Chapter 6. Provide the Answer (Martial Art: Balance)
The Yin and Yang are two interlocking complementaries…Yin can represent anything in the universe as negativeness…Yang can represent anything as positiveness…Yin/Yang is one inseparable force of one unceasing interplay of movement.
Bruce Lee (1940-1973) [6.1]
Here we are five chapters into this book, and we have yet to touch on how to provide an answer to tough questions. This delay is fully intentional. Results-driven people, like you, tend to rush to answer too soon, which can produce the negative results that befell President George H. Bush. During the delay, we’ve established the two vital prerequisites to the answer:
• Listen for the Roman Column
• Confirm the Roman Column to the questioner in the Buffer
Conventional approaches to Q&A skills via public relations advisors, investor relations counselors, and media trainers merely list the potential questions and provide another parallel list of appropriate answers. This is a straightforward cause and effect or problem/solution approach, and is as necessary as balance is in the martial arts, but it skips the two critical prerequisites just noted. It is only when you have fulfilled these two vital requirements that are you ready to move on to the final inflection point in the Q&A cycle…the answer.
Quid Pro Quo
The correct way to answer any question is governed by one overarching principal that goes back to the way to handle an irrelevant question: If they ask it, you must answer it. The same applies to all questions. After you open the floor…and yourself…to questions, your obligation is to respond. Other than questions to which you do not know the answer, you must reply to any question from any audience member. As in the martial arts, you must counterbalance one force with another; provide the complementary positive for the negative in the tough question: provide the Yang for the Yin.
Furthermore, your answer must address the Roman Column directly. Anything less will result in the “That’s not what I asked!” or “What I’m really asking…” reaction, which is synonymous with “You weren’t listening!” The George H. Bush/Marisa Hall effect.
Any attempt to duck the issue in the answer will appear to be defensive or evasive. Remember how defensive Bob Newhart appeared when he replied to Ruth Corley’s question, “So your answer is ‘No,’” by stammering, “No, no my answer is not ‘No.’” Remember how evasive Trent Lott appeared when he explained his admiration for the segregationist, Strom Thurmond, by attributing it to everything but segregation.
Bob Newhart’s stammer was for comic effect, but Trent Lott’s dodge produced a disastrous effect. The television anchorman pursued Lott to admit that he knew Thurmond was a segregationist, until Lott finally conceded. The lesson here is the same as in the martial arts: Meet the key issue in the Roman Column head on. Remember, too, the absolute requirement for truth: Every answer you give to every question you get must always be honest and straightforward.
Manage the Answer
But meet the issue only head on. Resist the common temptation to introduce new, tangential information during your Q&A session. Far too many presenters veer off into another presentation after their presentation. Keep in mind that the only purpose in opening the floor to questions is to clarify the material within your presentation or speech. Operate under the premise that you have covered all of your material thoroughly and that the Q&A period is a courtesy to the audience to provide elaboration for them upon request.
Under that same assumption, keep all your answers succinct. Resist the other common temptation to launch into oratory or to wax eloquent. A simple rule of thumb that will serve for most questions in most settings is to keep your answers to a maximum of 60 seconds.
Anticipate
In advance of placing yourself in the line of fire, compile a list of the most challenging questions you might be asked. Compile only the questions and not the answers. Seek input for your list from as many resources as possible…your colleagues, your customers, your partners, your consultants and, if you can, even your competitors. When politicians prepare for debates, they get stand-ins for their opponents for their practice sessions. The next chapter will cover practice and preparation in greater detail, but for now, be your own stand-in.
You know more about your own business premise than anyone else. Assemble the go-for-the-jugular questions, assume the worst-case scenarios. After your list is compiled, however, look it over carefully. You’ll discover that, even if there are 100 tough questions, they all fall into groups of only a handful of red flag issues. You may also be surprised to discover that those red flag issues are the same in almost every industry. In my private practice, Power Presentations, Ltd., I consult for companies in Information Technology, Biotechnology, Manufacturing, Real Estate, Retail, Restaurants, and even in the not-for-profit sector, and they all share the same universal red flag issues.
Recognize the Universal Issues
• Management. Do you have the right people? Is your team complete?
• Competition. How will you meet and beat the competition?
• Growth. How will you produce hockey stick results?
• Price/Cost. What is your pricing rationale?
• Contingencies. What will you do if…?
• Timing. What’s taken you so long? Why don’t you wait?
• Problems. Questions about problems are usually phrased as, “What keeps you up at night?” Answer that question candidly, stating what does concern you, but then immediately follow with the actions you are taking to solve those problems.
• Intellectual Property. As with problem questions, be candid about any litigious situations, but then immediately follow with the steps you are taking to protect and defend your ideas, or defer to legal counsel.
When you have identified these red flag issues as they relate to your business, develop a position statement for each of them. Craft this statement as if you were writing a press release for the media. This will take discussion and consultation with your key colleagues. When you have arrived at a consensus, it is merely a matter of aligning the variation of the position statement with the variation of the issue in the challenging question. Do all your positioning during your preparation and not your presentation. Do all your thinking offline and not on your feet.
How to Handle Special Questions
Several special types of questions require special handling.
Tangential. In the previous chapter, you saw that there is no such thing as an irrelevant question such as, “How come your logo doesn’t have a space between the two words?” Such a question is, however, tangential and, as with any question, deserves an answer. Therefore, once you Buffer to keep from snickering or frowning at the questioner, you can either answer it directly, “We chose that as our branding style,” or take it offline, “There are several reasons that I can share with you after the presentation.”
Inaccurate. This is the familiar, “When did you stop beating your wife?” question, a close cousin of the overstated accusations hurled at Colin Powell…that “The U.S. has a plan to spread a set of values at gunpoint,” and was acting as “The police of the world.” Counter such false charges with the advice from the previous chapter: Neither Colin Powell, nor you, nor any presenter is under any obligation to respond to an accusation that is untrue in any other way than with a complete refutation. Just say, “No!”
Unknown. No audience member can reasonably expect you to be a walking encyclopedia, so if you do not know the answer to a question, particularly if it is about some minute detail, admit it to your questioner, but promise to get the answer to that person later. To demonstrate your intent, ask for a business card.
However, if the question is spot on to a central issue to your cause, you must respond directly and cannot duck it, or you will appear to be evasive.
President George W. Bush was confronted with such a situation on April 13, 2004. In the midst of a rare prime-time press conference about the controversial war in Iraq, a reporter asked:
In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you’d made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You’ve looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?
President Bush replied:
I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. John, I’m sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just—I’m sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn’t yet.
He went on to reiterate the rationale for going into Afghanistan and Iraq and then concluded his answer with these words
I hope I—I don’t want to sound like I’ve made no mistakes. I’m confident I have. I just haven’t—you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I’m not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one. [6.2]
His response drew a great deal of attention in the media as being evasive. True to form, the media pursued the subject. Four months later, during an interview with The New York Times, a reporter asked the President:
At your last big press conference, you said that you couldn’t think of any mistakes you had made. It’s been about three or four months. Can you think of any now? It’s been a long time.
This time, President Bush was able to joke about a mistake:
You mean other than having this interview?
At another point in the interview, he even acknowledged a perfectly understandable mistake.
It’s a miscalculation of the—what the conditions would be like after a swift victory, because we never dreamt it would be that swift. [6.3]
The subject was still alive two months later when President Bush met Senator Kerry to debate in a town-hall format at Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. One of the audience members, Linda Grabel, asked:
President Bush, during the last four years, you have made thousands of decisions that have affected millions of lives. Please give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong decision, and what you did to correct it. Thank you.
President Bush answered:
I have made a lot of decisions, and some of them little, like appointments to boards you never heard of, and some of them big. And in a war, there’s a lot of—there’s a lot of tactical decisions that historians will look back and say: He shouldn’t have done that. He shouldn’t have made that decision. And I’ll take responsibility for them. I’m human. But on the big questions, about whether or not we should have gone into Afghanistan, the big question about whether we should have removed somebody in Iraq, I’ll stand by those decisions, because I think they’re right.
That’s really what you’re—when they ask about the mistakes, that’s what they’re talking about. They’re trying to say, “Did you make a mistake going into Iraq?” And the answer is, “Absolutely not.” It was the right decision.
This time, the President provided quid pro quo to Linda Grabel’s challenge by standing by his decision. He went on to further support his actions and then concluded his answer:
Now, you asked what mistakes. I made some mistakes in appointing people, but I’m not going to name them. I don’t want to hurt their feelings on national TV. But history will look back, and I’m fully prepared to accept any mistakes that history judges to my administration, because the president makes the decisions, the president has to take the responsibility. [6.4]
The lesson here is that you must answer tough questions directly. You can do it lightly, with self-deprecating humor, be frank and fess up, or stand your ground, but you must address the issues that are prominent in the minds of your audience. Remember David Bellet’s words from the Introduction: “What I look for is whether the presenter has thought about the question, been candid, thorough, and direct.” (Note: You’ll see a more extensive discussion of all three of the 2004 presidential debates in Chapter 9, “The Art of War.”)
Confidential. If you get a question about classified or restricted material, and you say, “I’m not at liberty to reveal that,” you will sound evasive. You will sound even more so if you say, “If I told you I’d have to kill you!”
Instead, provide a reason for your confidentiality. Attribute it to company policy, security, competitive data, legality, or privacy, and do it positively rather negatively. Rather than say, “We don’t provide such confidential information,” say, “It’s our policy to provide only information previously mentioned in our press releases.” In the Introduction, Bill Clinton’s response to a question about Monica Lewinsky was, “At this minute, I am going to stick with my position and not comment,” attributing his confidentiality to implied legal reasons.
Senator John F. Kerry ran afoul of a confidential question during his 2004 quest for the presidency. Early in his campaign, Kerry made the claim that foreign leaders backed his candidacy. Then, on March 14, at a town-hall meeting in Pennsylvania, one man repeatedly asked the senator to identify which leaders, and Kerry repeatedly refused. The man continued to badger Kerry until in exasperation he blurted,
That’s not your business! It’s mine!
The immediate perception was that Kerry had something to hide. Later, in a calmer moment, Kerry explained:
No leader would obviously share a conversation if I started listing them. [6.5]
The lesson for John Kerry is that he learned to attribute his reluctance to confidentiality rather than to prying. The lesson for you is this: If you cannot provide an answer, provide a valid reason.
Speculative. If you get a question that requires a forward looking statement, such as, “When will you be profitable?” Don’t forecast and attribute your restraint to company policy.
Guilty as charged. Suppose you were to get a question concerning an issue about which you or your company are guilty as charged. For instance, if your start-up company is entering a sector dominated by a larger company, and you get the question from the previous chapter, “There are dozens of little start-ups doing exactly what you’re doing! Then there all those big guys, with their entrenched market share. It’s a jungle out there, and you’re only just getting off the ground! What on earth makes you think that you can survive?”
Or if you were President George H. Bush, and Marisa Hall asked, “How has the national debt personally affected each of your lives? And if it hasn’t, how can you honestly find a cure for the economic problems of the common people if you have no experience in what’s ailing them?”
In each case, the underlying issue is that the question is true. Start-ups do have a difficult challenge, and a millionaire such as George H. Bush does not have personal experience in what is ailing people caught in an economic downturn.
However, neither you nor the president of the United States has to plead guilty to the charge and surrender.
Guilty as Charged Questions
Here is what President Bush actually said in response to Marisa Hall’s question:
Are you suggesting that if somebody has means that the national debt doesn’t affect them? [6.6]
Any answer after that kind of negative statement would be defensive. Here is what he might have done instead:
• Buffer. “How can a person of means…” using the same term he used before he sputtered and gave up, “…find a cure…” restating Marisa Hall’s own words, “…for those who are less fortunate?”
• Agree. “You’re absolutely right,” then, using more of her words, “I don’t make mortgage payments or car payments…”
• “But…” Don’t agree too long. Step on the brakes with a loud, “But…” (There is a proverbial story about the 1000-word sentence in which the 998th word is “but,” that invalidates all the previous 997 words.) The “but” either diminishes or invalidates any admission of guilt. After the “But…” pivot and make a sharp U-turn. “… that doesn’t mean that I don’t care.”
• Evidence. “As a matter of fact, young woman, I care so much that during my first administration, I initiated an X, and a Y, and a Z program to help people who are less fortunate than I am.”
• Call to action and offer the benefit. “So if you’ll only elect me to a second term, I’ll initiate even more such programs.”
Just think…if President Bush had followed this sequence, the world might never have heard of Monica Lewinsky.
Imagine if a start-up company CEO challenged about “the jungle out there” were to follow the same sequence.
• Buffer. “How will we compete?”
• Agree. “You’re absolutely right; it is a jungle out there.”
• “But…” Don’t agree too long. Step on the brakes with a loud “But…” Then pivot and make a sharp U-turn. “… that doesn’t mean that there isn’t room for a new entrant.”
• Evidence. “Those large companies are top heavy and have multiple interests, while our agility and sole focus have netted us fifteen major customers in our first year of operation.”
• Call to action and offer the benefit. “So we’re confident that we can not only compete effectively, but will succeed in this market.”
In this powerful sequence, the presenter transmits a dynamic wave that has multiple benefits:
• Identifies the Roman Column
• Strips out the negativity
• Acknowledges the questioner’s concerns
• Dispels the questioner’s concerns
• Addresses the questioner’s concerns
• Concludes confidently
That confident conclusion comes from the last step, which is the presenter’s call to action and the benefit to the audience. These terms also can be stated as Point B and WIIFY.
Point B and WIIFY
These are terms I introduced in my previous book, Presenting to Win: The Art of Telling Your Story.
• Point B. The audience in any communication situation begins at Point A, uninformed, unconvinced, and not ready to act. It is the presenter’s objective, goal, or message to move the audience to Point B: well informed, thoroughly convinced, and completely ready to act. This dynamic shift is the fine art of persuasion. Point B is the call to action.
• WIIFY. An acronym (pronounced “whiffy”) that stands for, “What’s in it for you?” based on the more common axiom, “What’s in it for me?” The shift from “me” to “you” is deliberate, not just to utilize the power of the “you” word, but to shift the focus from the presenter to the audience. This shift states the benefit to the audience and gives the audience a reason to move from Point A to Point B. People need a reason to act, and it must be their reason, not yours. The WIIFY is the reason.
A simple way to look at Point B is what you want your audience to do, and the WIIFY is why they should do it.
Topspin
In Q&A sessions, stating Point B or a WIIFY at the end of the answer to a challenging question produces a strong and confident conclusion. Taken together, this strong ending is called Topspin, from the tennis term for a stroke that hits the ball high, forcing it to bounce sharply and making it difficult for the opponent to return. Topspin in tennis is a power stroke that gives a player a winning advantage. Topspin in Q&A is a power stroke that gives a presenter or speaker a winning advantage. (See Figure 6.1.) Topspin is distinctly different from what politicians call “spin.” The latter is a diversion, Topspin is an addition.
Figure 6.1. Topspin.
Please note that the icon for Topspin contains multiple upward swirling arrows; this is meant to encourage you to add multiple variations of your Point B, your call to action, and the WIIFY, the reason for your audience to act. After you have gone through the ordeal of listening, Buffering and answering tough questions, you have earned the right to promote your own cause and its benefits. Swirl your arrows upward. In your rehearsals, prompt yourself and/or your colleagues by using the gesture I use to coach my private clients: Point your forefinger skyward and twirl it…Topspin.
You will learn more about how to add Topspin to your answers in the next chapter, but first an important footnote to the technique of agreeing with guilty-as-charged questions.
Media Sound Bites
Presenters and speakers often deliver their stories to journalists who record the exchange on paper or computer or video or audio tape. At that point, the presenter cedes control to the journalist, who is free to reproduce and publish or broadcast any part of the interview out of context.
Therefore, if President George H. Bush had said to a reporter:
You’re absolutely right. I don’t make mortgage payments or car payments.
The reporter could then publish or broadcast those words isolated from the rest of the text and follow it with a commentary, “President Bush admits he doesn’t understand the impact of the economy.”
Or if a CEO said to a reporter:
You’re absolutely right; it is a jungle out there.
The reporter could then publish or broadcast those words isolated from the rest of the text and follow it with a commentary, “CEO admits major obstacles to success.”
Therefore, whenever you engage in a media exchange, do not agree with guilty-as-charged questions. Instead, immediately counter the charge:
I am fully capable of helping people impacted by the economy.
I am fully confident that we can succeed in a competitive environment.
Or, if you want to acknowledge the guilty charge, downplay it as a subordinate clause before your counterstatement.
While I don’t make mortgage payments and car payments myself, I can still use the power of my office to help people impacted by the economy.
While the competitive arena is a jungle, I am fully confident that we can succeed.
Note that each counterstatement is punctuated with Topspin: “help people” is a WIIFY, and “we can succeed,” is a Point B. In the next chapter, you will learn more about this powerful technique by seeing it in action in mission-critical situations.