• Mission & Governance
• Services Overview
• How to Get Involved
• Standing Committees
• NCSL Foundation

• Issue Areas: A-Z
• State-Federal Relations
• NCSL Standing Committees
• News from D.C. and the States

• About State Legislatures
• Elections, Campaigns & Redistricting
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory
• Web Sites

• Online Guide to NCSL Services
• Staff Sections and Networks
• Meetings & Professional Development
• Staff Directories

• Meetings Calendar
• Online Registration
• Meetings Home Page
• Legislative Summit

• Bookstore
• State Legislatures Magazine
• NCSL's StateConnect Directory

Effective Legislative Presentations

By:
John Turcotte
Director
Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability
Florida Legislature

ASLCS Home Page

The complexities of public life, the volume of work, and varying personalities hinder communications within a state legislature. Delivering the message, then explaining is the key to making effective presentations. Those who are effective presenters:

• understand the complexity of communicating in a legislative environment
• "frame" presentations to facilitate adult learning and eliminate listener anxiety
• begin with an emphatic "message"
• sustain and reinforce the message by making a series of supporting points
• link the listener to all documents, slides, and the speaker

Max Arinder, a psychologist and Director of the Mississippi Joint Legislative Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review, once characterized a state legislature as a galactic structure with legislators clustered in the nucleus. Bits of information, people, paper, and intellectual bits swirl around, nudging and pushing for legislator attention. High quality research within the swirl must compete even if the legislature requested the report or presentation. Individual presentations are nothing more than another bit in the swirling mass. This often surprises some legislative staff who believe that they discharge their responsibilities once a written report is mailed or a memorandum is distributed.

Effective legislative staff know that most legislators do not have time to read the documents they want to read. Given the lack of time, legislators rely on spoken communications and may limit reading to easily scanned periodicals, their own writings, and essential documents called to their attention by others that they trust. Despite the filtering, legislators still read enormous amounts of material.

The legislative process thrives on impressions, intuition, trust, and informal communication. While these conditions are ideal for effective presentations, most presenters fail to see the obvious -- if a legislator wanted or had time to consider a lengthy treatise, the legislator would have asked for and then read a research report. If a legislator requests a presentation, the legislator expects something more concise and engaging. As adults, they present a number of challenges as learners.

Hundreds of ineffective lectures and speeches over decades condition adults to expect poor presentations. Presentations fail to inform or persuade if presenters do not anticipate and eliminate anxiety common among adult listeners (and acute among legislators). Anxiety is caused by expectations that:

• the speaker will drone on aimlessly without making a point
• the point made may not be useful
• there will not be enough time for questions
• the speaker will deal only in generalities
• the speaker will present excessive detail without explaining its meaning or resolving apparent contradictions
• copious note-taking may be required if there will be no written material for further study

To eliminate the anxiety, speakers should begin by orally "framing" the presentation as in the following example:

The frame in less than a minute:

• establishes proper protocol
• immediately gives the "message"
• identifies the speaker and organizational affiliation
• states the time frame, excluding questions
• suggests when questions should be asked
• assures that listeners will have data and written material to study and
• eliminates anxiety about note-taking

The adult mind scans for utility as skillfully as a cattle buyer scans a herd at an auction. Adults are skilled at screening out oral and visual stimuli that they do not need. Adults pay greater attention when assured that information is new and useful. Moreover, after ignoring millions of attempted impressions (billboards, radio commercials, bumper stickers, etc.), the adult mind becomes an excellent "gatekeeper." Advertisers know this and begin commercials with something unanticipated or highly stimulating that could be either positive or negative. Human learning experts suggest that such jolts create a condition called "cognitive dissonance." Put simply, cognitive dissonance causes neurons to fire rapidly and facilitates interest in and retention of information introduced in the same way that sanding and priming does to the adherence of paint to a slick surface. The jolt in the foregoing example is the sentence expressing the good news about the revenue estimate.

While the adult mind is rich with knowledge and can learn, age takes a greater toll on human auditory and visual senses as well as the facility with which new information can be understood and retained. Adults need larger print, more volume, and more vivid contrast among colors, sizes and shapes. With these complications of maturity comes a greater sense of value of one's time.

Legislators are acutely aware of their control over what they hear and where they hear it. They share with all adults a need to feel in control of learning situations. Unlike children, adults will physically or mentally leave poor presentations. Casual or new observers of legislative proceedings often are surprised at the amount of inattention to committee witnesses and the floor speeches of colleagues. Unfortunately, observers mistakenly identify the cause as legislator disinterest when the real cause is the lack of good communication techniques by witnesses and others making speeches to legislators. Legislators generally have many matters competing for their time and attention. Concerns about the meeting they have in 30 minutes or the bill they are in the process of drafting or a problem that a constituent just brought to them can readily distract them from a poorly developed presentation.

The most common presentation error, and a grave one, is the "message fault." A message is the superordinate and unifying concept that binds together the content of the presentation. A presenter commits a message fault by either (1) waiting until the end of the presentation to deliver the message or (2) making a number of points without any central theme or meaning.

Speakers commit a message fault when they take the term "bottom line" literally even though, as listeners, they appreciate speakers who get to the point. The author tested this hypothesis by surveying 99 public managers who were completing the last phase of the Mississippi Certified Public Manager program in 1994 and 1995. The managers chose from scrambled-order assertions on a questionnaire about public policy and administration. Two questions related to presentations.

An overwhelming majority, 94%, agreed with the assertion I appreciate speakers who 'get to the point.' However, a majority, 73%, also agreed that Speakers should describe data and methodology before expressing findings. This apparent contradiction in preference illustrates how firmly rooted some public managers are to the "background and methodology first" approach.

While delaying the message is annoying, failing to have one at all is devastating. For example, if a legislative committee requests its staff to "suggest some options for the state to save money on long distance tolls," the committee does not need a mixed assortment of unranked good, mediocre and bad ideas. The committee wants "some options" determined by the staff to be feasible and cost effective.

Unlike a focus group exercise, a presentation is not supposed to be an exploratory process involving listeners. In addition to being early, engaging and emphatic, a properly organized message should give listeners a sense of closure. Messages could take several forms:

• an answer. No, the Governor cannot execute a treaty with a foreign nation.
• an assertion. Spending for reducing low-weight births avoids future costs in rehabilitation and special education.
• an overview of a completed product. This draft bill reduces the sales tax rate from 7% to 6.5% and eliminates the exemptions identified by the subcommittee.

If the presenter states the message clearly and up front, the listener can then concentrate on understanding the finer points of the presentation. If not, listeners will gain control by interrupting or simply leaving.

All subordinate parts of the presentation should "hang" onto the message. Each part should also be developed by making a point then explaining it. When explaining, it is helpful to understand the principles of group behavior from the Myers-Briggs1 type analysis that people receive and process information differently.

More "intuitive" legislators are looking for overall meaning from a presentation and will expect parts to be consistent with that meaning. They will be uncomfortable until there is some sense of the superordinate. The "sensing" types want to see the parts of the presentation before accepting any overall interpretation. "Thinking" type legislators will want to see the logical basis for assertions. "Feeling" types want to understand how people are affected emotionally. "Judging" types want early closure on one option. "Perceiving" types want to see many options and delay closure.

To resolve the apparent conflicts, a presentation should assuage all of these preferences. First, give the "intuitive" the message and then "sensors" the explanation and data. Arrange the subordinate parts of the presentation logically to assuage the "thinking" types then provide case examples and stakeholder viewpoints for the "feeling" types. Assure the "judging" type that the presentation will end with a good sense of closure while allowing time for the "perceiving" types to ask questions about all of the options. The components of a presentation including its content and format should bind the presenter with the listeners. Such an approach suggests that the presenter is both competent and empathetic.

Planning a presentation requires knowledge of the presentation scenario. How much time will be allowed? Will the legislators likely to be present be interested in detail? How many issues will arise external to the topic assigned? Where will the presentation take place? What audio-visual technology is appropriate? Where are the plugs and light switches? Never begin a presentation without having answers to such questions.

A complete presentation links all of the parts of the presentation with the listener. A very useful tool to provide the linkage is a poster displayed at the front of the room. The following is a hypothetical example format for such a poster:

A poster should be a free-standing fixture and not simply another slide or page in a series of material. It acts as a beacon to focus the listener's attention on the message. It also assists legislators and others who may arrive late. They may quickly determine what has already been covered and may connect to the handout or written material through the page reference. The poster also helps eliminate questions about topics yet to be covered.

The speaker's slides or flip charts are the dynamic part of the presentation and should be in the same order as the poster. The handout should include copies of any slides used and any supporting technical material. All pages of the handout should be numbered.

Finally, if the presentation is a summary of a major study, draft bill, or other long document, the slides, handout, and poster should carry page number cross-references. Cross referencing pays off if legislators ask questions.

Knowing the likely sources of legislator questions is the key to effective answers. Generally, questions stem from requests for additional detail or clarification. Often, legislators will ask presenters to confirm their understanding of facts. They also will describe a scenario or tell an anecdote and ask for a reaction given the presenter's perspective. Legislators want to know how proposals affect their districts. Most legislators are not outwardly hostile toward presenters unless the presenter is not responsive to a request. Giving a poor presentation of otherwise useful information will provoke negative reaction from legislators.

Some presenters have difficulty distinguishing between questions and commentary and start responding before a legislator finishes the point. Generally, unless directed to do so, a presenter is not obligated to respond to comments. Aside from common courtesy, presenters should allow legislators to complete their points before attempting to respond because what appears to be a question, given time, may turn into a comment.

Legislators are busy people under pressure. Successful presenters adapt by beginning with an emphatic "message" and then sustain the message through a series of subordinate points. Effective presenters anticipate and accommodate the personality types of legislators. Good presenters use a variety of written and audio-visual tools that are bridged to each other.

1 Myers-Briggs analysis is based upon the teachings of Carl Gustav Jung about personality types. (See Gifts Differing by Isabel Briggs-Myers [with Peter Myers], Consulting Psychologists Press, 1980.) An individual's Myers-Briggs type (e.g., INTP) can be determined through a questionnaire that identifies four preferences of behavior:

• Energy Preference: Extroversion versus Introversion (E or I). Extroverts prefer to draw energy from the outside world of people. Introverts prefer to draw energy internally from ideas.
• Attending Preference: Sensing versus Intuition (S or N). Sensing types prefer to attend to the five senses and pay more attention to the actual. They may not recognize that there is a whole until they examine the parts. Intuitive types prefer to speculate, predict, or use a "sixth sense" and pay attention to what might be. They prefer to address the superordinate before examining the subordinate.
• Decision Preference: Thinking versus Feeling (T or F). Thinking types prefer to decide in a logical, objective way. Feeling types prefer to decide in a value-oriented and emotional way.
• Type of Life Preference: Judgment versus Perception (J or P). Judging types prefer to live a planned and organized life. They prefer closure. Perceiving types prefer a spontaneous and flexible life. They prefer options.

For more information about ASLCS, write or call:

Joan Barilla
National Conference of State Legislatures
7700 East First Place
Denver, CO 80230
Phone: 303/856-1349
FAX: 303/364-7800
E-mail: joan.barilla@ncsl.org