High-Stakes Communication Strategies For Leaders

The September 10th presidential debate offered valuable lessons for all leaders on how to deliver key messages in high-stakes situations.

Savvy leaders are aware that their audiences are emotionally influenced by two sets of positive communication signals: The first conveys warmth (signs of likability, empathy, inclusion) and the second projects power (showing confidence, credibility, authority). These are all attributes of that elusive quality called “leadership presence,” as are displays of calmness, authenticity, and focus.

In high-stakes situations, however, negative signals that can have even more of an impact than the positive. These include arrogance, avoidance, rudeness, aggression, insincerity, nervousness, and timidity.

As Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump faced off in their first presidential debate, I was joined by a team of talented communication professionals to evaluate the verbal and nonverbal strategies of the candidates and to find the lessons that could be helpful to all leaders.

These experts included:

Steve Crescenzo, CEO at Crescenzo Communications, a customized communication coaching and content creation company that he and his wife Cindy run from their Chicago headquarters.

Patrick A. Stewart, Ph.D. , professor of Political Science at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville and author of “The Audience Decides: Applause, Cheering. Laughter, and Booing during the Trump Era.”

Brad Whitworth, senior communication and marketing executive from Northern California, with 40 years of experience in Fortune 20 high-tech, financial services and association management.

From the debate, here are five high-stakes communication lessons we learned that could be helpful for any leader:

Lesson #1 – There’s power in a first impression.

Carol Kinsey Goman: From the beginning, Kamala Harris displayed signs of leadership presence when she started the evening by walking over to Donald Trump, introducing herself, and shaking his hand. This is a positive signal of status because, almost always, the more senior person initiates the handshake. Then, as she first stood behind the podium, she displayed a full smile, which is one of the warmest nonverbal signals a leader can give.

Patrick Stewart: More importantly, Trump has made much of how he looks more intimidating due to the size differential between them – and evolutionary leadership research suggests this matters subconsciously. Harris’ willingness to walk directly to Trump – to the point of having to make a detour to get to him – showed both Trump, and the viewers at home, that she was not intimidated by his size. In addition to meeting Trump on his “turf” behind his podium, Harris interacted with Trump through one of the behaviors he has traditionally used to assert dominance – his handshake. That Trump did not pull her into him or use his typical dominance repertoire, suggests he was unprepared and caught off guard.

Brad Whitworth: Avoidance was Trump’s MO from the get-go. He did a slight feint near his podium to skip the ritual pre-debate handshake with Harris who, in turn, had to track him down.

Steve Crescenzo: I thought the debate was over before it began. Kamala Harris strode across the stage with confidence and swagger, while Donald Trump did his best to hide behind his podium.

Lesson #2 – Eye contact matters.

Goman: In talking about the importance of nonverbal cues, I advise leaders to understand the negative messages they sent when they avoid making eye contact. Didn’t it seem odd to you that Trump rarely – if at all – looked at Harris when she spoke or when he referred to her?

Whitworth: One of the characteristics of a good leader is to be an active listener. Active listening starts by looking at someone who is speaking. That’s something that Harris did consistently throughout the evening and her opponent did on very rare occasions.

Crescenzo: Most of the time, while Harris was speaking, Trump was staring morosely into space.

Stewart: It got to the point of Trump pointing his finger across his body while looking forward as he verbally attacked Harris to his left. While ignoring the opposition in this manner might be perceived as diminishing the threat posed, it may also be seen as either a direct insult – or worse – signify the weakness of the attacker by their not being willing to personally confront their adversary.

Lesson #3 – It’s not about the leader, it’s about the audience.

Goman: When people ask if I give myself a pep talk before going on stage for a presentation, I tell them that I simply remind myself, “It’s not about me, it’s all about you.” I advise the leaders I coach to do the same.

Stewart: Throughout the debate, Harris made a concerted effort to connect with the audience at home. With her first speaking turn, she made an effort to identify with the middle class, working people, families, and small business owners, and returned to this point before concluding with her desire to represent all “American people.” Nonverbally, Harris took advantage of looking directly into the camera to address those Americans watching the debate on a regular basis.

By contrast, Trump spent his time looking either at the moderators or at the near distance. In other words, he did not look directly into the camera to address the American public. For someone as media savvy as Donald Trump, this nonverbal behavior was shockingly off-brand – and may reflect the reality of a diminished candidate fast-approaching his eighth decade of life.

Lesson #4 – Nonverbal signals often speak louder than words.

Goman: If you are a large man, like Trump, you have an advantage, as we tend to equate power with taking up room in height and space. By being taller and broader, you “look like a leader.” If you are a petite female, like Harris, you can create a similar impression by holding your body erect and keeping it in alignment, broadening your gestures, and squaring off to the camera (or audience) when you speak.

Harris’ posture was straight and aligned while Trump’s posture tended to be hunched and leaning slightly forward towards the microphone. And in his closing remarks, he tilted his shoulders as if weighted down on one side.

Whitworth: It was clearly a match of two radically different styles, each trying to connect with two markedly divergent audiences. Harris was calm, focused and unshaken. Trump was angry, defensive and aggressive. Trump’s left hand was glued to the podium during night. His right hand went into overdrive with a barrage of palm-down, attacking gestures that didn’t stop. By contrast, Harris’ two-handed, palms-up, and welcoming felt more natural and organic.

While not as noticeable as Richard Nixon’s sweaty upper lip in the very first televised US presidential debate 64 years ago, Trump had tiny beads of sweat just above his upper lip. And as he listened to Harris’ two-minute talks, his lips were markedly pursed. Pursed lips are a classic sign of anger, particularly suppressed anger.

Crescenzo: While Trump negative expressions ranged from grumpy to dour to contemptuous, I am torn on the impact of Harris’ facial expressions as she watched her opponent. She walked a fine line between visually dismissing what Trump said because it was ridiculous and coming across as arrogant. For example, when he called her a “Marxist,” which is laughable . . . she laughed! Perfect. Priceless, really. But when he was making a factual point, those same expressions came across as dismissive.

Lesson #5 – Confidence is an advantage . . . most of the time.

Goman: Displaying confidence is important in projecting leadership presence because audiences often correlate confidence with credibility. (You look confident; therefore, you must know what you’re talking about.) But leaders should be cautious about when they display confidence.

Stewart: Trump responded most confidently, vehemently (and disjointedly) to claims by Harris that “people start leaving his rallies early out of exhaustion and boredom” by defending the size of his rallies, attacking the size and veracity of Harris’ campaign events before suggesting World War 3 would occur and that immigrants were eating household pets in Springfield, Missouri.

Closing thoughts.

Because impactful communication strategies play a key role in your success as a leader, I want to end with a conversation I had a few days ago about how coercive, expert, and reference power inform a leader’s presentation style.

Maurice Schweitzer is the Cecilia Yen Koo Professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and the past president of the International Association for Conflict Management.

Several days before the debate, I asked Schweitzer to describe the characteristics that define Donald Trump and Kamala Harris’ presentation styles.

“Donald Trump routinely relies on coercive power, the power to force other people into compliance. Coercive power is particularly useful in a battle or an intense competition. When Trump says, ‘you’re fired,’ threatens to use tariffs or the military, or to lock someone up, he is using coercive power. He typically describes people and things in simple terms: ‘very good’ or ‘very bad.’

In practice, Trump is good at simplifying complex ideas. For example, building a wall represents a simple solution to immigration. Trump, however, is also easily distracted, long-winded, and unconstrained by facts. His fans are eager to hear his narratives, but his narratives are not very effective in persuading people with different opinions.

Kamala Harris routinely relies on expert power, power derived from knowledge and skill, and reference power, power derived from admiration and likability. When Harris smiles, laughs, or jokes, she is likeable. When Harris tells a narrative about her experience fighting banks on behalf of homeowners, she is invoking expert power. The opposite of Trump, Harris has shut-down audience chants of ‘lock him up,’ minimizing any cues of coercive power.

In practice, Harris is disciplined and uses both logical arguments and emotion. She speaks less, can use silence and non-verbal cues effectively, and is good at handling interruptions. She is good at weaving stories into her arguments, a technique she likely honed as a prosecutor.”

Schweitzer’s observations are in line with what we saw play out at the presidential debate – and with what you as a leader should take into account as you develop or refine your own communication strategies.