Hillary “Connected” When It Was Too Late by Steve Adubato, Ph.D. MSNBC Media Analyst

So much of executive leadership, in any arena, involves connecting with key stakeholders and audiences on a human, personal level. Politicians, journalists, and CEOs must be able to engage people under difficult circumstances.  It’s the same as communication under pressure. Most often this is not done with pure logic, rational arguments, and data dumps but rather by touching people in their heart at least as much as in their head. (This is something that Tim Russert understood better than most.)

All this is especially true when having to communicate a difficult message. Consider the case of Hillary Clinton, who a few weeks ago recently ended her presidential campaign in a speech that will be remembered by many as her best and most passionate.

Yet, consider that this was Clinton’s concession speech, not a victory speech. There was nothing happy about it. Further, consider that others in the political arena who have come up short also wound up giving powerful speeches that were considered among their best communication efforts. It happened with Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry only four years ago.

The point is here is that people in the public eye must sometimes communicate under trying circumstances to multiple audiences looking to be consoled as well as inspired. When this communication is done via the media, it presents another set of challenges because additional audiences are exposed, not just to your words, but to your body language, facial expressions and overall presence.

According to a recent article in Time Magazine; "On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton often got wonky..." Yet, wonky, be it for a presidential candidate, a news anchor, or a CEO is not what most people are looking for.  Especially via television, where most people want to feel as if they know you— connect with you.  Too often, Hillary Clinton came across on TV as cold, stiff and contrived.  Analytical, statistical and rational communication is relevant, but doesn’t inspire or move most audiences. It doesn’t translate well in the media.

As a candidate, Hillary Clinton would often go through a long list of problems and issues in excruciating detail.  This is not great theatre. But when she was bowing out of the race, there were no lists, only a deeply personal, yet highly focused message that resonated on many levels.  Many in the media—  including the most cynical towards Hillary— acknowledged how good she was in that speech. 

In her concession speech, Clinton talked in a candid and personal fashion about being a woman running for president and the struggles that most women face in male-dominated arenas, including business. Many were moved by her message.  It was real.  It was genuine.  It made her vulnerable and likeable, yet still strong.  No focus group testing of messages need.  No polls required. This wasn't a speech Hillary Clinton needed to read verbatim, because clearly it was coming from her heart. Genuine self disclosure and sincerity moves people.

But why is it that so often politicians are either unable or unwilling to show this human side of themselves until the game is over?  They communicate in a stiff, linear and highly predictable fashion. They go through the motions.  They recite one- liners that are often predictable. But once they have decided to concede, the defenses come down and they address the people and the media by communicating in a much more human and personal fashion that gets the inevitable reaction; "If she had only been more like this from the beginning, things may have turned out differently."