a16z Podcast - How to Moderate Talks, Panels, Meetings, More (Virtual and Beyond!)

Episode Date: November 5, 2020

How to moderate good, productive discussions and navigate tricky conversations is top of mind -- whether doing a panel, conducting a live event, presenting a talk (or hosting a podcast), managing (and even just participating in!) a meeting. Especially in a world where remote and virtual work is increasingly become the norm for many knowledge workers, one in which we're increasingly communicating through little "Hollywood Squares, Brady Bunch"-like boxes.So how to translate physical and nonverbal presence in such virtual environments, or voice-only modes? How to manage unruly discussions? Do parasocial vs. social interactions change things? And beyond these broader contexts, how do the things inside us -- whether agendas, tics, anxiety -- manifest outwardly, and can we better control them?In this episode of the a16z Podcast, Matt Abrahams -- lecturer at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business (where he also has a podcast, "Think Fast Talk Smart"); principal and co-founder of Bold Echo (a company that helps people with presentation and communication skills); and author of Speaking Up Without Freaking Out -- shares frameworks and best practices, in conversation with Sonal Chokshi. The discussion offers many concrete tips for moderation and communication for anyone, across all kinds of mediums and modes. image: Paul Hudson / Flickr

Hi, everyone. Welcome to the A6 and Z podcast. I'm Sonal, and I'm here today with an episode all about one thing, but also many things, which is how to moderate. And I don't mean moderate in life like everything in moderation. I mean it in the sense of moderating when you're speaking, whether managing or participating in a meeting, presenting a talk, doing a panel or live discussion, even a podcast, and more. We also go deep on something that's top of mind right now given the pandemic, which is that many knowledge workers who have the privilege and ability to, to work from home, are now communicating entirely online and virtually, and many will probably continue to do so well beyond. So how does that change moderation? Where do the differences between in-person and remote, as well as the evolution of tech and tools come in? Our special guest for this episode is Matt Abrams, who's a lecturer on strategic communication and virtual communication at Stanford's Graduate School of Business, where he also has a podcast called Think Fast, Talk Smart. He's a principal and co-founder of Bold Echo, a firm, that helps executives and anyone really who wants to improve their communication, learn new skills,

or just improve upon and sharpen their existing skills. Our conversation offers frameworks and lots of concrete tips for moderation across all kinds of modes and mediums, including covering how to manage unruly discussions, how to prep and the tensions between being scripted versus not, how to manage ticks, how to translate physical and nonverbal presence, even in virtual environments, differences between parasycial and social interactions, does that change things, tips for managing speaker anxiety, and how to structure a panel, talk, or discussion from intro to conclusion. But we begin with the role of pre-work and post-work around all kinds of conversations. As somebody planning a communication interaction, be it online or in person, you need to

think about the things you do in advance of it happening, what you do during, and what you do after. So in terms of what you do in advance, you're figuring out who your audience is, what's important to them, what themes do you want to get across as part of this communication? What's your goal? And to me, a goal is very specific. A goal is about information, emotion, and action. What do you want people to know? How do you want them to feel? What do you want them to do? Are there ground rules you want to establish? In the midst of moderation, when it's actually going on, your biggest skill sets are your ability to listen, your ability to paraphrase and link and bridge ideas. That's what helps a smooth interaction take place. At the back end, just because the interaction is ended, the meeting is over, the presentations over whatever, you then have to think about how do I follow that up and how do I make sure the information is acted upon and set myself up and the others for success for the next interaction. So it is a process that starts way before people ever enter into the call or the room, and it continues long after they've left. So what's the difference then between sort of planned meetings like presentations and panels versus spontaneous, more organic sessions?

The preparation piece, I think, is the same. But as it's going on, if it is a free-flowing activity, maybe a brainstorming meeting, a feedback session, your job as a moderator is really to just guide. and steer it in the direction that the participants are taking it. In a more formal situation, like a panel or a decision-making meeting, you have to be much more directive. You have to keep things on track. You have to be monitoring the agenda and the time and the different types of contribution. There might be power dynamics at play. It may be the case that somebody is acting a way they're acting because they have additional information that they can't share. It may be that the person had a bad interaction before they came into the situation. So it's also very important to while moderating, while facilitating, to take a step back and try to understand

at a meta level, what's going on in the interaction and perhaps decide to act on it, give some direct feedback or guidance, or perhaps pull back and do some of that either on the side or later. It's so fascinating because there's a psychological component here, which is, it's the difference between whether you go into an interaction, any kind, whether one-on-one, a group, whatever, seeking to understand or seeking to be understood. That's where I see the fundamental dynamic of where many communications break down is when both people have very different conflicting agendas. So we've got segue to one of the questions I wanted to ask you,

which is, how do you manage? And this is one of the most top of mine things in this environment today, online, virtual, in person. How do you manage tricky communications? Just at a very high level, like, you know, you've done sessions with me and some of the team on, how to manage like at a live event, if you have someone on your panel who's kind of going in a different tangent, or you have a spontaneous questioner who comes up and kind of throws a different vibe

into the dynamic. Let's break all of that down, starting with having an unruly panel if you're running a discussion, live event, moderating a room, whatever. Sure. So in all those tricky situations, again, pre-work matters, anything you can do to set yourself up for success, talking to people in advance so you set their expectations, giving some ground rules for what you expect. If it gets unruly, your biggest friend is paraphrasing. I really think the ability to paraphrase is the most essential tool of facilitator needs to have in his or her back pocket. Let me explain first what I mean by paraphrasing and then give you some examples of how to use it. So when I'm speaking about paraphrasing, I'm talking about listening to hear what is the

bottom line, the critical gist of what somebody is saying. And this requires a very different type of listening. Most of the time when we listen, we're just listening to get a vague idea of what someone's saying, and then we begin formulating our response or rehearsing it. But when you're listening to paraphrase, you're really trying to figure out what's the bottom line. And here's how paraphrasing can really help you. If somebody is going off on a tangent, or if somebody is just loviating, or they're trying to figure out what it is they want to contribute, extract something of value to you or to the conversation that you're trying to facilitate, highlight it, and then link or bridge to a different topic.

So imagine that you're about to take us further on a tangent. I can simply say, hey, that point you just made about X, that's really important. And in fact, it ties nicely to and all of a sudden I've taken control back. I've validated that you said something useful and I've moved on. You're in control. Yeah, it gives you the opportunity to reassert your control in the politest way possible. Because the reality is this. If you're charged with being the moderator, the facilitator, the leader of the interaction, and somebody goes on a tangent or somebody gets aggressive or starts really rambling, people are going to look to you to manage that situation. And every moment that you're not managing it, your credibility is at risk. So you need to step in, but you need to do so politely. And I think paraphrasing, highlighting something somebody said, questioning it, a polite way. Whatever that is, is your wedge to get you back in control and then you move it to somewhere else. That's why paraphrasing is often partnered with bridging and linking to the next

topic or theme. It reminds me so much of the podcast host. The number one thing I think of is that they are a shepherd for the audience. And their job is to do precisely that the bridging, the signposting, is what I call it, what's happening, stitching things together. And you have to do that a lot in real time. So now tell me more about the bridging and linking. Yeah. So if you have solid themes that you are driving towards, and these are either ones you've created yourself or co-created with the other participants, those are the cornerstones or the anchors to which you bridge or link back to.

So if we're really trying to drive a decision on a particular feature or product, as I am facilitating the interaction, as different points come up, I will always come back to that and say how is that or either ask how it is or show and demonstrate how it is linked to the theme that we are striving towards. So it means in advance you have some guideposts of where you're going. Those are the themes that you're driving towards. And then you bridge and link back to them. And you can bridge and link back through questioning.

How does that link to our goal? You can do it directly by saying that links to our goal in these ways. Or you can ask somebody else. You could say, okay, Sonal, now how do you think that helps us? achieve the goal that we're striving for. All of those are techniques for bridging and linking back to the central ideas. You know, it's a lot like a host at a cocktail party where people are kind of meeting each other for the first time and you're like, oh, you know, Matt, you just mentioned this.

Well, it turns out that so-and-so is also really into this and you guys have that in common. And while that's more in the sense of get-to-know each other, this is exactly the same thing, but in the sense of get-to-know this idea and let me help you kind of connect all these dots. Right. And the key word you said there is connect. And that's really what a good facilitator and moderator does. It's all about connecting. And connecting is just another word for bridging and linking. That's really the task.

And it's a mindset. You have to go into the situation thinking that way. And that's why I like your host analogy. You know, for many of us, when we host a party, we have to get into that role and say, I'm a host. It's my job to make sure everybody's talking and enjoying themselves and connecting. Same too with a moderator. Many of us go into our role as facilitator or moderator with that contributor's mindset.

And that's very different than when you are actually in the role of moderating. So that linking, bridging, connecting matters a lot. It's so funny because in the early days of moderating on the podcast, I often struggled with, I shouldn't speak up. I'm here to only set up my host. And then I had all these people, fans, others messaging me, like, speak up more. We want to hear more from you. And I realized like, oh, my God, the orientation point is the voice.

They're the GPS for the episode, the themes that cut across things. And the connecting is key because in audio in particular, the intimacy you have is so exquisite. And this is really relevant to communities. Like, let's say you have a club or a group of people in the workplace, a team, a department, a meeting, a project. That idea of connecting, I agree, is critical. It's about the thing that the listener wants, or the audience wants, that's top of mind making it about what you said about why is this relevant to you. That's another great orienting technique because one of my biggest pet pee is when I go into a conversation, especially in podcasts, or newsletter blurb, or any kind of editorial

product is not knowing why does anyone care? That is the first thing that I want to know out the door. Period. I love the analogy of GPS. And I think that's a great way to look at it is you have a destination. Your job is to get there. There are multiple paths to get you there. As a moderator, you have to decide, do we take the most direct route? Are we going to take some more scenic routes to get there? But you're really driving towards that goal. And I have to say, as a listener to your podcast, I love when you contribute. And I think there is a role for the moderator and facilitator to share his or her points of view, but you do so in a very thoughtful way. So it doesn't just become about your point of view and your direction. And that's a skill. It's a skill to learn when and how much to

contribute. It is not easy. And it's something that I also constantly learn and evolve, but just also all the listeners of the show, no, I can't resist a damn good analogy. If you take the human GPS analogy even further. And you're saying you have to know, are you taking the scenic route or this route? In much the same way, when someone's in the car seat with you, giving you directions, you want to kind of know the map and the terrain ahead of time. Like, by the way, in three streets, we're going to turn right, because you don't want to suddenly turn right, right? And similarly, you want to know if there's like a lake that you don't want to drive into by accident. Like, hey, we might want to avoid that traffic jam. So as a moderator, you're kind of rerouting around. People are going too long on this thing.

Or, oh, man, that's like a, I don't want to dump into this lake. that's going to take this conversation. Let me redirect this. So I totally love that analogy, taking it even a step further. Yes, it works really well, for sure. One of the tactics you talked about always having the bottom line in mind as a way to kind of help with the paraphrasing, the bridging, and the linking. It is both the way to summarize the paraphrase as well as a way to then signal that you're about to take a turn. I have to give you credit because I just realize, I don't even know if I remember this,

but I think one of my signature lines on one of our other shows, 16 minutes, which is, our news analysis show, I end every episode with bottom line it for me. And I just remembered in this conversation, like, oh my God, I think I got that from you when you were helping me prep for a live panel years ago. It's definitely a mantra of mine, but you deploy it expertly. So I'm not going to take any credit. Well, you deserve the credit. So on the note of prep, one of the only ways to do a lot of this stuff is to do it in real time, frankly. And if you're like a live community room or a live town hall or anything else. So tell me a bit more about what goes into that prep a little bit more concretely. Is it a script? Is it just knowing your guests really well?

Is it a prep call? How do you kind of thread that needle? So to me, it starts first and foremost by getting an understanding of what it is that I need to accomplish. Is it really about collaboration? Is it decision making? Is it just getting people to know each other? And from that, it's really important to then think about the audience. And you have to do reconnaissance, reflection, and research. So it might be looking at people's social media profiles and postings. It might be talking to people who have interacted with these folks or just talk to the folks themselves and get a sense of what's important to them, what their attitudes are, etc. That's part of the pre-work that you need to do just to understand who's going to be in the space

and part of the communication. Next, you have to think about, again, the goal. What is it I'm trying to achieve. Now that I know the people and where they're coming from and the purpose I have, I can then craft the goal, no feel due, information, emotion, and action. A lot of us are really good at focusing on the information. Here's what I want us to be talking about. And we're also pretty good at saying, okay, we're driving towards this kind of action. We don't often think about the feeling, the tone. What kind of tone do I want the interaction to have? Maya Angelou is famous for saying, I might not remember what you said, but I'll remember the feeling. So you need to think about that up front. I am so glad, Matt, that you talked about, not just the no, but the feel. That to me is the thing that I care about the most

as a moderator. And I don't mean that in only a mushy, gushy way, like, oh, I want people to feel good. But I want people to come out of a conversation feeling smarter and feeling empowered or more knowledgeable or that anything is possible or that they can find a way that's relevant to them. And Also, that I'm their advocate, because I genuinely believe I am. I think for me, there's no like systematic technique, or at least one that I'm aware of, is trying to find kind of the person's guiding light. Like, what is the thing that drives them or makes them passionate about what they do? And then how do you really draw that out?

And we never talk about that, actually, overtly. Right. The way we have to actually do it often is much more subtle and nuanced. If you feel that the thing that is most important is to convey those feelings as part of the interactions you're facilitating, then the question and challenge for you becomes, what do you do in preparation of the participants during the interaction and even after

to really bring those emotions, those feelings to life? You know, it's so much easier to think about the knowing piece. Here are the bullet points I need to get across. Here are the questions I need to ask. But what is it that you can do to really call out or invoke those feelings that you want? And it could be simple things, non-verbally acknowledging what somebody said. It could be thanking somebody and expressing gratitude.

You then need to stockpile questions. And these are questions that you can use to ask the participants to get them communicating, to move it in the direction you want. These can be what I call backpocket questions, emergency questions that you deploy if silence comes in. You know, you can throw out a question that says something I've been wondering about or think about how this applies to these situation. So having questions you can ask others and having questions you can use to get the conversation moving really important. You mentioned stockpiling. I want to probe on that one a little bit because frankly, I am actually not a big believer. And so, okay, Margett calls bullshit on me on this, which I actually really love, but where I'm like, I don't believe in prep. And she's like,

what are you talking about? Your whole lifetime is prep. Like you read all the time, you absorb things all the time, blah, blah, blah, which, okay, that's fair. By prepping, I mean like having a script in front because I want things to be very organic and very free-flowing. I'm going on the same journey as my listeners. However, I had one person a few years ago say, oh, I love being a naive questioner. And I'm like, oh, no, no, no, no, you're not a naive questioner because that is also bad. Like, don't make that mistake. On the flip side, other people go so far with the stockpiling, as you described, that they go to the point where they almost lose their way if things don't kind of stick perfectly. And it feels very constrained and scripted. What would your advice be on how to

thread that one. So you're highlighting a really important point. You want to feel as if you have a direction and tools to help you get to where you're going, but you don't want to have it so scripted and so structured that free-flowing spontaneity is stripped from it. So everybody needs to find their level of comfort. People who might be newer to a topic, newer to a language, doing a little extra prep and scripting could help them. For people who are more comfortable, more extroverted, it might be better to have less of those guide wires. But the point is, you would never go into a situation totally unprepared. You have ideas, themes, you have some boundaries. I love this research. It came out of the UK. What they did is they took children and they brought them to an empty field and they

said, go play. And the children played. And the researchers evaluated how playful the play was, how creative the play was, how much time was spent playing versus planning. And then they brought a similar group of kids to a similar field, but the difference was in the second field, there was a play structure. And they said, go play. And they rated the same things, amount of play, quality of play, creativity. And it turned out the play with the play structure was much more creative, much more engaging, more time spent playing. I like that as an analogy for planning interactions. Having some structure, some tools, some idea of content direction, et cetera, can really, really help you focus on what you're trying to do. If it's too open, if it's too spontaneous, you can get lost in

that spontaneity. So finding the right balance is hard. Each person is different, but using that as a guide, knowing you have to have some structure, some tools, some things in that stockpile can really help. I found that research so fascinating because I was in the world of early education and developmental psychology, as you know, back in the day. And one of the concepts, the phrase in the education world, this constructivism idea was scaffolding versus structure. And the idea is that it's like the bones. It's not like a full built structure, but a scaffolding that sets something up, but it's not fully filled in and it's also not like fully free for all. So that's an idea. that applies there. And then two, the other thing is the importance of ground rules, because one of the

things that you learn with early childhood education in any kind of play is all the kids going into it know the ground rules. Like, you cannot hit, you cannot fight, you cannot pull soul and so's hair, or, you know, wear sunblock, whatever the rule is. So I'd love to hear you tell me more about how you think about the ground rules to make these goals and intentions and scaffolding more explicit. versus only in the moderator's head to the audience and the panels. So first and foremost, there are two different types of ground rules. There are behavioral ground rules. That's what you do, how you act.

And then there are content-specific ground rules, what's acceptable to say and what's not. Just creating those two categories can be helpful for people. Now, to the question of how do you share them? So first and foremost, you can take time to collaborate together to create them. So you can start by saying, hey, let's figure out how we want to best interact. by virtue of co-creating them, that's how you're disseminating the information. If you want to do them in advance, come in with them, then you can put them in the invite to the meeting or in some communication that happens in advance and then just remind people of them when you start. What you want to avoid with any rules that you set up is getting bogged down in the rules. If you have ever watched young children, and I know you have experience with this, young children interacting, they spend a tremendous amount of time just dealing with the rules, so much so that they don't actually get to playing

whatever it is they're trying to play. And adults can do the same thing. So it's make them explicit, maybe create them with others, and then just get moving on from them. One other question about knowing the audience's intent in a live event where you may not have the ability to know, like, for example, parisocial versus social interactions, where you're interacting with strangers often in a group of people. So how do you then think aligning the goals and knowing your audience when you have groups of strangers interacting in the same room. This is a case that's common when you go to a conference and there might be unknown people who can just come and join the Q&A section. You don't have registration. It's an open event or

it could be in online audio social places like Clubhouse. It plays out in many different ways. Wouldn't it be great just to be psychic and be able to know that stuff? That would be fantastic. So, I mean, look for contextual clues. What's the title of the event? What's the motivation for people to be there? And that can often give you cues as to what's important to people. The other way is just to inquire, ask questions, observe what people seem to be saying and how they're saying. It gives you insight into what's important for them. But again, that means your approach is different than coming in as I'm a contributor and I'm going to share what I have on my mind versus I need to understand what's going on and taking that time just to reflect and look around and see what others are doing can be very helpful to figuring it out. And then being comfortable adjusting on the fly, I can't tell you the number of interactions I have gone into where I thought we were going one way with this group of people and it turned out to be different. And you just have to be flexible and say, okay, that's what this is going to be about or that's how we're going to make this conversation move forward. And, you know, improvisation, the notion of yes and take what you've got and move it forward rather than come in and say, this is what this conversation is going to be about. And certainly there are times where you have to drive the conversation to a particular point.

point. But a lot of the time, we can just see what happens organically and move with it within the structure and confines of what we're talking about. This goes to me to how I think about prep docs, because while I don't stockpile questions in advance, I do have like a quick list of topics that I want to make sure to hit. And it's really helpful because I know the three that I absolutely want to hit no matter what. But then I also have like a couple others that may come up that I can go into and pull or double click on, so to speak, if it's more interesting. And if it's not so interesting, then you quickly can move. into something else because you kind of want to always think about what's maximally interesting to keep people engaged. So the way I structure my prep docs, I make them modular chunks so that I can

go out of order very easily. And this is a piece of advice that you probably also have given. But for me, that's like the number one thing is I have an arc in mine, but I keep it very modular chunks so that I can quickly rearrange it on the fly if necessary. I'm not wedded to that. Secondly, like a quick topic, I might have like a one word or two words for like a probe. Like, hey, or twist or nuance because that's kind of the thing that makes it more differentiated from like the same way of having that conversation. So I have like a particular template that I've made up over years of doing a lot of these that works very well for me in this fame. I would love to see the template. I absolutely agree that chunking or being modular is really important and having just

key topics that you want to address can work very well for many people. The only thing I would add to that is try to have some prioritization among those because if time gets crunched or if some topic heats up and takes you in a different direction, know the prioritization so you can adjust. So on the fly, you're not having to make those decisions you've already thought about this is the most important. This is second and third most important. You're absolutely right. And sometimes I, in my template, conflate arc order with priority. But in fact, sometimes the last thing is the most important thing to get across. And so having that prioritization is really critical. I will also add that I don't map it out time-wise, but I put percentages next to each modular

chunk in order to kind of figure out the weighting of it. So I want 50% of the conversation and be about this and then like 20% like takeaways. That's not quite the same as priority, but it does tell you how much you want to get across. I am smiling as you are speaking. Not only do I like that idea, but I like Margaret, I'm going to call bullshit that you don't plan and prepare. I mean, everything you have just described is planning and preparing to an extent that most people don't, even if it doesn't feel that way. Okay, but to be very clear, I only do that for live events. I do not do that for podcasts.

I'll tell you what I do for podcasts. Like quickly at the very beginning, spend five minutes. And we have obviously the general theme because of the guests and the lineup and the angle. So what happens is when I get people together and it's usually multiple people, we quickly talk about, and I say very clearly, I want topics. I don't want you to tell me what you're going to say. And in fact, one of my fundamental rules of live events is I do not believe in putting

people in the same green room beforehand. Because speakers reference something, they always do this. Like, oh, yeah, we were talking about this in the green room. And the audience of left feeling like they were cheated out of the idea. And so I don't want any rehearsal. I actually cut people off when we do this in the first five minutes where I'm like, no, no, no, no, no, save that for the actual discussion. I don't want you to tell me what you're going to say. I just want the topics. Because nothing ever sounds as good as the first time someone says it raw and really. I agree. And as a facilitator and moderator, your job, is to bring out that fresh conversation. And if people do talk about private or previous conversations,

you have to call it and you have to bring it forward to make it relevant to everybody. One of the best mindsets or frames that a moderator facilitator can have is that you are the voice of the audience. So if there's something that is inside baseball, if there's some insider information, you have to call it, you have to pull it out so others can participate. And there are things you can do that are very simple linguistically. You can say as we're curious or as you know or as many of us are interested, using that inclusive language brings the audience in. Not only does it help the audience feel like they're part of that conversation, but it reminds the others, the panelists, the people that you're helping facilitate that there's an audience they need to be talking to. It's not just themselves. It's not talking to each other. I love this. So this goes back to the host being a shepherd. But actually, you talk about the linguistic aspect. this is one of my favorite techniques that I've specifically learned from you and some of the live event preparation, which is how to change the exact same question, but in a way that it's very much phrased as advocating on behalf of the audience. And you went so far as to even show me

physical, nonverbal things that I can do to bring the audience along, where I literally open up my hand. Like, listen, I think everyone in this room kind of hug the room in, much to know, like, what do you mean by that? That was so useful. Yeah, it's not just verbal stuff that you can do using words, using inclusive language, using analogies that everybody relates to. All of that's a way to do that verbally, but nonverbals matter a lot. Now, the fact that we're virtual, it's harder. The equivalent to what you mentioned, where you actually open up your body and angle it towards the audience, as you say, as many of us in this room are wondering before you turn to the person and ask the question, the way we have to do that virtually is you have

to look at the camera. And it's so tempting to look at notes or to look at the faces on the screen, but you need to look at the camera so that people feel like you're connecting to them, talking to them, and including them. And that's hard. I am so glad you brought up the online remote environment because, A, I don't think this is an important skill just for the duration of the pandemic. Let's face it, a lot of knowledge work in particular is going to be remote first. We've definitely shifted the baseline on this. But secondly, I don't believe we've seen the first big wave of companies that are all built in an all remote native way, culturally, interaction-wise, etc. It'll be really interesting to see a lot of the learnings that come out of that because we are

in an unprecedented age of online communication and collaboration. So can we really dig deep into both nonverbal in person and then let's go into nonverbal and the differences online? Like how does one optimize techniques? Like I open up my arms in a room, but in Slack, nobody even sees my arms. How do you think about all that? So there are three major components to nonverbal presence. There is the visual, the vocal, and the verbal. And these play out differently depending on the channel through which you're communicating in person, online, etc. So visually is what people see of you. It's how you hold your body. We have to make sure that we come across as confident and composed. So we want to be big that is not hunched or crouched. We want to be balanced, head straight, shoulder square,

and we want to be still. Now, everybody has to find what's comfortable to them. I always give the analogy. We could ask every one of your listeners to show how they swing a baseball bat, a tennis racket, a golf club. How they look for each person is going to be slightly different because of their build, their experience, their injuries. And that's what we strive for in our nonverbal presence. You follow some foundational principles and then you adapt them to who you you are in your experience. So visual is what we see. If virtually or in person, big balanced and still is what it's all about. How do you do big and virtual though? Ah, great question. So when you're in that little box, whatever the tool is you're using, we're all in our little Hollywood squares,

Brady Bunch boxes. You want to pull your scapula, your shoulder blades down, away from your neck. And so doing it broadens out your shoulders. So you look bigger and you sit straighter. It also will tense the muscles in your neck so your head doesn't tilt. Head tilting in a virtual environment might compromise your credibility and confidence, or at least appearance of that. So when you're in the box, pull those shoulder blades down, broaden the shoulders, hold your head straight, really important. The other thing that's important is gesturing. When I'm up in front of people, I want my gestures to be broad. I want them to go beyond my shoulders. Now, when I'm virtual in the box, if I were to do that, you'd never see my hands. It looks weird too when people even wave goodbye. Yeah, no, it is weird,

but gesturing is important. Gestering helps your audience. It also helps you. So bringing your hands up higher, putting them about your shoulder level. So if I were to see you in person doing this, you would look like a caricature, a puppet. But online in a virtual meeting, it actually looks okay to have your hands up. And then again, broader than your shoulder. We want to avoid any gestures that are in front of our chest for too long because it makes you look tight and nervous. Right. So that's the visual part. The vocal part is varying your voice.

You know this so well. I mean, with podcasting as a medium, if I talked like this for even just a few seconds, folks are going to tune out. Yeah, Paris Bueller effect. Exactly. Our brains are wired to look for and seek out novelty and change. Anything that stays the same, we habitual. to very quickly. So you need to make sure that your voice has variation in it. And a great way to bring that variation is to use emotive words, adjectives and adverbs. So I would never say,

I'm really excited to be here, Sonal. I would say, I'm really excited to be here. But really in the excited, invoke that emotion. So you want to have variation. And really, what it comes down to in person or virtually, you have to work on your breath. Your voice is a wind instrument. And if you don't have vocal stamina, you're going to be in trouble. Your voice is going to trail off. You're going to start speaking fast. So I encourage everybody before you have a big event, I don't care if it's a presentation, meeting contribution. You should be building vocal stamina. And the best way I know to do that is reading out loud. So if I know next week, I'm doing a 30 minute whatever, I'm reading out loud the week before five to 10 minutes each day to build stamina. I equate it to if you want to run a

marathon. You don't start at that distance. You start by doing gradually more and more mileage. The same thing has to be true with your voice. That way you can support your voice and therefore your ideas as you speak. So breath control is critical. I'm definitely going to come back to that one because I have a lot of thoughts on that one. So so far we covered the visual and the vocal. So let's do the third one. So let me talk about the verbal. So clearly the words you say are important. What I'd really like to highlight are the words that get in the way, what I call the verbal graffiti. So it's the ums, the us, the likes, I means, my favorite, honestly, that one bothers me so much because it implies everything else you said prior was dishonest. We use those fillers, and it is really hard to get rid of them.

The best thing you can do is just try to build your own awareness, and based on that, then eventually over time, they will decrease. The other part of verbal that I want to add is hedging language. This stuff. It is rampant. Kind of. Sort of. I think that language undercuts your credibility. If I were to say Sonal, I kind of think we should do this versus we should do this. It just sounds very different. Now, there are times, if I'm leading a meeting and I'm the head honcho and I want to avoid people just doing what I say because I'm the big boss, then I might say I kind of think we should do this because that invites them to share their opinion. But when you are running a panel,

when you're giving a presentation, and you say kind of and sort of, and I think all over the place, you are reducing your credibility. Oh, Mike. So first of all, I love the framework, super helpful,

because you're actually reminding anyone in any speaking engagement. You are visual, vocal, and verbal. It feels like it's obvious, but it's really not because when you go into any session, it's so important to tease them apart,

so you keep all three in balance. So let's start with the first. one, which is visual. One question I wanted to just check in with you about is when it comes with Zoom meetings is like visual fatigue. No one looks at each other in a meeting where you're literally looking eye to eye the entire hour. And so there's a visual exhaustion that happens. And then secondly, it's very hard to tell where to look. So can you give me a few more specifics about where the eyes should go and land? Because one of the techniques that you've taught me in live events is to land your eyes. But how do you even do that when you don't know? It's like a black hole.

Eye contact virtually is really challenging. It's challenging because where the camera is and where you want to look are two different places. So we want to look at people's images if people are showing their video. And that's usually below the camera. And what it looks like to the audience, if you're actually looking at the pictures is that you're talking to their feet. And we know that that's rude in person. And part of us says, hey, look at me. And we attribute a whole bunch of negative thoughts to people who don't look us in the eye. They're nervous. They're not prepared. They're lying. So, you really do need to train yourself to look at the camera. So a couple of things you can do to help. One, some of the virtual tools allow you to physically move people's images. So you can actually move the images under or closer to where the camera is. Other times, what I recommend people do is take a picture of people you know or maybe even a pet you own and put it right behind the camera. We as humans are wired to look at living things. So put a picture right behind it and that will help you remember to look and connect to it. The other thing that's really tricky here, Sonal, is we are not used to seeing ourselves when we speak. There's research that shows it

activates areas of our brain regarding self-awareness that we typically don't have active when we're communicating. Right. And it drains cognitive resources. So some of these tools actually allow you to mute your own image. I know somebody who takes a post-it, sticks it right over her image. But just know that seeing yourself speak is hard. You're absolutely right. I use it, unfortunately, as a mirror where I'm constantly checking myself. Like, wait, my hair's out of place. And the other thing is, when you go to a live event, you know they have confidence

monitors. And in this case, it's like the opposite of a confidence monitor. It's like an unconfidence monitor because it's really distracting. So I love that tip of putting a Post-it. And I also forgot that some tools allow you to turn that view off. But it is incredibly different because when you're on stage, you're not that close up. It's a new level of intimacy, and I actually think we're going to see some new behaviors come out of it. And maybe with new technology is even better, but it is not easy for sure.

Yeah, no, it's not easy. And I think as we do more and more of this, we will get more used to it. Yeah, I agree. Okay, so then that's for the visual. So now on vocal, the second part of the framework, we talked about varying cadence. And God, as a podcast editor, what's really fascinating to me is how most of the time people are off in their cadence. Like it's misaligned. So for instance, the moment they should be slowing down, they're speeding up.

And the moment they should be speeding up, they're ticking too long to get it out. And I do this, too, for the record. But I noticed when I interviewed Guy Raz, who's obviously a very seasoned radio and voice personality, the edit was kind of easier than other edits because every sentence he gained was so clean. And I was like, oh my God, this is a technique of a really trained voice personality, essentially. And that's a new type that's emerging in this modern era of audio. voice personas where the better you are at varying your cadence, like he would do things like he'd slow down when it's about to get really intimate and special. Yeah. And that immediately,

instantly makes you viscerally respond both as the guest and the audience. So it's really fascinating how that plays a role. I also love that you talked about using an adjective, like something that makes it emotive, because you're right. You can't say the word excited like, I am so excited. You have to work at it. Right. You have to work harder to not do that. I will also say that this goes back to your earlier point about the feeling and the tone of the room and setting up that how you want people to feel. Because the better you are and master of that, then the better you can actually control that.

Absolutely. And then the final thing is on the breath now. And we'll come back to this on the anxiety part, but it is very tied, as you know, Matt, to anxiety. And it's really hard when you get anxious about public speaking to manage. your breath. I often feel when I go on stage for live events, this is, because that's what I've worked with you on, where I feel like I can't get my breath. Like, I'm going to have a panic attack or something. So can you say more about the breadth? I mean, you gave some for proactive planning, but can you give us some in situ, like, reactive things to do to control your breath?

Certainly. And you are not alone. Being nervous and having it affect your breath happens a lot. So one of the cool things about being virtual is you can mute yourself, taking deep breaths to help calm yourself down has been known for millennia. And I can just mute myself, take a deep breath, nobody's the wiser, much harder to do in person. So there are some advantages that the virtual world brings us. If you find that in the midst of communicating, your breath is getting away from you because you're nervous or because you're getting excited, we human beings sync up three things. The rate with which our eyes move, the rate with which we speak, and how quickly we gesture. It is very hard to change your eye movements.

It's reasonably hard to change your breathing. It is pretty easy to change how fast you gesture. So if you find yourself breathing quickly and out of breath, slow down your gestures, make them a little broader. It will slow down your breathing. And that's something everybody can do in the moment. That can help a lot. So taking a deep breath before,

working on your vocal stamina way in advance of ever doing a communication event, in monitoring and managing your gesture rate can all help you breathe more evenly and less rapidly. I have one more from you and one of mine. One from you is, and this goes back to your earlier point of having an emergency question, which is how to have that in your back pocket so that if I do find myself, not only is it useful if you kind of lose your train of thought, which does happen a lot in real time, but it's really great when you're feeling like that anxiety coming on because you can get that question out and then it lets you catch your breath

while people answer. And the other one that I was going to sound so funny, but it's just taking a sip of water. It's huge because it's another way that you can kind of slow down and catch your breath. I always tell audio platforms that one of my favorite features that I want everyone to build

is a drink water button and everyone kind of chuckles, but I'm like, no, I'm serious. This is what I really think is important. Absolutely. Taking a breath, actually physically just moving. You don't have to speak as you move and you can take a breath as you step.

It's a great way. especially if it's a transition point. So we covered the nuances that you outline in the framework of visual, vocal. Now let's go into verbal. One thing I wanted to talk about here with what you brought up is the verbal tics. So first of all, I agree with you. They are very weakening words, but I do not believe in eliminating every single tick. I actually think that's a very bad practice because we're wired to hear people sound real and raw.

And as you know, everyone has them. Right. My rule of them that I tell the audio editors is try to remove as many ticks as possible that are disruptive to the listener's experience. So if it's like, that's right, that's right, that's right. It's almost like annoying to get the point across and cut those, but otherwise keep them. So it's not like robotic either, you know. However, of course, have a lot of vanity ticks. And so I try to get rid of them. Early days of podcasting, I was always behind the scenes. So I hated hearing my own voice, all of that. I always noticed only the ticks. I like, I like, I like, I like. got it, got it, got it, right, right, right. I have a million, and they're so freaking annoying.

So I'd like systematically try to work on not saying them. And as you know, one of the ways to do that is to record yourself and hear yourself, guess what happened? What? Another one popped in its place. So I got rid of, I like, and the next one was, got it. I got rid of that one. And then Wright came up. And then something else came up.

Like, uh-huh, uh-huh. And I think they serve some neurological purpose. I don't know if you have a thought on this. but I think it's impossible to get rid of ticks. Well, I know it's not impossible because I've done it and I've helped other people do it, but you're right. They don't ever go away completely.

They don't go away completely, but you can reduce their frequency. I believe that they are remnants of our thinking and in the moment feeling like we need to be saying something because we are in front of people. We're filling the space. And that's why they're called filler words. So there is a trick.

There is a trick. It is hard. But there is a trick. where it's a breathing issue. So speaking is an exit-only event. You can only speak when you're pushing air out, not when you're taking air in. So if you happen to know that you say got it or write

at the end of all your sentences or phrases, if you can train yourself to be completely out of breath when you are done speaking that phrase, you must inhale before you can say your next phrase, which precludes you from saying anything such as, right, um, got it. Now, that's hard. But as you were referring to earlier with Guy Raz, you can train yourself to really end and finish your sentences. And then you start another one. And by training yourself to land a phrase, to finish a phrase completely out of breath.

Now, I'm not saying it quite at the end. I'm just saying finish a phrase. You then have to inhale, builds a pause, pauses are good, and doesn't allow you to fill it with anything. I am going to try that. People complain. all the time about how we are all very fast talkers. And it is true. I talk the way I think and maybe I could slow down on that. Well, it's interesting because I don't find you a fast talker, but what I find is sometimes you won't pause as long as you could. I speak very quickly too. But if I pause, people can catch up. The problem is the listeners get fatigued because there's no rest. I find that too. I also notice that and it drives me little nuts that I do that. Some of my

speakers do that. You know what? It's funny. People don't know this. A lot of people think we cut all the brets out of our podcast. It's actually the opposite. Oh, really? Many times in an edit, we're often going in and adding brets because I needed to slow it down to give the listener a split second to take it in exactly to your point. And I don't do it myself. The other thing is just I want to make a note with the filler words. Sometimes I think it has to do with representation. Sometimes I think it has to do it just societally. In fact, one of the edits I make often for a lot of my expert guess is not having them say an acknowledging statement at the beginning. Well, you know, Tom, I agree with you, Jim, but here's what I think. And I just go right to the I think,

which is such an important thing. I agree with everything that you've said. And it's the kind of sort of, I think, creeps into everybody's language. I hear it more and more across everybody I work with. Yep. I hear this across very established, privileged, powerful people all the time. Everybody has so it's not at all disproportionate in that sense. I do think it's dangerous when we judge the speech of people, like no vocal friar, women shouldn't do this or uptalk and whatnot, which you're not doing at all. It's really about how to make the authority come across.

So one last thing on the visual, vocal, and verbal, there's been an emergence of social audio and new forms of audio interaction platforms like Clubhouse and, you know, there's a whole wave of other types of tools for different interactions, gaming, contacts, others. And I have to tell you, it's completely changed how I think about communication.

That framework you outlined, if you're in a voice-only medium, you almost have to caricature-like exaggerate some of the things that we're talking about to make up for the lack of visual. It's really interesting you bring that up. That is going on concurrently with people wearing masks

where we also have to exaggerate nonverbal behavior to communicate information. So we are in a position now where nonverbal presence, both in vocalics, what you do with your voice and what you do with your face, etc, are really being highlighted. And for most of our lives, we really haven't thought about that. For some people, this is exciting and liberating. For other people, it's really, really challenging. But you're right. We are having to focus on emphasizing things very consciously to get our points across because something in our situation is different. We're covered up. We don't have the visual cues. The other thing that's happening in a lot of these new interaction paradigms is it's often more social first by default than content first necessarily, even though it is about content and interaction. And so one of the things that I'm kind of learning is how to navigate that. And so the question I have for you along these lines is we've talked already about how to deal with like navigating tricky panelists, navigating tricky audience members. what if you actually went to proactively, offensively engage a tricky conversation socially,

oftentimes with strangers? I'd love to know if you have any thoughts on that and which best practices may or may not apply. So I find that very intriguing to actually be an instigator of some tension and conflict. That's very provocative. You know, I am a big fan of using questions to invite engagement participation in this case, perhaps challenges. People can come in with declarative statements that can be seen is offensive and really make people defensive. But if you're really inviting, I think questions are the best way to invite. So, for example, when I give people advice on giving feedback, a component of feedback is an invitation to collaborate to fix the problem. And that invitation is best delivered as a question, I believe. And for what you're talking about, using questions

is a great way to do that rather than come in with some exclamation or declaration. Great. So the other key thing that I've noticed in these kinds of dynamics when you have parasycial and social mixed, you know, strangers and familiars is intent matters. And to me, one of the greatest sources of conflict is when you have two competing intents. One being, I just want empathy. And the other being, I don't want an echo chamber. I want to hear other competing viewpoints. And so to that point, now I want to ask you about how that plays into concretely, how do you then design the beginning, middle, and end of a session, whether it's a live event, a room, a panel, a meeting. How do you think about structure in that? So structure is something I spend a lot of time thinking about. And I think about it from an overarching event structure. So the meeting itself, the panel, the presentation, but also the specific content that gets discussed in that, be it a contribution you're making, a presentation you're delivering, or an interaction you're facilitating. So at the macro level, it's all about the arc. This is where we can look to artists, look at playwrights, look at movies, look at how do people weave that? What do I want the beginning

to feel like? What information do I want at the beginning? Where do I want to land this? And then there's the actual content that gets spoken in the actual interaction. And for that, I can give very concrete examples. So I am a huge fan, a huge fan of structure. And the structure that I like the most for information is what I call the what, so what, now what structure. And let me explain how it works. It starts by defining what it is you're talking about. Could be your idea, your product, your process. You then talk about why it's important. That's the so what. And you get to pick the level of relevance here. It could be to the individual you're talking to. Could be a group, could be a company, could be society in general. And then the now what is the next step? What comes next?

Maybe it's signing up for a particular offering. Maybe it's calendaring another meeting. Perhaps it's looking at a demo or having somebody else come on to the stage. But if you can package your information in a way that is clear and concise and connected, then it's going to be more valuable. And this structure really helps do that. And you can move things around. So if I'm talking to a hesitant or resistant audience, I might move the so what first. Start by saying, imagine what it would be like if we could save money or time or lives. And people are like, yes, I like that. Then you say, well, here's what we need to do. Here's the what and here's the now what that comes after it. And it applies not just to information you're disseminating. It could be feedback you're giving. It could be emails,

you're writing a structure like what-so-what-now-what can help. So when you put the micro-level structure, the what-so-what-now-what, into the macro-level structure where you're worrying about the flow and the arc, that's where you get rich, engaging, memorable communication happening. That's fantastic, Matt. And I love what you said about that you could reorder it based on resistance because that is exactly how I think about every podcast episode or event is it is not just about the topic. It's actually about broadening the potential audience for the topic.

And so you can actually bring more people in if you orient things in a broader way. Like, hey, this conversation seems like it's about DevOps. But it's really about innovation and all of you care about this, actually. And the now what I think of as how do you now bridge theory to practice or make something more concrete, like you were talking about abstract software system. What do people do with this information or what do people act on? And I think that's a very, very useful framework. And in fact, it frees you up because one of the techniques that very good playwrights to use your example use is the technique of in medias res, like starting something in the

middle of the action. You know, like the way Star Wars began. It doesn't begin with like episode one. It begins at episode four. And in that way, we can actually start the conversation by picking the right place. And the way we orient it is the what, so what, now what. Yeah, and I'll just make one other comment. I totally agree with the notion of starting with action, starting in the middle. There are a few things I get up on a soapbox for, and I really, really want to see changed in people's communication. I would love for presentations, meetings, and panels to avoid starting with, hi, my name is, today I'm going to talk about.

The analogy that I use is every action movie starts with action. And then they put up the title and then they put up the credits. And I would much prefer that you start with something provocative, intriguing, interesting, and then say who you are and what you're going to cover. And it gets right to that point you talked about, start in the middle. So not only do you have to think about how you structure the event and how you structure your content, but think about how you structure the start. My biggest pet peeve is when people have the guests introduce themselves

because a moderator is literally conceding control of how to begin the conversation in the most boring way possible. Even if you tell them, do it in 30 seconds or less, it does not set the tone that you want. In fact, I very strongly believe a moderator needs to do the intro for their guests.

You can get that bullet to point across in like two words instead of wasting like three minutes on it. It's the worst use of time to begin any conversation. I absolutely agree. So on the intros, you said it's really important to understand your audience and one of the techniques is to understand their context. or cues, what do you make of the technique of polls, especially in a parissocial community where

you don't really know everybody and you want to sort of understand? How does that fit in or not fit in? What do you think about polls and polling your audience? So I think anything that gets your audience interacting is a good thing, rhetorical questions, questions of the way they answer. Polls are very useful, but polls work in a limited way. You can't keep pulling your audience. Two rules for using polls. You have to tell people how to respond. And second, you have to comment on whatever response you get. If you just throw out a question and people don't know, am I thinking the answer? Am I raising my hand? If it's virtual, do I push on a button? So you have to tell them how to do it. And then comment, say, oh, that's what I thought.

Most of you have. Oh, I'm surprised. Only half of you have. That recognizes the contribution and makes people more likely to feel that it was useful and they'll do it again. Great. And then conclusions. This is one of the techniques I've learned from you because I used to be very front-loaded, only focus on when live events on the intro and the middle. And I'd kind of be sloppy at the end. Like, okay, we're done. I mean, I wasn't quite that sloppy. But, you know, most people think, you know, if I can get the beginning down, then it'll all follow. But the reality is it doesn't. Most meetings and presentations end very poorly. In fact, people will just say, uh, I guess we're out of time. And then they're done. Very abrupt and useless. How do you recommend people conclude?

Very concisely. I like endings that express gratitude. And, then have a quick wrap-up. Quite frankly, if you define a goal up front and the way you end is simply by stating your goal. Thank you for your time today. I hope you're leaving knowing this, feeling this, and likely to do this. And then you're done. You know, as a teacher, I see this all the time. When I signal to my students that we are done or coming close to wrapping up, they are packed up and halfway out the door before I'm done. So that's why I like ending in a concise and clear way in being very thoughtful about it in advance about how you want to end. And I would add one thing that I've learned from editing written text. I don't like it when

conclusions introduce new information. It's almost like giving people a teaser that you don't get to pull that thread. It's okay to allude to something coming to say we're going to cover this next time or stay tuned for the next event on so-and-so date. That's fine. But I can't stand it when people bring up a new point in the conclusion. Totally agree. It's all about concision in the end. Last question. We've threaded this a little bit throughout the conversation, which is how do people manage anxiety? And that's, of course, a psychological question. What would your best tips and advice be kind of universalities for how to manage anxiety in both public speaking, written communication, et cetera? So I could spend a lot of time talking about this point. I spend a lot of my life helping people become more comfortable and confidence speaking. I've written a book, speaking up without freaking out on the topic. And it's something that I think is so critical because I know we miss valuable. input, voices, and ideas because people are just too afraid to share them. When it comes to managing anxiety, at the highest level, it's about doing two things, managing symptoms and managing sources. Symptoms are the things that your body experiences. Your hands get shaky. Does your mouth get

dried? You get sweaty in your brow. And then it sources, things that actually exacerbate the anxiety. It's, am I worried about trying to get it right? Am I concerned that, I might not achieve my goal? Is it that I'm feeling so intensely evaluated? Those are sources. And with both symptoms and sources, there are things that you can do that over time will help you feel more comfortable and confident. It takes work. It's not a light switch. It's not like, boom, all of a sudden you're not nervous, but gradually you will feel better. So give us, and I agree, it's a whole longer conversation, but give us a few tips for both symptoms and sources, some concrete things that people can just do out the door right away. Sure. So we've already talked about

deep breathing. Deep breathing will slow down the fight or flight autonomic nervous system response that happens. People who get shaky, that's the adrenaline coursing through their bodies, doing big, broad gestures when you begin a presentation invokes muscles, big muscles that then dissipate some of that adrenaline. If you get sweaty, that's because your core body temperature is going up. It's as if you're exercising the same things going on. Your heart's beating faster. You're tighter. Your blood vessels are more constricted.

Your blood pressure goes up. Your temperature goes up. You can cool yourself down simply by holding something cold in the palm of your hand. Your hands are thermo-regulators for your body, just like your forehead in the back of your neck are. Water bottles save the day again. Water's to the rescue. It does. So those are symptomatic relief.

In terms of sources, so many of us put a lot of pressure on ourselves to do it right. I've been doing this kind of work for three decades now, and I'm here to tell you there is no right way to communicate. They're better and worse ways. If you can remove the pressure to do it right, you actually free up cognitive resources to do it better. So rather than seeing your communication is a performance where perfection is the goal, see it as a conversation where understanding and collaboration are the goal. And that takes a lot of pressure off of you. Now, it's very easy for me to say that. It's harder to do, but with work and practice, you can do that. I have to tell you, one of the things that you've helped me with as an anxiety management

technique for big events and prep, one of the techniques you gave me is like having three keywords as a way to kind of orient my identity before I go on stage. And it is amazing how that helps me. And it's funny because my three words are energy, light, and shepherd. And the reason is, because I'm a shepherd for the audience, energy, which goes to the point about feeling and light, because I want people to feel enlightened, which I know it sounds really mushy-gooshy, but those are literally the three words that really ground that I'm collaborating with the audience. It's not this oppositional, adversarial dynamic. I think those are really empowering.

Many of us are worried about a potential negative future outcome. The entrepreneurs that come to your firm are afraid they're not going to get funding. My students are afraid that they're not going to get a good grade. The people we coach to be better speakers are afraid they're not. going to get support for their ideas. That fear is a future fear. And because of that, it makes it worse. So if you can short circuit that, become present oriented. Focus on the moment. You by definition won't be as nervous. So how do you do that? Well, do something physical before you communicate. Take a walk around the block. You can listen to a song or a playlist. You see athletes do this all

the time. The one I always joke about, but it works really well. Start at 100 and count backwards. by some difficult number. Try right now, start at 100 and count backwards by 17s. The only way you can do that is by getting really present oriented. My therapist has given me a technique where what's the worst thing that could happen? And when you actually make it very concrete, it's like, oh, the worst thing that's going to happen is I run out of breath. And I'm not stopping breathing, which is what it feels like when you're having a panic attack. And also, people are actually more than I think. And so all of that is extremely helpful. And knowing it's not weak but the better you know yourself, the better you can then plan and even reroute around or

address it head on. I think a lot of times what happens is people deny it. They act like it's something they have to run away from because when you feel anxious, you just want to run away from the feeling. You don't want it. But it's far worse to be surprised by it on stage than to lean into the fact that you're going to have it. So prepare for it. That's exactly right. What I want people to take away is that with practice, with commitment, giving yourself permission to take risks to try some of these things out, you can actually learn to be more comfortable and confident in high-stakes communication situations. Matt, thank you for your time today. I hope this leaves everyone feeling empowered to be a moderator in whatever form. And those that are more interested

should go check out bold echo.com, your book, your podcast. And I hope this is a helpful resource. Thank you for joining the I-6-N-Z podcast. Awesome. Matt, there was so much insight per minute packed into what you just said. Well, thank you.