In the Line of Fire: How to Handle Tough Questions... When It Counts

by Jerry Weissman

  This objective can be stated in one word, although it will take 168 pages to present them in full. That one word is control. When you are confronted with tough questions, you can control

  The question

  Your answer

  The questioner

  The audience

  The time

  Yourself

  Effective Management Perceived

  A synonym for the verb "control" is "manage." Therefore, the subliminal perception of a well-handled question is Effective Management. Of course, no one in your target audience is going to conclude that because you fielded a tough question well, you are a good manager. That is a bit of a stretch. But the converse proves the point. If your response to a challenging question is defensive, evasive, or contentious, you lose credibility…and with it the likelihood of attaining your objective in the interchange.

  If your response is prompt, assured, and to the point, you will be far more likely to emerge unscathed, if not fully victorious.

  This concept goes all the way back to the first millennium. In Beowulf, the heroic saga that is one of the foundation works of the English language, one of the lines reads: "Behavior that's admired is the path to power among people everywhere." [I.2]

  In the twenty-first century, that same concept as it relates to tough questions was expressed by David Bellet, the Chairman of Crown Advisors International, one of Wall Street's most successful long-term investment firms. Having been an early backer of many successful companies, among them Hewlett-Packard, Sony, and Intel, David is solicited to invest almost daily. In response, he often fires challenging questions at his petitioners.

  "When I ask questions," says David, "I don't really have to have the full answer because I can't know the subject as well as the presenter. What I look for is whether the presenter has thought about the question, been candid, thorough, and direct and how the presenter handles himself or herself under stress; if that person has the passion of 'fire in the belly' and can stand tall in the line of fire."

  Baptism Under Fire

  I, too, was once in the business of asking tough questions. Before becoming a presentation coach for those nearly 500 IPO road shows, as well as for thousands of other presentations ranging from raising private capital to launching products, seeking partnerships, and requisitioning budget approvals, I spent a decade as a news and public affairs producer at CBS Television in New York. As a student of the classical art of drama and with the full knowledge that conflict creates drama, I became an expert at asking challenging questions.

  My baptism under fire came early in my tenure at CBS. In 1963, I was assigned to be the Associate Producer of a documentary series called Eye on New York, whose host was the then newly hired Mike Wallace. Although Sixty Minutes, Mike's magnum opus, would not debut for another five years, he came to CBS largely on the strength of the reputation he had developed on another New York television station as an aggressive interrogator on a series called Night Beat. Mike had regularly bombarded his Night Beat guests with tough questions and was intent on maintaining his inquisitorial reputation at CBS. He fully expected his Associate Producer to provide him with live ammunition for his firepower. Heaven help me when I did not.

  Fortunately, I survived Mike's slings and arrows by learning how to devise tough questions. In the process, I also learned how to handle those same questions. This book is a compilation of those techniques, seasoned and battle-tested for nearly 20 years in business with my corporate clients.

  You will find the techniques illustrated with a host of examples from the business world, as well as from the white-hot cauldron of debate in the political world.[*] In that world…unlike business and other areas of persuasive endeavor where facts and logic are at stake…the issue is a contest of individuals pitted one against the other in mortal combat: Only the winner survives. Although the lone presenter or speaker pitted against the challenging forces of an audience is not quite as lethal as politics, the one-against-many odds raise the stakes. Therefore, analyzing the dynamics of political debate will serve as a tried and tested role model for your Q&A skills. The following pages will provide you with an arsenal of weapons you will need when you step into the line of fire.

  Expanding upon David Bellet's observation, the objective of this book is not so much to show you how to respond with the right answers as it is to show you how to establish a positive perception with your audiences by giving them the confidence that you can manage adversity, stay the course, and stay in control.

  [*] For a companion DVD of the original videos of these examples, please visit www.powerltd.com.

  Chapter 1

  The Critical Dynamics of Q&A

  To fully appreciate the importance of control in handling tough questions, we should first look at the consequences of loss of control. A vivid example of such a disastrous unraveling comes from an episode of the 1970s comedy television series, The Bob Newhart Show. The widely known series is still running in syndication. One particular episode has become a classic. In it, Newhart plays a psychologist named Robert Hartley, who amiably agrees to appear on a Chicago television program to be interviewed by Ruth Corley, the program's hostess. This is the interview:

  Ruth Corley: Good morning, Dr. Hartley. Thank you for coming. I hope it's not too early for you.

  Dr. Hartley: No, I had to get up to be on television.

  Ruth Corley: Well, I'm glad you're relaxed. I'm a little nervous myself, I mean, I've never interviewed a psychologist.

  Dr. Hartley: Don't worry about it; we're ordinary men you know, one leg at a time.

  Ruth Corley: Well, if I start to ramble a little or if I get into an area I'm not too conversant with, you'll help me out, won't you?

  Dr. Hartley: Don't worry about it. If you get into trouble, just turn it over to me and I'll wing it.

  Augie (Voice Over): 10 seconds, Ruth!

  Ruth Corley: Thanks, Augie.

  Dr. Hartley: You'll be fine.

  Ruth Corley: Here goes.

  Augie (VO): 3, 2, you're on.

  Ruth Corley: Good morning. It's 7 o'clock, and I am Ruth Corley. My first guest is psychologist, Dr. Robert Hartley. It's been said that today's psychologist is nothing more than a con man; a snake oil salesman, flim-flamming innocent people, peddling cures for everything from nail bites to a lousy love life, and I agree. We will ask Dr. Hartley to defend himself after this message.

  Dr. Hartley: Was that on the air?

  Ruth Corley: Oh, that's just what we call a grabber. You know, it keeps the audience from tuning out.

  Augie (VO): Ten seconds, Ruth.

  Ruth Corley: Thanks, Augie.

  Dr. Hartley: We won't be doing anymore grabbing will we?

  Ruth Corley: No, no. From now on we'll just talk.

  Augie (VO): 3, 2, you're on.

  Ruth Corley: Dr. Hartley, according to a recently published survey, the average fee for a private session with a psychologist is 40 dollars.

  Dr. Hartley: That's about right.

  Ruth Corley: Right? I don't think it's right! What other practitioner gets 40 dollars an hour?

  Dr. Hartley: My plumber.

  Ruth Corley: Plumbers guarantee their work, do you?

  Dr. Hartley: See, I don't understand why all of the sudden…

  Ruth Corley: I asked you if you guaranteed your work!

  Dr. Hartley: Well, I can't guarantee each and every person that walks through the door is going to be cured.

  Ruth Corley: You mean you ask 40 dollars an hour and you guarantee nothing?

  Dr. Hartley: I validate.

  Ruth Corley: Is that your answer?

  Dr Hartley: Could…can I have a word with you?

  Ruth Corley: Chicago is waiting for your answer!

  Dr. Hartley: Well, Chicago…everyone that comes in doesn't pay 40 dollars an hour.

  Ruth Corley: Do you ever cure anybody?

  Dr. Hartley: Well, I wouldn't say cure.

  Ruth Corley: So your answer is "No."
<
br />   Dr. Hartley: No, no my answer is not "No." I get results. Many of my patients solve their problems and go on to become successful.

  Ruth Corley: Successful at what?

  Dr. Hartley: Professional athletes, clergyman, some go on to head large corporations. One of my patients is an elected official.

  Ruth Corley: A WHAT?

  Dr. Hartley: Nothing, nothing.

  Ruth Corley: Did you say an elected official?

  Dr Hartley: I might have, I forget.

  Ruth Corley: Who is it?

  Dr. Hartley: Well, I can't divulge his identity.

  Ruth Corley: Why? There is a deranged man out there in a position of power!

  Dr. Hartley: He isn't deranged… Anymore.

  Ruth Corley: But he was when he came to see you, and you said yourself that you do not give guarantees.

  Dr. Hartley: Uh…

  Ruth Corley: After this message we will meet our choice for woman of the year, Sister Mary Catherine.

  Augie (VO): Okay, we're into commercial.

  Dr. Hartley: Thanks, Augie.

  Ruth Corley: Thank you, Dr Hartley. You were terrific. I mean, I wish we had more time.

  Dr. Hartley: We had plenty.

  Ruth Corley: Well, I really enjoyed it.

  Dr. Hartley: You would have enjoyed Pearl Harbor.

  Ruth Corley: Good morning, Sister. It's wonderful of you to come at this hour.

  Dr. Hartley: If I were you I wouldn't get into religion, she will chew your legs off. [1.1]

  Newhart accompanied his uncertain verbal responses to the interviewer's attacks with an array of equally edgy physical behavior: He squirmed in his seat, he stammered, he twitched, his eyes darted up and down and around and around frantically, and he crossed his arms and legs protectively. But even without these visual images, his words alone depict a man desperately trying to cover his tracks. Despite all the humor, Bob Newhart came across as defensive.

  Defensive, Evasive, or Contentious

  Different people react differently to challenging questions. While some become defensive, others become evasive. A vivid example of the latter came at the end of a string of events that were set into motion on the evening of December 5, 2002.

  Strom Thurmond, the Republican senator from South Carolina, with a long history of segregationist votes and opinions, reached his one-hundredth birthday. At a celebratory banquet on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. on that fateful Thursday, Trent Lott, the Republican senator from Mississippi and then Senate Majority Leader, stood to honor his colleague. During his remarks, Senator Lott said:

  When Strom Thurmond ran for President, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either.

  The statement created an uproar that raged like wildfire across the country. Five days later, even the pro-Republican The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial condemning the statement. In an attempt to quell the furor, Lott issued a two-sentence written apology on December 10.

  A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement.

  The statement failed to stem the continuing public outcry. A week later, in what he thought would be a bold step to make amends, Lott agreed to appear on Black Entertainment Television. He was interviewed by anchor Ed Gordon, who went right to the heart of the matter. At the very start of the program, Gordon pushed the hot button by asking the senator to explain what he meant by "all of those problems" in his original statement.

  Lott responded with a wide array of problems, none of which addressed Gordon's question.

  Gordon interrupted Lott's rambling, evasive answer to remind him that Thurmond was also a strong proponent of segregation.

  Lott tried to change the subject but Gordon pressed him as to whether he knew that Thurmond was a segregationist. Lott finally capitulated. True to his journalistic profession, Gordon immediately followed with another question seeking confirmation that Lott understood.

  Unable to evade any longer, Lott capitulated again.

  Politicians are not the only people who become evasive under fire; such behavior extends even to sports. Pedro Martinez, one of the most dominant pitchers in Major League Baseball, provides a case in point. After seven successful years with the Boston Red Sox, culminating in a dramatic World Series victory in 2004, Martinez decided to leave his team to join the New York Mets, a dismal team with a losing record. In an effort to reverse their fortunes, the Mets outbid the Red Sox with a four-year contract for the pitcher worth $54 million.

  When he arrived in New York, Martinez held a press conference filled with cynical sports reporters who bombarded him with tough questions about his decision, one of which was

  What about people who think this is all about you taking the money? That is the general perception in Boston now.

  Martinez answered,

  They are totally wrong, because I was a millionaire, I had already achieved a lot of money. I'm a wealthy man since I got to Boston. Like I said before, in the press conference today, when I got to Boston, I was making millions. Every million, every minute in the big leagues, is more than I had ever in my life. I'm a millionaire once I got to the big leagues. Money's not my issue, but respect is, and that's what Boston lacked to show by not showing interest. They're going to make it look like it was the money. Now my question would be, "Why did they have to wait until the last moment to make a move, until I had committed to another place?''[1.2]

  To answer a question about money with an answer about timing and respect is not much better than answering a question about segregation with an answer about fighting Nazism and Communism. It is equally evasive.

  After evasiveness and defensiveness, the third variation on the theme of negative responses to challenging questions is contentiousness. One of the most combative men ever to enter the political arena is H. Ross Perot, the billionaire businessman, who has a reputation for cantankerousness. In 1992, Perot ran for president as an independent candidate and, although he conducted an aggressive campaign, lost to Bill Clinton. The following year, Perot continued to act the gadfly by leading the opposition to the Clinton-backed North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Matters came to a head on the night of November 9, 1993, when Perot engaged then Vice President Al Gore in a rancorous debate on Larry King's television program.

  In the heat of battle, Perot launched into the subject of lobbying.

  You know what the problem is, folks? It's foreign lobbyists… are wreckin' this whole thing. Right here, Time Magazine just says it all, it says "In spite of Clinton's protests, the influence-peddling machine in Washington is back in high gear." The headline, Time Magazine: "A Lobbyist's Paradise."

  Gore tried to interject.

  I'd like to respond to that.

  Larry King tried to allow Gore to speak.

  All right, let him respond.

  Perot barreled ahead, his forefinger wagging at the camera…and the audience.

  We are being sold out by foreign lobbyists. We've got 33 of them working on this in the biggest lobbying effort in the history of our country to ram NAFTA down your throat.

  Gore tried to interject again.

  I'd like to respond…

  But Perot had one more salvo.

  That's the bad news. The good news is it ain't working.

  Having made his point, Perot leaned forward to the camera, smiled smugly, and turned the floor back to Gore.

  I'll turn it over to the others.

  Larry King made the hand-off.

  OK, Ross.

  Gore took his turn.

  OK, thank you. One of President Clinton's first acts in office was to put limits on the lobbyists and new ethics laws, and we're working for lobby law reform right now. But, you know, we had a little conversation about this earlier, but every dollar that's been spent for NA
FTA has been publicly disclosed. We don't know yet… tomorrow…perhaps tomorrow we'll see, but the reason why…and I say this respectfully because I served in the Congress and I don't know of any single individual who lobbied the Congress more than you did, or people in your behalf did, to get tax breaks for your companies. And it's legal.

  Perot bristled and shot back.

  You're lying! You're lying now!

  "You're lying!" is as contentious as a statement can be. True to form, Perot showed his belligerence. Gore looked incredulously at Perot.

  You didn't lobby the Ways and Means Committee for tax breaks for yourself and your companies?

  Perot stiffened.

  What do you have in mind? What are you talking about?

  Gore said matter-of-factly,

  Well, it's been written about extensively and again, there's nothing illegal about it.

  Perot sputtered, disdainfully.

  Well that's not the point! I mean, what are you talking about?

  With utter calm, Gore replied,

  Lobbying the Congress. You know a lot about it.

  Now Perot was livid. He glowered at Gore and insisted,

  I mean, spell it out, spell it out!

  Gore pressed his case.

  You didn't lobby the Ways and Means Committee? You didn't have people lobbying the Ways and Means Committee for tax breaks?

  Contemptuous, Perot stood his ground.

  What are you talking about?

  Gore tried to clarify.

  In the 1970s…

  Perot pressed back.

  Well, keep going.

  Now Gore sat up, looked Perot straight in the eye, and asked his most direct challenging question.

  Well, did you or did you did you not? I mean, it's not…