Journal Reflections from Module 2.3 - Communicating Effectively: Presentation and Writing

[Editors note:  The following is a journal entry addressing specific questions provided by the CPM course instructors for module 2.3.]

What learning stands out for you as you reflect on the classroom experience?  Consider what you learned from the activities, readings, videos, and discussions.


The key learning for me was the correlation between voice tone level and depth of personal engagement.  Understanding the power that the deeper personal engagement has in connecting with others is amazing.


Realizing that my normal dialogue tone is quite high with factual information but lacking in personal expressiveness, gives me an area to work on improving.

For me, the primary takeaway for my leadership development is to focus on minimizing the quantity of information in favor of stories with larger meanings with more power and gravitas. Those stories then can lead to a lower tone as they weave in aspects that are more personal.


The book for this module, Lead with a Story, was a great complement to the course. The concept that stories have the power to define a culture is insightful. The book made the claim that a company’s value statement does not meaning anything, but the stories that have accumulated are the true expression of how those values are practiced and conveyed.

Assembling a generic values statement is an exercise in shuffling some trendy ethical terms into a roughly coherent sentence but the result is superficial, ambiguous, and cold. Building a culture with a series of stories is much more effective at fleshing out what the organizations collective values are.

Reflecting on the power of stories further, is it not interesting that the Bible largely consists of narrative stories. A whole religion and worldview defined by a unified set of history encapsulated in deeply rich, multi-layered stories. Nearly all of Jesus’ teaching to the general populace was in the form of parables making them so much more memorable, and providing great depth of insights.

Another interesting connection to storytelling came the week prior to class. The Rev Jay Stoms spoke at our church prayer meeting about his work. He had been teaching in an African seminary following a largely Western curriculum of systematically extrapolated theology. He was in town describing how he was reorienting his work towards a story-telling model. Presently he was in the States to attend training in the use of storytelling for ministry use. His assertion was that this method fit much better into Africa’s oral society and it was a much closer methodology to the Bible’s original modicum of instruction.


If there was one thing that the author might have missed in Lead With A Story, it might be this. He pointed out we need to be on the lookout to find the stories so that we can define our organizations. I would suggest a converse proposition is equally true, every culture will have stories that define it weather or not those stories are positive or negative. If you do not have the positive stories, your negative stories will be that much stronger.


Using the Voice model we discussed, what "note" do you most naturally play? Describe it. What value is gained by learning to play your full range of Voice? How can you extend your range of Voice--play notes along the full range from analytic notes to deep voice? How might that affect your presentations and writings?

My range is mostly a high analytical range. I typically speak with the intention of communicating information.


You experienced many different presentation styles through video and in person in the room. Think of one to three that really stand out for you. What about their presentation style did you find compelling (e.g., range of Voice, use of body language, use of data and/or emotion, physicality, humor, authenticity, stories, etc.)? What helped you connect with their message?

The two unrehearsed stories from Tuesday morning impressed me the most. Lisa and Lisa both delivered very memorable speeches that only in hindsight as I was thinking about the form did I realize they were technically perfect. Considering they were probably the two speeches with the least thought as to process or structure. Both of the speeches truly connected at a low voice.

Knowing that the low voice was a genuine reflection of their personal struggles/triumphs was such a powerful force for making a key connection.


What insights did you gain from practicing your own presentations? What did you learn about yourself as a leader? Consider not only how you experienced it, but the feedback you received about how your words touched others.

I was glad to be able to do the speeches largely without notes. I thought that aspect of them went well. Generally, the UW lecturer’s instruction about assembling impromptu speeches was helpful in giving a quick outline that flowed fairly well.

I do not remember getting too much feedback that really stood out to me from my speeches. I recall Micah’s comment about leaning in giving a more ominous appearance than building a sense of connection.

I was very encouraged to hear Lisa Rice say my lower tone made listening to me easier. I have never liked listening to recordings of my own voice and it may be that it is such a high pitch.

Hearing Mike make note of establishing a sense of vulnerability after my final talk made more sense after listening to the TED talk on vulnerability this past week. That seemed more like a compliment now, than the connotation of assessment that I heard at the time.


I continue to reflect on how much my poor word choice struck a chord with Lisa Rice. Perhaps that revealed a tendency towards Marshal Goldsmith’s bad habit four, “Making Destructive Comments”. I could not help but think about Marshal’s story of the boss who corrected the assistant who claimed she had crystal blue eyes with the comment that if her eyes were diamonds, they would be on the sales rack at the discount jeweler.

This particular error was one of perhaps tone or inflection. If I recall correctly, this insult stemmed from stating that in comparison to Lisa’s speech on the second day, the speech from day one was “not that good”. Even at the time, I caught and tried to correct the potential misunderstanding. I had intended to make the statement as a comparison, i.e. her second speech was much better than the first, as opposed to the way it came across, that the first speech was “not that good”. I’m pretty sure Doug caught the intention and correction when I made the statement, but apparently the other end of the room did not and those individuals should have been my larger concern.

I have to admit this larger issue perplexes me. Recognizing I commit such improprieties regularly and probably more blatantly than in this instance, leaves me with a conundrum. If one is poor at eliminating such errors let alone even detecting them, the balancing act then becomes retreating to silence so as to limit one’s offenses or speaking more freely (with more vulnerability) with the likelihood of committing such offenses.