become known.

And in this case, the opposite of what proved to be the common perception is true.

The fact is Jason Rodriguez shot killed 26 year-old Otis Beckford. But the context of the imagery presented by the newspaper conveys a different message.

In verbal communication there is a code transmitted which must be understood (decoded) to be received. The source of the message (the speaker) encodes their intent (speaks in a recognized language) the message is sent (verbally - out loud), received and decoded (heard and understood) by the receiver (audience). In visual communication there is no code. A picture of tree is a picture of a tree - the image denotes its subject matter entirely, there is no decoding required.

However, once we create a context for images there becomes a connotation which must be properly decoded by the viewer. Assuming different cultures, different socio-economic backgrounds and experiences are at play - the connotation of the images' context may vary by viewer.

So, while all may not have perceived the false implications of the St. Petersburg Times photos, and while I (a middle-aged male) may not find the use of the fitness photo in a news magazine evidence of inherent sexism - there are certainly those who do.

If a visual image has no code, in and of itself, we must be cautious about what message we imply when we provide a context for the image.

THE POINT: A picture is worth a thousand words, what those words say is controlled by the context (or lack thereof) in which the image is presented. Be cautious.

Project Management in Two Parts

To All Presenters (and Project Managers):

If you can't effectively convey the requirements for the project, if you can't speak geek to IT and strategic planning to the CEO equally well, if you can't foster an environment where everyone wants to be part of the team and feels like a contributor . . . you are hopelessly doomed.

You must communicate effectively to be successful. If there is a misunderstanding it will ultimately manifest itself in terms of excess time and expense.

So how do you communicate effectively with diverse groups of people? How do you avoid expensive misunderstandings?

You listen.

You listen as others repeat back your message to assure they understood what you said. You listen for cues from your audience regarding the information they seem interested in. This way you can tailor your own presentation to align with their needs and your language with their level of sophistication on the topic.

You also listen for emotional "tells." Is the team frustrated? Are they tired? Or do they convey a sense of high energy and commitment? If you're not listening, you'll never know.

You write.

You must communicate in both verbal and written form assuring both match. If someone doesn't understand your directives completely their confusion will become apparent when they can't get your verbal and non-verbal communication to jive.

You repeat.

Redundancy gets annoying, but just before it does it is an effective way to assure comprehension and support memory. Don't be afraid to repeat your message. You never know what will trigger the next great question from your team. Better to get questions now then contend with risk and overruns later.

THE POINT: Project Management is two parts communication, one part integration.

PowerPoint 3

To All Presenters:

Clipart = No

Your adherence to this policy is appreciated.