Against a background of squeezed budgets, a global pandemic and fast-changing consumer habits, insights professionals are having to do more with less, in half the time, to provide their stakeholders with actionable insights. But how can researchers ensure that they are engaging when telling the consumer story and how can they be more customer-centric when talking to their clients?
in Communication Initiative,
Stanford’s Graduate School of Business
We talk to JD Schramm who founded and led the Mastery in Communication Initiative at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business, where he’s served as lecturer in Organizational Behaviour since 2007.
First off, we ask which issues researchers should consider when giving a presentation to stakeholders. According to Schramm, interesting storytelling is key to delivering actionable insights that engage decision-makers. However, the presentation needs to be focused on the action that the group of leaders needs to take, and to be sensitive to what are the business drivers.
“You need to think about what their motivations are – are they more focused on cost-cutting, or global expansion, for instance, so you can use the language and levers that are crucial to the decision-maker as you present your recommendations. That can then lead to effective storytelling. A researcher can’t just go into a meeting and start telling stories because they think that story will carry the day; the story will come from an understanding of the audience, and their motivations and needs.“
So what are some of the key elements to storytelling? Schramm highlights the importance of being able to draw from the data a narrative arc that will take the decision-maker on a journey that gets them from point A to point B.
This will consist of three steps:
- Ready (analysing your data),
- Aim (figuring out your intent and what you want to say in your message) and
- Fire (knowing your audience and crafting the right data story to focus the audience’s attention).
“You want to tell a 30-second story with these elements: the background context or conflict inciting action; the rising action, the climax and then resolution. If researchers can allow that to be assimilated into how they look at the data, they can look for the story to pop out.”
Audience analysis
In fact, the process often starts way before the presentation, for instance, when the researcher is making a pitch or talking to a client for the first time. According to Schramm, the most important thing they should do is listen. ”In that first encounter, you need to ask questions and listen to the other person talking. You need to hear about the client’s industry and ask about their concerns so you can understand them better. So often we feel we have to show up with all the answers, but on this first encounter, you need to get to know and understand your clients better. And then when you come back a second time, you are more able to communicate in the language and style that they appreciate and be more thoughtful in the presentation. As Thomas Friedman said, “It’s amazing what you say, when you listen”.
The success of the storytelling approach will also vary depending on corporate culture or regional location. Schramm draws a distinction between Cultures (national origin or language grouping) and cultures (of a firm, department, or group). He comments ”When I am working with clients in Singapore, for instance, I will have a more nuanced approach when telling my story, than working with clients in Houston where I may take a more direct approach. I want to be thoughtful about the culture that I might be speaking into. I might also consider the functional culture within the company. The R&D culture is different from the payroll or the C suite, and you need to be aware of that.
“In some places in the US, for instance, the West Coast, I may be able to lead with the story, and make the storytelling more theatrical, and in other settings, I might only use the story in response to a question. I might have it prepared but I might not lead with it. All that goes with audience analysis.”
“There are some C suite executives who are brilliant storytellers who will appreciate that you don’t just present the data but also illustrate it with a story that lights up the data. Or you could be working with peers and because of the speed with which you are doing business, they will just want to look at the data. In some situations, people just want the facts and to flip to the raw data in the handout appendices as they want to look at the data themselves.”
The iceberg
With growing amounts of data coming in from multiple sources, clients might not have the time or attention to absorb all the information available. Should presenters streamline or cut out some data? JD Schramm uses the analogy of an iceberg. “There might be a lot of data that would not be included in the presentation; it should not be a data dump, but neither do you want to mislead your audience by cutting out all the detail. When the data is nuanced, you could, for instance, present what might be seen from first glance and then say that from further analysis, you were able to uncover additional insights.
“Researchers must be able to go into the deeper insights to get the whole story. I prefer not to use pie charts which often oversimplify a story and cope less well visually with more nuanced data. If, for instance, you use a pie chart to compare feedback quarter over quarter, the two quarters might look very similar. If, however you take a deeper cut into the data and break it into more meaningful insights, and share that back in a bar chart, you can see both the negative and positive impact of a situation, for instance, working from home for employees. If we had only taken the top level, there might have been enough positive as well as negative fluctuations that it looked the same.“
Spoken vs written
Sometimes, stakeholders prefer to receive the presentation deck for further reflection or they might not be able to attend the presentation. Do the techniques differ depending on whether it is spoken or written communication?
Schramm underlines that the need for strong narrative exists in both spoken presentations and written reports but there are differences in the execution. Thus, when writing a research report with data, he will still use storytelling but stay more focused on how to get to the decision, possibly using a sidebar with the data to help the decision-maker to get the point and the recommendation.
“In spoken presentations, my delivery style and how many stories I use will depend on how much time I have, how many people I am talking to, are we together in person, and what I read in the body language of the audience? There is a decision tree, and so the information that I want to share and the message I want them to get is the same, but I execute it in different ways.
“Sometimes I will have the written report as a leave behind, and sometimes they receive it in advance which means we can have very different conversations because everyone (hopefully) has done the reading. If my intention is to have dialogue around the issues, I would send the report before the presentation but, if I want to first educate, or it is sensitive or difficult data, I want them to hear it from me first and then read about it later.”
So, are there any tips to maximise impact when sending a presentation pack? “You have to think about the trade-off, for instance when you use pdf. You gain control over the format, and it looks the way that you want it – irrespective of the system they use, but you often lose some of rich formatting or animation. I prefer not to present in pdf, as you can do much more in PowerPoint or a similar system, than in pdf.”
Schramm also recommends adding some explanation or narrative in the notes, particularly for slides where there might be just one word, so readers can see the context.
Highlight the action
Schramm stresses the importance of coaching decision-makers into action as researchers have the data and tools in their tool-kits that the client does not, so they should be more fearless in making clear recommendations to help clients build competitive advantage through customer centricity.
“You need to tell the decision-makers what steps they need to take and recommend an action. They may say they disagree but that they understand the problem and the reasoning that got you to that recommendation, and they would still be better served in their decision making.”
“Whereas if you just lay out the pros and cons, you have informed them but not really helped the leader come to a decision. There might be situations where, because of the distance between you and the decision-maker, you might hold back on certain things or you might seek permission to share the recommendations saying ‘we spent time cutting and slicing the data in all ways, and if I may, there are three options that the company can take’. Or you might wait to be asked, but I would not leave the room without making a recommendation.”
However, with growing amounts of data available, how can researchers ensure that decision-makers do not cherry-pick data to match their narrative or gut feeling? “Ultimately senior leaders will do what they want, and you have to be tactful. You might have a leader who cherry-picks the data or someone who gets stuck in detailed analysis – both are opposite ends of a continuum. What is best is if your audience is somewhere in the middle – they appreciate the anecdote or the qualitative data, they respect the analysis and want a story that is accessible and to understand the action that you are asking them to take.“
Measuring effectiveness
How can researchers get better at this? Is there a way for them to evaluate their performance, or do they need to rehearse more?
Schramm observes that ultimately effectiveness is measured by the actions that the client takes; did they enact your recommendation, and did the action work out? “Another measure could be – was I clear about my intent, and did I deliver on this intent? This is a key area as it is about empowering the researcher to empower decision-makers which I plan to tackle in thinking about how to evaluate the effectiveness without using an evaluation form.
“It is probably not about rehearsals; it is about crafting the story, which means drawing on the data to build the narrative. In a data-rich world, we need to make the data accessible for other people, so that is where researchers can spend more time. Companies like Qualtrics are helping with this, not just providing data but giving us something more. It is about crafting the concept and thinking about the action they should take, and what this means for the company as the core of the presentation. One of my colleagues would say: What (i.e. what is the data)? So what (why is that relevant)? And now what (what action should be taken)? Some researchers get stuck in the data, whereas the added value comes with the ‘now what’?”
Recent years have seen a decreasing trust in ‘experts’, research and science in general. Are there things that researchers and insight specialists can and should be doing to reverse this trend? “If we are all committed to a high level of integrity with our data and a high level of clarity in our communications, we could have different opinions as long as the person I am debating with is coming at it with a sense of integrity and clarity.
“It concerns me that as a society globally there has been a shift politically to disregard the scientific evidence. I believe that this is a shift in the pendulum and even if some nations have gone far in that direction, some will shift back to where research and evidence can bring them so I find hope and inspiration in what I see some individuals and local governments are doing if we maintain integrity as a North star.”
To receive a copy of the chapter on Communications from JD Schramm’s book Communicate with mastery: speak with confidence and write for impact published by Wiley, contact jdschramm.com.
