Speaking With Conviction

Two airplane pilots are waiting to land their plane at an airport:

Copilot: Look how the ice is just hanging on his, ah, back, back there, see that?

There is no response from the Captain. He tries again.

Copilot: See all those icicles on the back there and everything?

Captain: Yeah...

Copilot: Boy, this is a, this is a losing battle here on trying to de-ice these things....

A minute or two passes and then he speaks again.

Copilot: Let's check these tops again since we've been here awhile.

Captain: I think we get to go here in a minute.

But they didn't go in a minute. The ice was too thick and the plane crashed.

In this true-life situation, cited in a McGraw-Hill Communication text book, both pilots were trained and competent, however an urgent problem was ignored because the copilot watered down his message to his superior. This is an extreme example of a persistent problem in our culture.

When we speak, we beat around the bush; we add doubt to our words with statements such as ‘I guess’ and ‘maybe’; and we fill our listener’s ears with “ums”, ‘likes” and “uhs”. We hesitate and don’t commit to what we say, and we ask our listeners to do the same. We don’t speak with conviction.

I cited above the extreme example of the copilot in the introduction, but the everyday harms of speaking without conviction surround us.

The listener has to make more effort listening to make up for a wishy-washy speaker. The listener needs to decide whether the message is important. And sometimes, the listener needs to figure out what the speaker is trying to communicate. If the listener doesn’t put more effort into receiving the communication, the message will be lost.

If the speaker does not speak with conviction, they hurt themselves and their message. Speaking with doubt will leave their ideas open to be challenged or dismissed. If every phrase is pithy and passionate, the speaker will be listened to and respected.

There is a question in Journalism; to what extent can you edit the quotes of your interviewees? Oftentimes, you have to edit regardless. If you were to write down exactly what an interviewee said, even the most learned, cultured person sounds like this: "well, uh, we've taken steps in that area, and, and well for example, we have a, have made a committee to oversee that step in the project. Does that make sense?"

A good journalist will edit the clip down to: "We have taken steps in that area; for example, we have made a committee to oversee that step in the project." Now the gentleman sounds like he deserves to wear his suit to work. By why couldn’t he speak like that in the first place?

The way the culture speaks today hinders. Speak with conviction. Rise above the noise.