We expect powerful people to give us the overview, the high-level view. Specifically, a recent study found, we rate people as more powerful when they speak in abstract terms (9/11 was a terrible terrorist attack), rather than specifics (more than 3,000 people died).
More generally, previous studies have shown that people learn new things using two parts of their brain, the first gathering the data, and the second (the pre-frontal cortex) putting them together in a pattern.
Take these pieces of how the brain works and put them together with an understanding of framing, and you get a strong picture of how important a high-level framing statement is to help audiences learn and establish your authority as a high-powered person at the podium.
Audiences come into a speech asking why, why am I here, why is this presentation important, why should I pay attention? Start with your story, then, and grab the audience, as I indicated in an earlier post about James Bond – but then bridge to the rest of your talk with something like, so that’s what I want to talk about with you today – how our deeper understanding of the Middle East can only help in anticipating the next moves of jihadist movements.
That sort of high-level direction gives the audience a nice sense of your authority as a speaker and helps them consolidate and remember what you’re saying.
The details bring a story – and a speech – to life. But the high-level phrasing balances that life with authority. Presentations and speakers need both.
And stories and speaking go even deeper than that. Connecting with another human being is one of the highest forms of social being for us humans. At the heart of it is good storytelling. When I’m telling you a story, and you’re engaged in it, you match your brain waves to mine. If I’m telling you a story with a familiar structure, your brain actually anticipates what I’m going to say next.
The point is that that’s good for both parties. We want to be in sync with other people. It’s how we communicate well with others and it’s why good storytelling is so powerful. That feeling of synchronization is a profoundly satisfying one. We want to hear stories, especially ones where we can guess what’s going to happen next, a split second before we’re told.
Thus, when communication works, we are literally aligned with one another, down to our very brain patterns. That’s both inspiring and reassuring to know; when we communicate successfully, we are actually experiencing the same thing. We are not alone.
And stories are even more important than that. They are how our brains work. For example, they are why we all feel that it’s safer to drive than fly, even though the statistics prove the opposite. We remember the horrifying stories of plane crashes and forget the stats. That’s because we attach emotions to events to create stories and memories. Our brains are constructed that way.
So storytelling is essential if you want to use the brain the way it’s meant to be used. We remember the emotional, the particular, and the violent especially. We forget the boring, the general, and the anodyne. We find you authoritative when you give us a high-level view of your topic. We remember better when you reveal the pattern to us. We’re engaged more thoroughly at first when you pitch us directly into the fray – the details of the story.
That’s why storytelling is an art.
Part of this blog was adapted from my new book, Power Cues, published by Harvard in May 2014.
Nicely put Nick, as always!
For a few months I’ve been working with a 3-layered model of storytelling – the Big Picture stuff (abstract, conceptual, philosophy, beliefs); the Machinery (the details, framework, nuts & bolts); the Library (micro-stories, things plucked from the media, parcels of knowledge). I think that when people draw from all 3 layers and move seamlessly from one to the other, it’s a potent mix. But many business people I meet are stuck in the Machinery layer when they communicate, and it’s all a bit dull.
When Nelson Mandela died last December, there was a huge amount of media coverage but it seemed to me to mirror that model. His legacy as a leader (forgiveness, reconciliation, rainbow-nation) was the Big Picture. The chronology of his life = the framework. But for me the most touching and memorable elements were the mini-stories (Library) recounted by people who’d met him.
My favorite: ex-Labour Health Secretary Frank Dobson (UK) said he’d only met the great man twice. The first time he was part of a big delegation and he didn’t expect Mandela would even notice him. The second time was a one-to-one encounter in the South African embassy in London. They approached one another in a corridor and the President suddenly shouted out, “Ah Frank, so nice to see you again. How are you?” Dobson was so taken aback he froze and couldn’t say a word. At which point Mandela walked over, placed his hand on Dobson’s shoulder and said, “You do remember me, don’t you?”
I think it’s a lovely story and tells us so much about Mandela, but as you say it ‘fits’ into our existing template of how we want to see him. On its own the story wouldn’t work, but knowing the other 2 layers it makes sense.
Thanks for another terrific blog Nick – my education in the art of storytelling continues…!
Thanks, Mr. Thorp, as always, for your excellent commentary. I like your taxonomy as a start-up way to think about storytelling both as a test to see if you’ve got the right elements and a way for people to construct a story.
Dr. Morgan,
Before I recorded the podcast interview that you kindly agreed to a few months ago, I of course read and re-read “Power Cues.” (Your interview is a top download, by the way.) And yet, here I am reading material from it that I must have missed.
I have since interviewed experts from a range of communication disciplines and every single one of them has repeated the same mantra: “It’s the story.” I humbly suggest that as the thesis of your next book.
Obviously, it must be at least “a” if not “the” most compelling component of communication. (I guess you’d say that intent and the emotions we leak to our audience come first?)
Anyway, great insights. Now I have to go back and read “Power Cues” for the fourth time.
Thanks, Boyd! It is indeed the story.