Episode 35: Language - The Key to Communicating Your Solution

The language used to communicate your message is very important. Over my two decades of coaching, I have often advised team members to use everyday language and avoid jargon. I remember one particular team member who insisted on using complex words and industry jargon. It wasn't until I collaborated with a few guest judges that we convinced her to adopt more everyday language. The feedback we received indicated that we understood her much better when she presented the same solution using simpler terms compared to the jargon she had previously employed. I give her considerable credit for her willingness to embrace our experiment and work hard to make this change. Interestingly, when her sister joined several of my teams a few years later, she came in using everyday language, influenced by her sister's experience.

The Engineering Commerce Case Competition, hosted by Concordia University, also highlighted this point effectively. After our first attempt in 2014, the feedback indicated that the judging panel included both technical and non-technical members, and it was essential for everyone to understand the solutions being presented. This insight led to a significant change in how I guided my teams in subsequent competitions, which ultimately resulted in considerable success, making it to the finals in 7 out of the 8 competitions that followed. Our focus became clear: to ensure our solutions were comprehensible to all panel members, while also being prepared to address technical questions in a way that everyone could understand.

Say What You Mean

I recently read a post by Oliver Aust that highlighted seven cheat codes for communicating complex ideas. Among these, the one that resonated with me the most was the BBQ Rule: say what you mean and leave the jargon and slides at home. This is a message I have been trying to convey to my teams over the years.

Many of the business and engineering students who have been part of my teams tend to use jargon they pick up in the classroom, believing that this language will impress judges. I always tell them they’re mistaken. It is far more impressive to communicate with non-technical judges in simple and concise everyday language so they can understand the complex solutions being presented.

Additionally, it’s not about the slides you bring; they should merely serve as support for your message. The audience is there to listen to you, not to read the slides. The slides should enhance your presentation or help judges catch up if they miss some points while taking notes.

To do this, the plan I tried to coach involved 3 steps:

Keep it Simple

The first step is to keep the message and language simple. This means eliminating jargon, using everyday conversational language, and sounding natural. A few years ago, at a competition at Georgetown University, there was a presentation by a consultant for the participants. I usually dread these presentations, as they often don't add value for highly trained case-solving athletes. However, this one was different; it was engaging and valuable.

The consultant emphasised how competitors could use their experiences as audience members to enhance their presentations. He encouraged them to consider what they, as audience members or judges, would like to hear and what language they would expect. His insights had a significant impact on my team. In the lead-up to the competition, they sometimes struggled to keep things simple. However, when it came time to present in both the preliminaries and finals, they did just that. They kept their message clear, allowing the two distinct judging panels to grasp the solutions they were communicating.

Even during the question-and-answer sessions, they addressed technical questions using straightforward language that conveyed clarity to the judges.

Make it Actionable

One of the biggest oversights in most case-solving competitions is that teams often forget to include the details of an actionable plan in their solutions. Even when a potentially implementable plan is presented, it is often communicated in a way that lacks clarity and decisiveness. In this context, I refer to the language used to present the plan; it frequently lacks confidence and is not framed in actionable terms.

We often discuss "four-letter words," and I have compiled a list of "sin words" that should be avoided when presenting actionable solutions. At the top of that list is the word "hopefully."

There are several other words on this list, but the one that annoys me most is "hopefully" because it conveys a lack of confidence in the proposed actions' success. I always remind my teams that the client is not paying for "hope"; they are paying for results.

This brings me to another concern: many teachers approach case-solving in the classroom, and some coaches at competitions, as if they are merely academic exercises. In reality, these competitions offer an extraordinary opportunity for role-playing and preparing students for the real world.

It's essential to ensure that both students and judges truly understand their roles and the positions they have chosen or been assigned. Taking this positioning seriously enables students to experiment with their language and ultimately prepares them to use clear and actionable language when they enter the workforce.

Results in Engagement

The impact of language, combined with emotional connections and added value, ultimately leads to audience engagement and understanding. Understanding cannot be achieved without first engaging the audience. Additionally, I advocate for conducting case-solving sessions or competitions in a role-playing environment to highlight and develop these skills.

Last fall, I judged a business ethics case competition and observed several exceptional presentations, particularly during the final round. It was interesting to note that, in the final judging decisions, the judges were divided into two camps. One camp favoured the team that presented a stronger ethical solution, while the other camp supported the team that effectively adhered to the assigned role and communicated their solution well to the designated audience. I found myself in the second camp, agreeing that while the other team had a better ethical solution, the team I supported excelled in language and engagement. This was our position because the team engaged us effectively in our assigned roles during the role play. I also believe this team benefited more from their coach's guidance in developing these vital skills. By the way, the second camp of judges was in the majority.