The Secret
Structure of Great Talks
Nancy Duarte believes that we all have the ability to change
the world. A great idea combined with communicating
it the right way gives us the power to change the world. In an attempt to determine the pattern of all
good talks, she began a study using Dr. King’s “I have a dream” and Steve Jobs’
2007 IPhone launch presentation. After
two years, she identified a structure that holds true between not only the two speeches
she was studying, but for every great talk including the Gettysburg Address. She calls it ‘what is and what could be’
(Duarte, 2012).
I believe there is much more than structure involved in
speeches like “I have a Dream.” I
believe the really memorable speeches are more of a perfect storm. The topic, the structure, the presenter’s dynamics,
the anticipation and emotion of the audience all have a critical role and if
any one of them had been different the outcome would have been much different. I am not discounting what Ms. Duarte proposes
at all, structure is important, just not singularly.
On her way to finding the secret structure, Nancy looked at
basic structures for communicating ideas.
She began with Aristotle’s three-part structure. It is the standard that
is taught in grade school that works every time. The three parts are the beginning, middle,
and end. Sometimes the parts are known as
introduction, body, and conclusion. This
is the structure I follow because it is what I was taught and it is adaptable. I would use three-part to describe a concept or
explain policy/procedure in the work center.
It is simple, direct, and effective in handling these types of communications. Most if not all other structures are based on
the three-part structure.
Ms. Duarte spoke of Freytag’s five-part structure. This structure has an exposition, rising
action, climax, falling action, and denouement.
This is the form of most dramatic stories. What struck her was the shape Freytag used to
illustrate the five-part structure. Nancy
began looking for the shape for presentations and ultimately found it in ‘what
is and what could be’. I would describe the shape as that of a direct current pulse signal or a square wave.
First you describe the status quo (what is) then
compare it to your idea to make the situation or problem better (what could be). Make ‘what could be’ to be as far from ‘what
is’ as possible because people get comfortable in their norms. They need to be pulled into what could
be. The middle contains iterations of ‘what
is’ and ‘what could be’. This
systematically turns the listener away from the status quo and towards your
idea. This is necessary because people
are resistant to change. The ending
consists of your idea dramatically described as the new norm or the new bliss. Is this effective? Yes, absolutely, when appropriate. Is it the missing link? I do not think so.
I mean no disrespect to Ms. Duarte, but if this structure is
overused, a leader may appear over dramatic and, in time, become less
effective. In the work center I would
use this style to address big, perhaps unpopular change.
~Pete
Reference:
Duarte, N., (2012). The
secret structure of great talks. TedxEast (Producer). Available from: http://www.ted.com/talks/nancy_duarte_the_secret_structure_of_great_talks
No comments:
Post a Comment