I just spent a few days with\u00a0several scientists\u00a0from the pharmaceutical\u00a0industry.\u00a0 Their company wanted\u00a0them to\u00a0be more persuasive when presenting<\/a><\/strong> their research to business decision makers.<\/p>\n

To prepare for the assignment, I conducted a series of interviews to determine what they thought they needed, and what the decision makers thought they needed.\u00a0 The two groups\u00a0had very different points of view, and they were both right.<\/p>\n

The scientists said their top concerns were voice, getting to the point, and capturing attention<\/a><\/strong>.\u00a0 The bosses on the decision-making panel said that the scientific presenters<\/strong> <\/a>tended to think that\u00a0their data was<\/em> the presentation.\u00a0 The bosses wanted the data interpreted.\u00a0 They wanted to know what the researchers thought<\/em> about the data, and what the company should do given the results.<\/p>\n

I think\u00a0they were both right.\u00a0\u00a0They were just coming at it from different perspectives.\u00a0 The scientists were nervous, spoke very softly, and had an attitude about speaking persuasively<\/a><\/strong>–that it was smarmy and unprofessional.<\/p>\n

The bosses were tired of being dragged through endless PowerPoint\u00a0slides<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0of data when all they really wanted to know was, “Should we continue to invest in this research project or not?\u00a0 And why?”<\/p>\n

I’m happy to report that progress was made on all fronts.<\/p>\n