I have for some time now been taking advanced French lessons once a week to try and move from a reasonable capability to fluency. This means discussing a variety of topics such as politics, economics and history, in French, for some 50 minutes - which is interesting if challenging! One thing my teacher talked about in French which I had not heard articulated before was the distinction between “how” and “why” personalities. This seems to me now I come to think about it an important differentiator, an appreciation of which can help in our professional working lives. Here is how AI characterises this behavioural distinction, of which as with many of these traits we can all display a mixture of both.
​
“Why” Personalities
• These are motivated by purpose. They’re driven by meaning, beliefs, or values.
• Their actions stem from internal motivations—why they do something matters more than how it’s done.
• They often ask big-picture questions like: “What’s the reason behind this?” or “Why are we doing this in the first place?”
• Traits might include: idealistic, introspective, principled, visionary.
“How” Personalities
• These are process-oriented. They focus on execution, method, and structure.
• They might not need a grand reason; what matters is doing things well and efficiently.
• They often ask: “How can we make this work?” or “How do we get from A to B?”
• Traits might include: practical, detail-oriented, methodical, reliable.
This could be described as mechanisms (how) and motivations (why). I know there are lots of ways personality can be characterised or described such as the “Big Five Personability traits”  which are “a group of five characteristics used to study personality:
 

• openness to experience, intellect, or imagination (imaginative/philosophical vs. uncreative/unintellectual)
• conscientiousness (efficient/organized vs. haphazard/careless)
• extraversion or surgency (bold/energetic vs. shy/bashful)
• agreeableness (sympathetic/cooperative vs. cold/competitive)
• neuroticism or low emotional stability (moody/nervous vs. relaxed/calm).

 
And in our professional working context this article 15 Characteristics of Professionals suggests that the following “are the qualities a person exemplifies in a business environment”:
 

• Reliable
• Ethical behaviour
• Accountable
• Positive
• Focused
• Respectful

 
These are all valid characterisations, but unlike the how and why distinction they don’t necessarily give you an insight into the potential behaviour of a fellow professional in, for example, a complex IT contract negotiation. When such discussions are running into difficulty for some reason, will the participants in seeking a solution exhibit “why” behaviour and look at the bigger picture and the benefits of the deal to both organisations, or simply focus on the “how” can we get this contract over the line with whatever language or compromises that may take. Both can be commendable traits, but focusing too much on one or the other can I suggest be dangerous and not in the interest of either party. Ignoring the bigger picture completely and being stuck completely in the details is not a good approach. Equally forgetting you need to find an acceptable way to capture any agreed high-level resolution and reduce it to writing in the contract and its related processes is also not a great idea.
 
I have this nagging feeling that as a lawyer (and maybe this is true of other professionals) we sometimes tend to focus on the “how” – the mechanics and the elegance of drafting solutions - rather than asking “why” and looking for the best way forward in the first place. See this Forbes article Understanding 'The Five Whys': How To Successfully Integrate This Tool Into Your Business which says “"The 5 Whys" were initially developed in the 1930s by Sakichi Toyada, founder of Toyota industries, in order to understand the reasoning behind developing new product features or manufacturing processes. The tool is now used within other manufacturing philosophies and processes like Kaizen, lean manufacturing and Six Sigma.”  It states that “The method is extremely simple: whatever the statement, challenge or problem, you can identify the correct outcome or identify the underlying cause by asking "why?" five times. This helps the user understand the root of the issue and identify a counter-measure.” So in my stalled negotiation example the questions could include:
 

• Why have we reached an impasse?

 

• Why are the parties not prepared to discuss solutions?

 

• Why are the negotiating teams not able to find a way forward?

 
This “why” technique helps to focus on the bigger picture and find a solution. Sometimes even a change of scenery and personnel can help. One such negotiation I was involved with in a hotel in Park Lane London had indeed come to a grinding halt. Two senior executives from the parties joined the stalled negotiating teams in an effort to find a resolution. After an hour of continuing deadlock they left the meeting room (and its rather heated atmosphere) and indeed the hotel and went for a long walk round Hyde Park (without their technical supporting teams). They discussed why the two teams were stuck, assessed the impact failure would have on both parties, and considered various solutions which eventually resulted in a broad agreement on a possible way forward. However, it then took an immense effort by all the “how” colleagues involved to translate this agreed management solution into a working hypothesis that eventually became a deliverable contract.
 
I suspect on balance that using some combination of a questioning approach and a solution oriented one therefore works best. This demonstrates that you need to include both “why” and “how” people in a team and should recognise the different benefits they can bring. It reminds me of The Nine Belbin Team Roles, the well-known approach to recognising different team roles." Simply putting together a number of people and expecting them to work as a team is not enough." Dr Meredith Belbin’s research at Henley Business School “showed that the most successful teams were made up of a diverse mix of behaviours. To build high-performing teams, we need to represent each of the nine Belbin Team Role behaviours at the appropriate times.” These roles are:
 

• The Social Roles - Resource Investigator, Teamworker, Co-ordinator

 

• The Thinking Roles - Plant, Monitor Evaluator, Specialist 

 

• The Task Roles - Shaper, Implementer, Completer Finisher

 
As I relooked at these roles it struck me how the “thinking roles” tend to fall into the “why” and the “task roles” into the “how” categorisation. So, for example:
 
Plant - Tends to be highly creative and good at solving problems in unconventional ways.
 
versus
 
Completer Finisher - Most effectively used at the end of tasks to polish and scrutinise the work for errors, subjecting it to the highest standards of quality control.
 
It seems to me in conclusion that both “comment” and “pourquoi” personalities (and a combination of both) have key roles in professional life. As the business consultant and writer Stephen R Covey observed “Strength lies in differences, not in similarities.”

​I once presented a session on outsourcing contracts at an ITechLaw conference in Scandinavia. The panel of speakers were on a raised stage with a lectern in front of an audience of some 300 technology lawyers seated in rows of tables. I must have had the after lunch “graveyard” slot because after a few minutes I could see from the elevated podium that, whatever I said, a significant portion of the audience were working on their laptops, looking at their phones or otherwise not really focusing on the session. By chance I had a roving mike, so after some hesitation I moved away from the lectern, climbed down off the stage and continued my talk, whilst walking straight up one of the aisles to the back of the room. The effect was electric! The audience suddenly woke up and started paying attention. Heads jerked up from whatever reverie they were in, and delegates guiltily closed their laptops and started listening. Aristotle was called the peripatetic philosopher, though it seems the legend that the name came from Aristotle's alleged habit of walking while lecturing may have started with Hermippus of Smyrna. Anyway, from then on I realised how powerful a technique walking amongst your audience can be. It is really hard to ignore a speaker or what they are saying when he or she is, or shortly may be, standing right next to you.
 
I have come to realise from this and other experience that in addition to great subject matter and knowledge, any speaker or trainer must find ways to engage with and to some extent entertain their audience, or their words of wisdom and great technical content will fall on stony ground. I know this sounds obvious, but how many times have you seen an online or in person speaker put up a PowerPoint slide with some 50 bullet points on it – apologise to the audience because the slide is a bit busy, then turning to the presentation (and away from the audience) proceed to read out all the items on the slide! And you don’t have to jump off the stage. This Harvard Business Review article What to Do When You’re Losing Your Audience During a Presentation suggests moving to a different part of the stage may help. Anyway, coming out from behind the “protection” of the lectern helps and establishes a much more direct contact with the audience. See this short blog Lecterns are for Losers – Public Speaking Tips which suggests “This is not just about lecterns – it is about removing distance and barriers and distractions and getting close to your audience. Talking TO people is old fashioned and ineffective – talking with people is natural and human and real and normal.” It cites a TEDMED coach who says “TED talks are nearly always ‘walk-and-talk’ rather than lectern-based.”
 
And talking about PowerPoint as well as keeping slides simple I was always envious of those fancy and eye-catching slides some presenters seemed to be able to create at will. I assumed they were experts on PowerPoint, but I discovered fairly recently this may not necessarily be the case. Let me reveal what seems to be a bit of a well-kept secret. On the top right of the PowerPoint menu is a button called “Designer”. Click on this and a number of really neat and effective design options appear on the right of the screen for each slide. See this Microsoft Support article Create professional slide layouts with Designer. AI can also help generate content and images for you which (probably) don’t have any copyright issues. I use this sometimes for my blog pictures.
 
This principle of being impactful works for all manner of training not just conference speaking. For a number of years I organised some 20 professional training events every year for my function mostly online but some person to person, or a mixture of both (which works really well). There are ways to reach out to and engage with your audience whether in the room or on a Teams call, including effective (and simple) slides. For online participants surveys and quizzes sometimes work, but they can be a bit “clunky” and disrupt the flow of the talk. Having a panel of speakers and an adjudicator who asks pertinent questions really helps. The other simple and sometimes overlooked method is to encourage questions and comments on Chat – and then find time to review and respond to these regularly throughout the session and not just at the end when you are running out of time.
 
AI proposes that “To deliver effective professional training presentations, focus on clear objectives, engaging visuals, concise messaging, and interactive elements, while tailoring the presentation to your audience and incorporating storytelling techniques.”   See this article Designing Learning and Development Presentations for Employees (+ 20 Topic Ideas) whose useful suggestions including the concept of creating a “storyboard” which “can act as a map of your training that will enable you to present the training material in an engaging way. This is where you can arrange the various elements of your training in a visual manner to give your learners a better idea of what they can expect from the training”. 
 
And virtual training has its own unique challenges. Unlike my conference example you cannot see what your audience is doing and whether they are engaged. They may be making coffee or doing other work, having signed up for the training just to say they have done it – or perhaps to have a warm feeling that they have tried, but not actually learnt anything. See this Forbes article Unleashing Engagement: 4 Ways To Reimagine Stale Presentations
which observes “In remote and hybrid environments, virtual meetings and presentations fill our calendars, but few are efficient or productive. According to a 2022 study from meeting analytics startup Read AI, 40% of virtual meeting participants have below-average or poor engagement, and 24% don’t say a single word.” The article advocates:
 

• Less Talking, More Listening - Presenters can stimulate spontaneous conversation and ensure that every attendee feels included by focusing on asking questions and listening for understanding.
• Foster Channels For Interaction - Building avenues for engagement into your presentation is often the best way to facilitate discussion.
• Pass The Microphone To The Audience - To truly upgrade the audience’s experience, encourage attendees to lead the discussion, foster the conversation and connect. [See using Chat function above].

 
And by the way all of this applies as much if not more so to technical subjects like English contract law and cases. I have also come to the conclusion that if you have a really critical session which is important to your professional practice, try to get your audience into a room for a face-to-face session. I facilitated two key in person sessions on contract management over the last few months and these worked really well especially because we as presenters could see the engagement of the audience and interact with them.
 
Whatever the medium, try “walking amongst your audience” whether metaphorically online or in the room!
 
 "People will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel." The American memoirist and poet Maya Angelou.
 
"A mind that is stretched by a new experience can never go back to its old dimensions." The US Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.
 
“In making a speech one must study three points: first, the means of producing persuasion; second, the language; third the proper arrangement of the various parts of the speech”. Aristotle.