Killer

In IT, people talk about a “killer app” - a software product so wonderful that it will revolutionise the industry & make billionaires out of the people responsible for it - or at least the people who invest in it. Similarly, when making a speech, you might want to “slay” the audience or the opposition - apparently these are both good things - due to the excellence of the content or the delivery.

For most people, surviving the ordeal of public speaking, or even writing an internal memo or email, is enough. They don’t set out to conquer the world with their words. & yet, the aim of many “self-help” books is mastery - mastering your fears, your audience, your destiny, your compulsions, your inabilities. If it was so easy to help yourself achieve greatness, why hadn’t you done it yet?

How about simply being good enough? How about being able to communicate in such a way that you were satisfied that your message had been conveyed - which is as much about garnering the feedback of your audience as it is about preparation & presentation. It’s about closing the loop. It’s not about leaving the room as the sole survivor (having slain them all).

Communicating is a creative process, not a destructive one. We want to nurture the relationship we are building through conversation (written or spoken). An argument, with a winner, is not a form of communication, as such, in the more commonly-used modern form. Strangely, the original (Greek) intention was certainly to be having a conversation - even a discussion - that may convey points of differing opinion to be used to better reach a decision. I am reasonably certain that the “loser” of the discussion was not ritually disemboweled (which sounds more Roman than Greek).

The result of a well-crafted communication should bring a warm & fuzzy feeling of a job well done, not the warmth of fresh blood on the hands.