When did elections become American Idol?

Full disclosure: I love to watch debates - academic or political. I love the give and take. I watched every presidential primary debate this season. (The British call it the silly season with good reason.) I've watched both debates now between the candidates and will be glued to the last two. (Update: the second presidential debate does not change what I've already posted.)

I'm NOT looking for winners and losers. I'm looking for information. I'm not one of those over-hyped "undecided voters." I've made a choice and I don't think a debate will change my mind so I'll take advantage of my state's early voting. However, and this is a big "however," I still want to understand each candidate and party's ideas, desires, plans, history, and more. I never get tired of it. Sometimes I agree with my chosen candidate and sometimes I don't. Sometimes I like what he or she says and sometimes I don't. Sometimes I support their compromises and sometimes I don't. I'm not a single-issue voter, and since I cast my first presidential vote in the 60s, I've tried to look at the full package.

So what? I was watching some "news" coverage after the vice presidential debate and they were discussing what was trending on social media during the debate...DURING the debate.

• We are NOT WIRED TO MULTITASK. When we're listening/watching the debate and start texting, tweeting or facebooking, our brain is simply switching back and forth very, very rapidly (below our ability to perceive.) So we're not actually attentive to either.
• Much of the "trending" was about ridiculous topics including one candidate's workout photos and the other's use of words like "malarkey." ????? This is what's important in choosing a person who is "a heartbeat away from the president?" This is the how we choose a potential world leader?

When did the most important political decisions that will affect our lives become American Idol? Are we electing the Debater-in-Chief? Do we expect him or her to go mano a mano with other world leaders on TV to decide the fate of nations? Do we really think the endless dissection of jokes, wise cracks, facial expressions, body language, and zingers is the best way to make this important decision?

What about the Founding Fathers? How would they hold up?

Most wouldn't fare too well based on our pop-idol values.

George Washington hated to speak in public and many of his addresses were simply published and not spoken. He was self-conscious about his lack of formal education among the political elite of the late 18th century. He was intelligent, well-read, and a shrewd politician and judge of people and events but he would have appeared wooden and ill-at-ease in a public debate.

John Adams was scrappy and considered a good trial lawyer and effective legislator in the Continental Conventions. He defended British soldiers successfully after the Boston massacre (which would have been political death in today's world of negative ads.) He was also irritable and irritating and seldom curbed his tongue in his attacks on those who disagreed with him. He didn't play well with others when he disagreed.

Thomas Jefferson wrote soaring prose that still inspires us but he was a horrible speaker. This voice was weak and barely audible when he addressed any gathering and he avoided it whenever possible. He would have delighted in today's campaigns of negativity. Through his support of newspapers and others who he agreed with, he published or caused to be published, scathing attacks on his political enemies. His attacks, through his pal Jemmy Madison, went for the jugular in attempt to destroy Alexander Hamilton, and even George Washington while he served as his Secretary of State.

James (Jemmy) Madison was a masterful debater, although he too did not have a strong voice, and people often complained he was hard to hear in a large room. However, in his long state and federal legislative career and in the Constitutional Convention, he held his own with other more powerful debaters. Most famously, in the Virginia Ratifying Convention to ratify the new U.S. Constitution, he faced off against Patrick Henry. Although Henry brought his A game bombast and withering rhetoric, he turned out to be no match for Madison, an author of the document with intimate knowledge of every nook and cranny and how it had been debated and decided.

Today, we would not select the wooden Washington, the irascible Adams, the weak-voiced Jefferson or the egg-head Madison. We would have preferred the smooth-talking Aaron Burr, who kill Hamilton while still vice president; the pyrotechnic Henry who was an avowed anti-federalist who would have gotten rid of anything but independent, autonomous state governments; the avuncular, always charming and folksy and wily Ben Franklin, who would have only a one-house legislature, removing a critical check on popular passion; and who knows what other folly.

Presidential leadership is not about "optics." Would we elect Lincoln today? Would we elect the very short, "great little Madison?" Would "his rotundness," Adams receive our nod? Would we pick Jefferson who was famous for his slouching posture as well as his weak voice? Sadly, probably not.

I'll continue to enjoy the debates. I'll go to the polls and cast my ballot. But it would be more assuring to me if citizens watched the debates using the active listening techniques I teach managers and executives.

• Quiet your mind and ignore stray thoughts or preparing a response.
• Focus your entire attention on the other person.
• Listen to what he or she is saying and observe the body language and tone.
• Ask questions to make sure you understand the other person and that he or she knows you understand.

Finally, I can't help but quote from that poor debater, Thomas Jefferson:

"A nation that expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization … expects what never was and never will be."

Or maybe from that fierce debater, James Madison:

Liberty & Learning lean on each other for their mutual and surest support.

Please vote...and please, make a rational, informed decision. It ain't American Idol!

*     *     *     *     *     *

(c) Rebecca Staton-Reinstein, president, Advantage Leadership, Inc.

Check out more about the politics of the early republic and today's leaders in Conventional Wisdom: How Today's Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding Fathers. http://advantageleadership.com/section/Conventional_Wisdom/17/

Nobody's Listening! And 5 actions you can take

Over 80% of people in any presentation - on line or live - are not paying attention! They are "multitasking." Have we all gone over to the Dark Side? Are we distracting ourselves to death?

The Professional Convention Management Association, UBM Studios, and The Virtual Edge Institute partnered up to conduct the research and published it as a white paper, Business Motivations and Social Behaviors for In-Person and Online Events.

The science is clear: Humans do not "multi-task." The brain just switches back and forth among things. Even the famous multi-tasking Millennials haven't changed evolution...yet. They've just trained themselves to move between tasks faster than us old folks.

The end result is still the same. Those milliseconds of distraction don't make it into short-term memory and therefore have no chance of transferring to long-term memory.

Our electronic companions just make it easier to be distracted. Back in the day, we used to doodle or daydream. Today we obsessively surf, text, and read email...What's the difference? When we doodled or daydreamed, we eventually realized our mind was wandering. When we do the digital dance we delude ourselves into thinking we're doing something important. We'll tune back in when the other person, speaker, or cars on the road do something interesting. Talk about destructive self-adsorption...

But this is not a new human phenomenon. Back in 1787 at the U.S. Constitutional Convention, one of the first tasks the delegates tackled was setting their meeting rules. They reveal their very human tendency to be distracted...

Every member, rising to speak, shall address the President; and whilst he shall be speaking, none shall pass between them, or hold discourse with another, or read a book, pamphlet or paper, printed or manuscript...A member may be called to order by any other member, as well as by the President; and may be allowed to explain his conduct or expressions supposed to be reprehensible.

I remember watching congress people texting and tweeting during the current president's State of the Union Address. Our founding fathers understood human nature quite well. As James Madison remarked, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."

The debate about what to do about our total distraction infractions is hot. Some say, "let's tell people not to do it." Others say, "let's get the tweeting built into the program." Both miss the point. The first doesn't work because people will ignore such instructions. The second doesn't work because it only encourages what our 18th century predecessors recognized as reprehensible behavior.

Why are you attending the webinar or seminar, teleseminar or conference in the first place? Isn't part of your motivation to learn something? Research shows, if we want to remember something, that is, move it to long-term memory, we need to engage as many senses as possible. Watching, listening, and writing engage at least 3 senses. Suck on a lollipop and write with a scented pen and you hit them all.

So here's my prescription to apply a little Conventional Wisdom:

1. Gandhi said it best: Be the change you want to see. You are in control of your own behavior. Stop distracting yourself.
2. As our Zen masters teach us: Be in the moment - in the NOW. Engage yourself entirely in the presentation, conversation, event. Focus your energy.
3. Use all 5 senses and maybe that elusive 6th sense. Emphasize your own preferred learning style to maximize retention and movement into short- and long-term memory.
4.  A member may be called to order by any other member. Take responsibility for the success of every event yourself. Ask others (politely) to respect the speakers and give them full attention. Or suggest they help you by not behaving in a distracting manner.
5. Practice Morita psychology: Know your purpose. Feel your feelings. Do what must be done. This simple prescription from Japanese psychologist, Shoma Morita, can be applied to anything. In this context: "My purpose is to gain this knowledge. I feel like every stray thought must be communicated to my tribe and every email must be read instantly. I quiet my mind and focus on the speaker and ignore my urge to distraction and self-importance."

Consider the advice of all these cool folks - the founding fathers, Gandhi, Morita, and thousands of years of human insights into grappling with our...ooh, bright shiny object...human nature.

I'm off to a webinar soon and will try to practice what I preach...
How about you? How do you un-distract yourself...or do you?

------------------

(C) Rebecca Staton-Reinstein, President, Advantage Leadership, Inc.

References:

Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 reported by James Madison. editor, Adrienne Koch, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1987

Sign in and read the original report: http://www.virtualedgeinstitute.com/business-motivations-report/
Want to know more about what we can learn about business from the founding fathers and contemporary executives? http://www.ConventionalWisdomCenter.com

A Tweet is NOT Sweet

-- Did you watch the President's address to Congress this week? If you watched the audience of Senators and Representatives closely you saw some of them thumbing away, tweeting to their followers.
-- And your point is?
-- That's just it. There are millions of folks out there who don't find this a problem. You see, millions of folks are delusional. There are two points in that delusion that hit a nerve with me.

First point: Despite those who claim otherwise, we do NOT multi-task. What the brain is actually doing is switching from task to task quickly so it seems to our conscious minds we're doing more than one thing at a time. Here's some proof for you -- if you drive and talk on the phone (even hands free) you have the same chance of crashing as if you were drunk or stoned.

Test it out for yourself -- no, I don't mean drink and drive -- I mean watch the news on your favorite channel. Have someone else in the room sitting with eyes closed just listening to the news. As the news goes on in the central panel, you start reading the crawl at the bottom of the page. If they have one of those places that marks the time or the stock ticker, watch that for a while. If they have one of those pop ups for another show, be sure to watch that. In other words, consciously watch the way you may do it every day. After about 15 minutes, compare notes with the 'listener' about the news stories in the central panel.

If your recall is as good as that of the listener, write and tell me. But it won't be.

Those folks who were tweeting during the president's presentation would not be able to pass a simple test and certainly missed the subtleties, the flow of concepts, the rhetorical flourishes, and body language subliminal signals.

Too bad. How can you make a political or intellectual judgement or analysis if you weren't fully present....Oh, you recorded it? Sorry, it ain't the same as being there.

Point two: What sort of narcissist are you to believe that your every stray thought must be communicated to the universe. And what sort of poverty of mind do you have if you follow some one's every stray thought?
Every one's mind strays, even during a compelling situation. But people with their brain cells functioning train themselves to focus on the important. Think of hero-pilot "Sully." What if he were busy tweeting his stray thoughts while trying to land an airliner in the Hudson River? No, "nothing like the aspect of being hanged in the morning to concentrate your mind."

The framers of the U.S. Constitution were not a lot different from most of us. They knew how easy it was to lose focus or be carried away by their own narcissistic impulses. When they put together their rules for the Convention in 1787, they made a special point of insisting that no one was to write notes, read a newspaper, or talk with his neighbor during their discussions. No multi-tasking allowed. Why? They were astute observers of human nature and knew we could not do it. Period. The End.

And look what they did as they tried to tame their human inclinations. They sat on wooden chairs in the Pennsylvania State House six days a week from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. with no formal breaks, no designer water bottles, no snacks, no working lunches, no coffee breaks, no tweeting, no phone calls, no ipods, no scrolling...They did this for 4 months in a stuffy, hot, humid room. They listened to everyone -- even the windbags. They focused, they argued, they went back over old territory and reexamined it, they postured, they made good and bad arguments, they pondered, they considered and reconsidered. They wrote a Constitution that has stood the test of time for over 200 years with few amendments.

They weren't perfect. They were very much like us. They understood how easy it is to lose focus, so they worked hard to do as good a job as they could, without giving in to their tendency to be distracted.

We sing the praises of the distracted, multi-tasking, type A personalities. Are we getting more done? Are we getting more important things done? Are we creating greater significance for our own lives, the lives of others or the planet?

One of the most successful leaders I interviewed for my new book, Greg Swienton, the CEO of Ryder System, talked to me about the importance of true balance in one's life. He talked about the discipline of making real time for family, faith, community, and refreshing the spirit.

We could all learn a lesson from Greg and the framers. Stop tweeting and start communicating. Stop tweeting and start listening. Stop tweeting and get a grip on your own place in the cosmos.
(c) Rebecca Staton-Reinstein

Read more about Greg Swienton and other contemporary and historic leaders in Conventional Wisdom: How Today's Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding Fathers. www.ConventionalWisdomCenter.com