How to Rebut & Disarm Your Critics and Detractors: Exemplary Disarming & Neutralizing by Gen. Michael Hayden in Wake of the “Torture Report”

Over the past few years, few top executives, be they in the private sector or in the government, have impressed me as much as has former CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden. In fact, I recently “awarded” him my personal “medal of honor” by including him in the select few Americans named in the welcome paragraph on my website’s homepage as being among the most effective communicators in the land. 

As you can see in the two video clips below, Michael Hayden skillfully uses several communication tactics to disarm or at least reduce the vehemence of those who began denouncing the CIA soon after the release of the “torture report” last week--on Tuesday, December 9.  Specifically, by providing a rich and compelling perspective (within just half a minute in each video clip), Michael Hayden very adroitly reframes the issue and employs cognitive dissonance to put his critics on the defensive.

 

You can bet that these clips will be excellent source material for case study and exercises during (i) future renditions of my popular seminar on “How to Disarm and Neutralize your Critics and Detractors without being Offensive or Disrespectful” and (ii) my executive coaching sessions. [For a sampling of participant comments when this topic was presented to a standing-room-only audience of about 100 project managers at a recent PMI conference, click here and scroll toward the bottom of the Web page.]

© Copyright 2014  V. J. Singal
 

________

Adopting the Posture of a Supplicant to Disarm a Superior When You Have to Say something very Disagreeable or Unpalatable

If you are a “Downton Abbey” aficionado, you’ll probably recognize the scene in the video clip below which is from Episode 3, first aired in January 2013.  It occurs when Lord Grantham is told that his wealth has evaporated, thanks to a big investment having gone south.

Notice that just as the bearer of ill tidings (i.e., the person in whose office this meeting is taking place) is about to say that it is Lord Grantham himself who is to blame for that lousy investment decision, he suddenly becomes extremely disarming and apologetic by radically changing his sitting posture and lowering his voice--he assumes the posture of a supplicant, just the thing to do when you are telling your boss that it is he (or she) who screwed up!

Bottom line: When you need to disarm someone and minimize any offense, in addition to using verbal techniques (such as those discussed in my seminars and mentioned in some of the previous posts on disarming), this “physical” or nonverbal, posture-transforming, technique can be a big help, especially when you have to tell your superior face-to-face that he or she is/was wrong!

© Copyright 2014  V. J. Singal

Timeless High-Impact Verbal Techniques: In the 3rd Obama-Romney Debate, Each Candidate’s Most Talked-about Rebuttal or Parry Employed One Such Skill

Immediately after the last presidential debate between Obama and Romney--the one on Monday, Oct. 22, in Florida--one rebuttal from each candidate instantly became airborne. And that was no surprise to me because each of those two parries employed one of the simple but powerful verbal techniques that are standard fare among highly effective communicators. Nor should the cogency of those two rebuttals have been a surprise to anyone who has attended my flagship seminar “Power of the Spoken Word & Techniques to Communicate with Impact and Sway.”

• Obama’s highly effective line: Responding to Romney’s contention that our navy is weak because the number of ships is fewer than what it was a hundred years ago, the president said: “We also have fewer horses and bayonets!” In other words, he used an analogy--one of the half dozen or so most effective verbal techniques to emphasize a point--to assert that the strike power of a single modern-day weapon can easily overwhelm a sea of 100-year-old weaponry.

• Romney’s highly effective line: More than once, when responding to Obama’s criticism of the Republican nominee’s stand (or flip-flops) on an issue, the latter began: “There is no point attacking me…” Why was this choice of words so effective in parrying Obama’s criticism, why did it resonate so wildly with Romney supporters? Because “attack” is a negative word, and telling someone to their face that they are “attacking” you immediately disarms that person, puts them on the defensive. Users of my book “The Articulate Professional” (3^rd Edition) know that I have a whole chapter (Category V) featuring words employed by smart communicators to disarm and neutralize their critics and detractors (words such as denigrate, aspersion, reflexive, foist, puffery, apologist, nostrum, meretricious….).

© Copyright 2012  V. J. Singal

Disarming and Neutralizing One’s Critics and Detractors: Jamie Dimon’s Repeated use of the word “Company” Instead of "Bank" in recent Interviews

Ever since that huge trading loss at JP Morgan first came to light some couple of months ago, every word uttered publicly by CEO Jamie Dimon with regard to that misstep has gotten enormous coverage in the media. No surprise there. But here is something instructive: In every interview/ public statement on that subject, Mr. Dimon has tried assiduously to avoid using the term “bank” when referring to JP Morgan, uttering the word “company” instead. See for yourself by clicking on the following which is a link to the May 13, 2012, “Meet the Press” transcript—his first interview on this financial disaster.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47403362/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/may-reince-priebus-martin-omalley-gavin-newsom-al-cardenas-kathleen-parker-jonathan-capehart-chris-matthews-jamie-dimon/

By preferring the word “company” over “bank,” Mr. Dimon is doing exactly what I would have done had I been in his situation. The term “bank” has been in bad odor ever since that massive and highly unpopular federal government bailout of the banking industry during the financial crisis. So, by avoiding mention of “bank” when referring to the multi-billion-dollar loss is one smart tactic to help disarm and neutralize critics of “big banks” and thus minimize the public’s adverse reaction to JP Morgan’s misadventure.

BTW, I will be presenting a seminar on this topic (i.e., on “How to Disarm and Neutralize Your Critics and Detractors without being Offensive or Disrespectful”) at a Houston-based unit of Subsea 7 later this week.

© Copyright 2012 V. J. Singal

Executive Communication: Shell Oil President Marvin Odum Wins Me Over Instantly, Thanks to a Most Disarming and Endearing Smile

Take a look at the video clip below which is from a recent interview broadcast on PBS’s famed Nightly Business Report. I believe you too will be full of admiration for Shell Oil President Marvin Odum’s facial expression: His wide, almost constant, and somewhat apologetic smile gives him a disarming appearance, thus helping him come across as personable, approachable, full of the milk of human kindness… (I could go on).

[Click here for the full interview.]

The clip below is now Exhibit One when I am coaching top executives (as well as others who have to make presentations to new audiences) on how to be endearing and create a highly favorable first impression.

© Copyright 2012 V. J. Singal

A Case of Bad PR, with Inane Analogies; Is BP’s CEO Being Guided by a Misguided PR Department?

In an interview with the Guardian yesterday, BP’s CEO Tony Hayward described the oil gushing from that failed well in the Gulf as “relatively tiny” compared with “the very big ocean.” I reacted with indignation to that statement because, just one day earlier, scientists from Purdue and elsewhere--working independently of one another, and using sophisticated analysis of seafloor video--had rejected BP’s estimate of the leak at 7,000 barrels a day, with some saying that it was at least 10 times larger, implying an Exxon Valdez-sized spill every 4 days since the April 20 accident!

Mr. Hayward made a similarly misplaced and ill-advised statement earlier this week on NPR when, in an interview with “All Things Considered,” he analogized the oil well disaster to the Air France accident last year off the coast of Brazil. As the fast worsening and out-of-control situation in the Gulf has demonstrated unambiguously, an oil well blowout in extremely deep water, howsoever improbable, can have catastrophic consequences for the marine and coastal environment, in addition to wreaking havoc on the livelihoods of a big swath of the population and threatening the safety of seafood from that region for years to come. In comparison, the direct and long-term consequences of the Air France tragedy--as in the case of any other air accident--were infinitesimal and mundane, except for friends and relatives of those killed.

One thing that I stress in my workshop on “How to disarm and neutralize one’s critics and detractors without being offensive or disrespectful” is that following a high-profile misstep, blunder, or accident, any statement by the company’s execs that flies in the face of clear evidence and thus insults the public’s intelligence will do irreparable harm to the firm’s image. I’m afraid Mr. Hayward’s above comments and farcical analogies will only serve to heighten millions of Americans’ disdain for BP, and make the company even more of a target for scorn and derision, especially among those who attach deep importance to the health of our oceans and marine wildlife.

BP and its PR department would be far more successful in their efforts to disarm and neutralize critics if they pursued the techniques used by such eminent “disarmers” as then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, then-IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti, and then-NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe, all of whom were adept at neutralizing their critics when things were going south.

Nonverbal Communication Skills: Using the Torso--Leaning Forward to Emphasize a Point

During my presentation earlier this week on “Uncommon Tips for More Impactful Presentations” at Rice University's Jones Graduate School of Business, I did not discuss the use of one’s torso, something which was on my original agenda but had to be deleted because of a late start. So, here goes:

The use of one’s torso to help emphasize a point and enhance one’s impact on the audience is best illustrated with a real-life example, this one involving then-Houston Fire Chief Lester Tyra. In the summer of 2000, Tyra was embroiled in a major controversy stemming from the sudden death of a 12-year old boy Daniel Lopez who had twice sought medical help at a local fire station. It appears that paramedics failed to examine the boy thoroughly, and his death a few hours later stirred an “uprising” of sorts and quickly became a cause célèbre within the Hispanic community.

In September/October that year, Chief Tyra was interviewed by Houston’s most prominent TV channel and fielded numerous questions relating to the circumstances surrounding the boy’s death. Upon noting that Tyra was impassive and not evincing much concern or sensitivity to the tragedy, the interviewer asked him, “You agree that the incident was tragic?” (or words to that effect). I remember being stupefied by Tyra’s demeanor when he replied “Yes, it was tragic.” His expression was devoid of any sign of regret. The somewhat corpulent fire chief, who was comfortably seated during the interview, did not move a single muscle as he uttered those words. Perhaps sensing that this apparent indifference could damage Tyra’s cause, and as if to give the fire chief another opportunity to express his pain, the interviewer again asked “It was tragic, right?” But Tyra simply repeated his previous utterance, and once again in an apathetic tone. Not surprisingly, Tyra was demoted by Houston’s mayor a few days later.

Now, I have absolutely no doubt that Fire Chief Tyra had greatly agonized over the young boy’s death and that he was full of compassion for the Lopez family’s suffering and loss. But he failed to exhibit any concern. Tyra should have made his sense of grief manifest during the interview by using appropriate body language. For instance, at the crucial moment when he was asked that direct question (“...this incident was tragic?”), Tyra could have leaned forward in his chair, and using a different vocal pitch and speaking slowly, said something like “You know (interviewer’s name), I have agonized greatly over young Daniel's death….” I believe such an unambiguous display of his feelings during that high-profile interview might have helped mollify many in the local community and perhaps enabled him to retain his job.

Note that if Fire Chief Tyra had been standing (such as at a press conference) while fielding the above question, he could have displayed his feelings and sadness by leaning forward, holding the lectern firmly and pressing his torso against it, as he gave the above suggested reply.