[#leadership - 02] Effective communication on a delicate subject.

I recently had the chance to see the speech of Senator Diane Savino on the Marriage Equality bill [1], that considers the possibility for gays to get married and have the same rights of hetero in case, for example, of illness or death of a partner.

Is it a delicate subject?
It definitely is, because it considers the possibility to differently consider the "traditional" concept of marriage, with several implications arising, among which religious ones.
What I want to do here is to just express my thought on her communication approach, which I consider a great example of effectiveness and leadership.

Generally, approaching the subject of unfair inequality between hetero and gay rights could expose the speaker to the risk of expressing a recrimination on a subject which has already been discussed for long. Probably it wouldn't be effective to get the highest consensus on the position in favour of gay marriage, because it would raise an easy defensive position favourable to the opposite position by the counterpart.

The approach of Senator Savino is based on pointing out the inconsistency of the current law, which easily allows hetero couples to get married not based on the quality of their relationship but just because they are a man and a woman. Probably there is no way to estimate the quality of a relationship (hetero or gay) but the flaw of the current law is that it a priori forbids gays to get married independently from the quality, the social balance of their being a couple. And this leaves room to the case for a perfect, long lasting gay couple not to have the same rights of an unbalanced, ruinous relationship between two hetero. I find that expressing this point avoiding rhetoric but, indeed, through the story of herself arguing with a guy fortuitously met while driving her way home is very effective, because detaches anyone from their theoretical positions and focus them on the point, making it clear.

I also find very effective the clearly expressed will for depoliticizing the subject (neither democrat nor republican), making it a matter of balance and fairness. Which is also an attempt to focus the audience on the point (the incongruity of the current law).

The use of Irony always works, elegant and never overstated, is useful to defocus on the seriousness of the subject, contemporarily helping the speaker to get the sympathy of the audience.

Her communication is coherent. Her verbal communication is quick and not easy (at least to me, 'cause English is not my natural language) but it's always coherent with her non-verbal. Her pace goes steady and makes a good use of pauses. Her para-verbal expresses a real commitment to the cause and is coherent, as well, with her verbal. For example, she starts saying she's nervous (not apologizing for that) for the importance of the subject she's about to talk about and starts nervously playing with her pen and teasing her ear.

In the end, I think this mix of coherence, focus and irony are what make her speech so believable and effective.

DP