Chapter 8. Preparation (Martial Art: Discipline)
The most important part begins even before you put your hand on the sword.
Jyoseishi Kendan By Matsura Seizan (8.1) (1760–1841)
In the martial arts, the discipline required to learn new skills carries virtually the same weight as the skills themselves. Every martial arts treatise sets forth both the underlying philosophy and the rigorous steps required to attain mastery. In karate, the learning progression is marked by the graduated color coding of the uniform belts. Starting with the beginners’ white belt, the levels of achievement for most schools ascend through yellow, orange, green, blue, and brown, culminating in the coveted black belt. It takes years of disciplined practice and preparation to ascend through all the levels. Only the best can achieve the highest level. Although learning to answer tough questions might not be as daunting as a lethal sport, you would do well to apply Thomas Edison’s formula for genius, 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration, by working very hard before you put your hand on the sword.
Ever since the U.S. presidential election of 1960, when the underdog, John F. Kennedy, was able to reverse the field against the favorite, Richard M. Nixon, in the first-ever televised debate, such matches have played a key role in every political campaign. Although the turnabout was largely attributed to Kennedy’s superior presentation skills, preparation also played a significant role.
Don Hewitt, the driving force behind CBS’ 60 Minutes, happened to have been the television director of that historic debate and, in his autobiography, he described some of the preparations. Kennedy arrived in Chicago three days before the debate to prepare and even took some time in the late September sun to get tanned. Nixon, in spite of the fact that he was fighting an infection, spent his time campaigning vigorously right up to the day of debate. He arrived at the television studio exhausted and underweight, his ill-fitting clothes hanging loosely. Nixon’s aides hurriedly applied a slapdash coat of a product called “Lazy Shave” to his characteristically heavy beard and made him look pasty. Kennedy used a light coat of makeup. In the hot lights of the studio, Nixon perspired through his “Lazy Shave,” which gave him a worse appearance than a five o’clock shadow. [8.2]
Kennedy’s aides had surveyed the studio in advance and advised him to wear a dark suit to contrast with the light blue backdrop of the set. In black-and-white television, the light blue translated to grey. Nixon wore a light suit that translated into the same monochrome value as the background and made him look washed out (Figure 8.1).
Figure 8.1. John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon debate.
© Bettmann/CORBIS
Nixon had held a slim lead in the public opinion polls right up to the day of the debate. The day after the debate, Sindlinger and Company, a Philadelphia research organization, conducted a telephone poll. Those poll respondents who had watched on television thought Kennedy won, while those who had listened on the radio thought Nixon won. [8.3] This gave Kennedy a lead that he held until his victory in November.
From that moment on, media consultants became as important as positioning strategists in political campaigns and, from that moment on, preparation became an absolute imperative for debates. Although there were no other presidential debates until 1976 when President Gerald R. Ford met Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter, they became set pieces thereafter every four years.
In each of those years, each candidate, accompanied by key staff members, decamped to sequestered retreats. There, with the thoroughness of the allies planning for D-Day, each candidate ramped up to the debate with intensive preparation. Ford and Carter prepared diligently, and so did their successors [8.4]:
• 1980: Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and John Anderson
• 1984: Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale
• 1988: George H. Bush and Michael Dukakis
• 1992: George H. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ross Perot
• 1996: Bill Clinton and Bob Dole
• 2000: Al Gore and George W. Bush
• 2004: George W. Bush and John F. Kerry
Over a period of weeks the candidates reviewed research, brainstormed, refined positions, viewed opponent’s tapes, and held mock debates with carefully chosen stand-ins. They even had rehearsal studios built to replicate those of the actual venue. Over the years, each debate provided lessons for subsequent debates. Cumulatively, the candidates and their campaign staffs compiled a long list of what to do and, more important, what not to do.
By the time President George W. Bush was to debate Massachusetts Senator John F. Kerry in the 2004 election, presidential debates had evolved into a sophisticated science. The Bush team set up shop at the president’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, while the Kerry team gathered at a resort 40 miles outside of Madison, Wisconsin. You’ll see a detailed analysis of the results of their efforts in the next chapter, but let’s first look at how preparation impacted another debate with which you are already familiar.
It’s another and deeper look at the NAFTA debate between Vice President Al Gore and Ross Perot on the Larry King Live television program. In Chapter 1, “The Critical Dynamics of Q&A,” you saw how Perot flared up at Gore in response to a challenge, but that was only one of many such outbursts during the 90-minute broadcast. Each of them was provoked by the deliberate strategy the Gore team had developed in anticipation of the debate. Their preparatory efforts were described in an article in The Atlantic Monthly by James Fallows.
Gore, meanwhile, spent the two weeks before the debate studying Perot’s bearing and his character, while relying on his staff to dig up the goods on Perot’s past…[they] prepared an omnibus edition of Perot’s speeches, statements, and interviews about NAFTA, and also tapes of Perot in action. Gore studied them on his own and then assembled a team at the Naval Observatory…the vice president’s official residence
One of the key members of that team was Greg Simon, Gore’s domestic policy advisor. Simon told Fallows about the key strategy that emerged from those sessions:
If you’ve dealing with a hothead, you make him mad…You’ve got a crazy man, you make him show it…He’ll be fine as long as everybody sits there and listens to him, but if you start interrupting him, he’ll lose it. [8.5]
Gore proceeded to interrupt Perot repeatedly. In fact, Perot complained to Larry King, to Al Gore, and to the television audience about the interruptions eight times during the first half of the program. By midway through, Perot was steaming mad and operating on a short fuse. Nonetheless, he pressed ahead with his cause by turning to the camera and addressing the television audience with yet another blast against NAFTA in general, and Mexico in particular.
All right folks, the Rio Grande River is the most polluted river in the Western Hemisphere…
Right on cue, Gore interrupted.
Wait a minute. Can I respond to this first?
Larry King tried to intervene.
Yeah, let him respond.
By now, Perot was in no way going to let Gore respond.
The Tijuana River is the most…they’ve had to close it…
Larry King asked,
But all of this is without NAFTA, right?
Gore persisted.
Yeah, and let me respond to this, if I could, would you…
Perot ignored Gore and turned to address Larry King.
Larry, Larry, this is after years of U.S. companies going to Mexico, living free…
Larry King tried to clarify:
But they could do that without NAFTA.
Perot spoke past Gore, directly to Larry King:
But we can stop that without NAFTA and we can stop that with a good NAFTA.
Gore, sitting at Perot’s side, asked:
How do you stop that without NAFTA?
Peeved, Perot swung around to face Gore and replied testily:
Just make…just cut that out. Pass a few simple laws on this, make it very, very clear…
Quite innocently, Gore asked:
Pass a few simple laws on Mexico?
His anger rising again, Perot, shook his head, then dropped it like a bull about to charge, and said:
No.
Gore persisted, quietly, but firmly.
How do you stop it without NAFTA?
Icily, Perot replied:
Give me your whole mind.
“Give me your whole mind.” Perot addressed the vice president of the United States as if he was an errant employee! The vice president of the United States smiled back broadly, and said:
Yeah, I’m listening. I haven’t heard the answer, but go ahead.
Chiding back, Perot snapped:
That’s because you haven’t quit talking.
Gore replied:
Well, I’m listening…
And then for the third time, Gore calmly repeated his question.
How do you stop it without NAFTA?
Perot would not be calmed.
OK, are you going to listen? Work on it! [8.6]
“Work on it!” More disdain and more petulance from Perot. The sum total of all his contentious behavior came a cropper the next day in the public opinion polls: The undecided respondents dramatically swung in favor of NAFTA (please refer to Figure 1.1).
Lessons Learned
The key takeaway from this chapter is its main theme: discipline. By all accounts, Al Gore focused his efforts on what he did before he put his hand on the sword. Perot was notoriously delinquent in preparation. Having campaigned against NAFTA for three months before the debate, Perot “cruised toward the discussion as if it would be another episode of the Ross-and-Larry mutual-admiration show,” according to Fallows. [8.7]
During Perot’s run for the presidency the year before the NAFTA debate, he had retained Ed Rollins, one of the most respected political consultants in the game. Six weeks later, Rollins resigned in dismay at Perot’s refusal to take his advice. The advice for you is to take Gore’s offsite encampment activity as a positive role model to develop two important techniques:
• Prepare. Anticipate the worst-case scenario. Make a list of the questions you do not want to hear. Find the Roman Columns in the tough questions as well as the non-challenging ones. Develop your positions on every major issue, especially the negative ones. Gather your supporting evidence. Do your research. Define your overall strategy as Al Gore did. Do all of this well in advance of your mission-critical Q&A session!
• Verbalize. This is the technique you first read about in Chapter 5, “Retake the Floor.” Speak your words aloud in practice just as you will during your actual Q&A session. Verbalization is the equivalent of spring training in baseball, previews of Broadway shows and, most pertinent, the mock rehearsals that precede political debates. The latter examples have even more specificity and urgency for you. Politicians speak far more often than do mere mortals, and even more so during their campaigns. By the time they get down the homestretch to the debates, they have spoken their messages countless times.
You do not have that advantage. Organize practice sessions to prepare for your actual Q&A session. Enlist your colleagues to fire tough questions at you. Verbalize your Buffers. Verbalize your answers until they are succinct and to the point. Verbalize your Topspin to every answer. Verbalize repeatedly, like a tennis volley.
This is a technique I recommend to all my private clients, and particularly to companies preparing their IPO road shows, the most mission-critical of all business presentations. I urge CEOs and CFOs to volley their responses to their list of tough questions over and over until their returns of serves snap like whips. I urge you to treat every Q&A session as your IPO road show. Snap your whip.