Myles Martel President Martel & Associates

Board Presentations:
A Leadership Moment

Board meetings have few rivals as optimal settings for an executive to project authority, credibility, and character. In presenting to the board, make sure you are sized up as a leader.  Tips from Ronald Reagan's personal debate advisor.

By Myles Martel

A few months ago, a new client, a senior executive of a Fortune 100 firm, showed me the first presentation he had recently made to his board of directors. Although he struck me as bright, articulate, and well-educated, his presentation was a verbatim manuscript. Why, I asked, did he not take a more extemporaneous approach, using an outline instead? He responded that the firm's chairman and CEO insisted on the manuscript, regarding it as a way to keep each executive "on message" -- the message the chairman had approved.

This anecdote prompts two broad questions:

    1. How does increased director accountability influence the way boards should regard presentations and Q&A?

    2. Should increased accountability influence how executives prepare for presentations and field questions?

This article will address these questions as it focuses on major factors related to making and listening to a board presentation.

The presentation as metaphor for leadership

The substance and style of a board presentation have always been important bases for sizing up the presenter as leader. Substance provides a board member with a basis for assessing such factors as the presenter's focus, grasp of the business, strategic thinking, principles, and priorities. The presenter's style or delivery traits provide verbal and nonverbal cues that translate into a wide range of board inferences regarding leadership -- e.g., confidence, strength, candor, composure, mental agility, and openness.

Style becomes even more relevant under two conditions:

    -- when board members question the executive to discern a trait, e.g., to test his mettle;

    -- when the content is more challenging to understand.
   
This latter condition often results in a natural and usually subconscious tendency for listeners to tune in to style more than substance. In fact, it helps explain why politicians often emphasize image over substance, especially during televised debates.
   
Since board assessments based on substance and style are so subjective and potentially influential, board members must take care to place the presentation in proper perspective with other opportunities to gauge the executive's leadership ability and business status.
   
Although a dazzling presenter is not necessarily an impressive leader and vice versa, board members should not be too forgiving of presentation weaknesses. At a minimum, the presentation should meet five standards:

    1. Be clear.  
    2. Be well organized.
    3. Reflect a well-defined point of view.  
    4. Contain appealing visual aids.  
    5. Be delivered reasonably well.
   
Anything less can generate a host of negative inferences regarding the presenter, including such perceptions as the presenter's lack of discipline and lack of sufficient respect for the board. Moreover, presentation weakness can signal inadequate leadership by the chair for subjecting the board to such a presentation.

A persuasive point of view

Board members and executive presenters alike can benefit from abandoning the notion that a presentation should be an objective recitation of the facts. Rather, they are well-advised to adopt a healthy perspective regarding the presentation as an exercise in persuasion -- as a means to advocate a point of view to influence board attitudes and behavior. A “healthy perspective" means at a minimum a well-defined stand or point of view, an avoidance of "spin" calculated to hide or deceive, uncompromising truthfulness, reasonable openness, and high standards for accuracy.
   
If the presentation lacks a persuasive perspective, board members should ask themselves:

    • Is the presenter trying to play it safe by not taking a stand?

    • Does the presenter regard persuasion as alien to the board's predilections -- assuming that the board wants just the facts?

    • Is the presenter's more informative approach rooted in a naturally passive perspective, possibly even begging the perception of weak leadership?
   
Regardless of why a presenter might avoid a persuasive perspective, board members can benefit from making sure presenters recognize that such an approach is expected. The persuasive approach not only will help reflect what the presenter stands for as a leader but also better frame the issues for board understanding and scrutiny.

The extemporaneous presenter

There is no question that the more scripted the presentation, the greater the presenter's control over the message, phrasing, and timing. However, being too scripted is fraught with credibility-related risks, including appearing too programmed and stilted, and, as a possible consequence, compromising the perception of traits typically associated with leadership, such as ease, naturalness, and self-assurance.
   
Most presenters are therefore well advised to speak from a carefully prepared outline (extemporaneously) as opposed to a verbatim manuscript. This approach helps the message flow well, allows the presenter to break away from the presentation more easily to field questions, and increases the chances that a positive leadership image will be projected.
   
The exchange in the article’s introductory paragraph regarding the chair who insists on verbatim presentations by members of his leadership team raises at least three important questions related to board accountability:

    • Is the chair, by dint of such control, trying to limit the board from sufficient access to the presenter's thinking?

    • Does the chair lack confidence in the presenter's ability to shape and deliver a message extemporaneously?

    • Is the chair too much of a micro-manager?
   
If the answer to any or all of these questions seems to be "yes," then board action is probably warranted.

Flying at the ‘right altitude’

As board accountability expands and with it the board's need to understand better the organization and its issues, presenters must judiciously select the appropriate level of detail -- the "right altitude" -- to convey their ideas. Exercising such judgment can be difficult, especially when board member grasp of the content varies. Nonetheless, the presenter should be aware of the importance of "flying at the right altitude," particularly the risks of flying too high or too low.
   
"Road testing" the presentation in advance with parties aware of the board members’ preference for “altitude” or detail, or with board members themselves, should be helpful. Feedback from the chairman after the presentation should become standard practice.

PowerPoint addiction

Granted, PowerPoint technology is impressive. Yet PowerPoint slides are so easy to produce that all too often they co-opt the presenter's role as the major source of communication. When this occurs, the presenter has, as a client friend put it, "committed suislide" by relegating control of the presentation to his laptop, compromising the opportunity to capitalize on a natural delivery style and leadership presence. More fundamentally, PowerPoint dependency can prompt serious credibility-related questions concerning the executive's ownership of the presentation -- i.e., "without PowerPoint, what are the presenter's real thoughts and feelings regarding the issues being covered?"
   
Because presenting is art and not science, no reliable quantifiable advice can be given regarding the number of slides appropriate for a presentation. The best advice is to seek input from one or more people attuned to the board's preferences. The advice to board members: Make sure your feedback reaches the presenter.

Q&A: An even better metaphor

No matter how much an executive prepares, his range of control is considerably less for the Q&A than for the presentation, verbatim or extemporaneous. Yet board meetings have few rivals as optimal settings for an executive to project leadership through fielding questions. Specifically, Q&A is generally less programmed and therefore more naturally conducive for projecting credibility.
   
The Q&A is just as ideal a setting for board members to pressure-test such traits as the executive's grasp of the business, analytical acumen, and composure as well as an increasingly relevant focal point of the board's stewardship -- the executive's character as reflected in both content and style. Moreover, board members can, via incisive questioning, peer behind any barrier that the executive, the chairman, or both, attempt to erect to prevent the transparency the board seeks.
   
As questioning grows in importance as a tool of board accountability, boards could benefit from increased self-examination regarding the quality of their questions. Is each board member demonstrating sufficient scrutiny through both the quality and the frequency of questioning? What steps should be taken by boards to conduct and present the evaluation?

Toward a win-win

Throughout this discussion, I have advised board members and presenters to take steps to validate their assumptions about board preferences and for board members to make their preferences known to presenters. Further, boards would be well advised to consider engaging in a more formal process of articulating standards regarding such matters as persuasive focus, "altitudes," and design of visual aids.
   
Boards could also benefit from providing guidance regarding the focus and structure of the presentation. For example, boards should consider requiring presenters to state their point of view toward the beginning of the presentation, provide a brief overview of the flow of the presentation, and address arguments contrary to those being proposed.     
A thoughtful approach to clarifying expectations and establishing standards should result in presentations that are better targeted, easier to follow, and more time-efficient -- goals that presenters and board members share alike.