Eloquence

I was watching the Republican primary debate the other night and witnessed varying degrees of eloquence exhibited. (An online dictionary defines eloquence as “the practice of art of using language with fluency and aptness”.) Marco Rubio was quite eloquent while The Donald was not. Ted Cruz, a former debate team champion, was somewhere in the middle. Listening to all the words pouring forth made me reflect back on thoughts I had regarding the ability to communicate and the value of that skill. Granted there is great value in being able to effectively transfer thoughts from one’s mind into someone else’s. In some enterprises there is the added challenge of convincing the listeners that your thoughts have truth attached to them and convert the listener to your way of thinking. There is an old saying that a great salesman can “sell ice to an Eskimo” and debate teams are not judged on the gist of their argument but rather on their ability to argue a point. So here is my dilemma. Let’s say I am an administrator heading an organization where I rely on others for the in depth understanding of key technologies. Within the staff I have engineers and scientists who are great communicators and others who, though they may be brilliant, lack these skills. My contention is that unless the best minds also have the most eloquent tongues, the organization is suboptimal. If I don’t really have an in-depth understanding of the technology (which is often the case in organization headed by marketing or financial people), when presented with options based on two contradictory opinions, the person who argues their point better will most often win their case though the less eloquent person may have a stronger point, it will be pushed to the sideline. The success of the organization is then limited to the technical skills of the most eloquent members of the staff. During a break in the debate I mentioned my argument on eloquence to a niece. She did not agree and added that what I was describing is a shortcoming of a weak organization. I think she is correct but then the question becomes; how do we change the organization to overcome this weakness? A couple of solutions come to mind. 1. If the business is heavily dependent on some technology, ensure that the head of the organization is an expert in the technology. 2. Have a high ranking technical expert on the staff to evaluate all such debates, select the best case and make recommendations to the head. 3. Create teams comprised of both strong technologists and eloquent individuals who will then be counted on to present the team’s case. Surely the solution is not to only hire eloquent experts and not hire experts who cannot adequately argue their case. Getting back to the presidential debates where we observed a range of verbal skills. Unfortunately, for a position as important as President, we have to go with the most undesirable solution above. The person has to have the intellect to understand the complexities of issues they will face and have the skill to not only articulate them, but to convince others of the merits of their interpretation. Yes, we have to listen for the poetry in their words but we must also scrutinize the wisdom of their meaning. In the end it will be our skill in choosing our leaders, judging both style and substance, that will determine the degree to which we as a nation will succeed or fail.