You have said it to yourself a hundred times. In the shower, in traffic, half asleep at midnight when the idea will not let you rest. You know the business, the pitch, the proposal, almost word for word. You know where you would pause for effect. You know which line you would deliver slowly. You have imagined the other person nodding at the part you are proudest of. And yet it has never once left your mouth in front of the person who could actually say yes to it.
You probably have a reason ready for that. You are waiting until the numbers are cleaner. Waiting until you have a prototype, a logo, a deck that does not embarrass you. Waiting until you sound like someone who has done this before. Waiting is a respectable sounding word, and sometimes it is accurate. Often it is just the name we give to the absence of a first attempt.
This is one of the most common gaps between ambition and action, and it has almost nothing to do with the quality of the idea.
Rehearsal is not the same as risk
An idea rehearsed silently costs you nothing. It cannot be rejected, misunderstood or picked apart, because it has never been exposed to another person's response. That safety is exactly why it is so easy to keep an idea there indefinitely. The version in your head stays perfect because it has never had to survive contact with reality.
There is this research on why the private version feels so complete. Leonid Rozenblit and Frank Keil, both then at Yale, asked people to rate how well they understood ordinary things such as a zipper, a flush toilet or a bicycle brake. Ratings were high. Then they asked those same people to write out a detailed, step by step explanation of how the thing actually works. Almost everyone stumbled, and when asked to rate their understanding again, they scored themselves lower than before. They called this the illusion of explanatory depth, and they published it in Cognitive Science in 2002. The finding is not that people are stupid about zippers. It is that the feeling of understanding something and the ability to explain it to another person are two different capacities, and we routinely mistake the first for the second.
Your pitch lives in the first category until you say it. In your head it has coherence, momentum and an obvious conclusion. Out loud, to a person who has never thought about it before, it has to earn all three.
The version in your head has an unfair advantage
There is a companion problem. Once you know something well, you lose the ability to imagine not knowing it.
The clearest demonstration of this is a study by Elizabeth Newton, conducted for her 1990 psychology doctorate at Stanford. She split participants into tappers and listeners. Tappers picked a well known song, something like "Happy Birthday to You," and tapped out its rhythm on a table. Listeners had to name the tune. Before the guessing began, tappers were asked how often they expected listeners to get it right. On average they predicted about half the time. In reality, listeners correctly identified 3 songs out of 120, a success rate of 2.5 percent.
The tappers were not being arrogant. While they tapped, they could hear the song playing in their own heads, full and obvious. The listeners heard a series of knocks. Economists Colin Camerer, George Loewenstein and Martin Weber had already given this problem a name in a 1989 paper in the Journal of Political Economy: the curse of knowledge.
You have been hearing your own idea as a full arrangement for months. The person across the table hears the taps. This is not a reason to add more detail. It is a reason to find out, early and cheaply, which parts of your pitch are music to you and noise to everyone else.
Why the private version keeps expanding instead of shrinking
The longer an idea stays unspoken, the more elaborate it tends to get. You add more detail, more contingencies, more polish, because each addition feels like progress. In practice it often has the opposite effect. The pitch becomes harder to say out loud the more complicated it becomes, because now there is more of it that could go wrong in the room.
Every hour spent refining in private is an hour that produces no information. You learn nothing about which sentence confuses people, which claim they doubt, which part they lean forward for. You only learn that the idea still sounds good to the person who already believes it.
It is worth being precise about what listeners are actually assessing, because the answer is usually not thoroughness. Xiao-Ping Chen, Xin Yao and Suresh Kotha studied venture capitalists evaluating business plan presentations, using both a laboratory experiment and a field study of a real business plan competition. Their finding, published in the Academy of Management Journal in 2009, was that perceived preparedness predicted funding decisions while perceived passion did not. Preparedness in their sense means having genuinely thought through the business, which shows up in the room as the ability to answer plainly rather than as the volume of material you brought with you.
Kimberly Elsbach and Roderick Kramer found something related in their study of Hollywood pitch meetings, also published in the Academy of Management Journal, in 2003. Studio executives and producers were forming judgments about unknown screenwriters partly through the interaction itself, categorising the pitcher within the encounter rather than evaluating the script in isolation. How the exchange goes is part of what gets judged. That is not something you can rehearse alone, because alone there is no exchange.
What the person hearing it actually needs
The person hearing your idea for the first time does not need your entire internal history with it. They do not need the four versions you abandoned or the objection you already solved at 2am. They need the version that answers three questions:
-
What is this?
-
Why does it matter to you specifically?
-
What do you want from me right now?
If you cannot answer those three in about ninety seconds, the problem is almost never that the idea is too complex. It is that it has never been compressed by anyone other than you.
A smaller first version
You do not have to say the whole thing to the person who matters most. Say a smaller version of it, first, to someone with lower stakes, maybe a friend, a colleague you trust. Even a stranger at an event who asks what you are working on. The goal of that first telling is not to convince anyone of anything. It is simply to hear your own idea land in the air, outside your head, for the first time.
Do it without slides. Slides let you hide behind a sequence. Speaking without them forces you to find out whether the idea holds its own shape.
Notice what you stumble on. Usually it is not the core idea. It is one specific sentence you have never actually had to say before, the part where you have to name the ask plainly: I want funding, I want your time, I want you to introduce me to someone. That sentence is almost always the hardest one, and it is almost always the one worth practising most.
The ask is harder to say than it is to hear
There is good evidence that we badly misjudge what happens when we ask for things.
Francis Flynn and Vanessa Lake, now Vanessa Bohns, ran a series of studies published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2008. Across experimental and real world settings, people underestimated by as much as 50 percent how likely others were to agree to a direct request for help. In one field study at Columbia University, participants had to approach strangers and ask them to walk them to the campus gym. They predicted they would need to ask around seven people before one agreed. On average, it took between two and three.
The researchers traced the gap to a difference in perspective. The person asking is focused on the cost of saying yes, the time and effort involved. The person being asked is also weighing something the asker tends to forget entirely, which is how awkward it feels to say no to someone's face. In a follow up paper in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology in 2010, Bohns and Flynn found that people also overestimate how uncomfortable asking will be.
None of this guarantees a yes. It does mean that the version of the conversation you have been dreading is, on average, harsher than the one that will actually happen.
Say it again, a little shorter each time
By the third or fourth telling, most people find the pitch has become clearer and more direct than the version they spent months polishing alone. Clarity, it turns out, is mostly a byproduct of repetition in front of another person, not more thinking in private. Each telling gives you something private rehearsal cannot: a response, a raised eyebrow, a question you did not anticipate, a moment where you watched someone's attention drift.
Nerves do not disappear with repetition, and they do not need to. Alison Wood Brooks, at Harvard Business School, tested what people should do with pre-performance anxiety across studies involving public speaking, karaoke and maths tasks. Her paper in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General in 2014 found that most people believe calming down is the right strategy, but that participants who reframed the same physical arousal as excitement, sometimes by simply saying "I am excited" out loud, performed better than those who tried to calm themselves. Anxiety and excitement feel similar in the body. Trying to switch the body off before you speak is harder than relabelling what it is already doing.
One caveat you need to do
There is a version of talking about your idea that substitutes for doing anything about it.
Peter Gollwitzer and colleagues published four experiments in Psychological Science in 2009 showing that when people's identity related intentions were noticed by others, they subsequently acted on those intentions less, not more. The effect was strongest among people most committed to the identity in question. Announcing that you intend to become a lawyer, or a founder, or a writer, can deliver some of the psychological reward of already being one.
The distinction is between announcing an identity and testing a proposal. Telling a room that you are working on something big and enjoying how that sounds is the first thing. Saying the specific pitch, naming the specific ask, and then sitting still while someone responds to it is the second. One gives you a feeling. The other gives you information, and occasionally a yes.
The point
The idea you have not said out loud yet is not unfinished because it is not good enough. It is unfinished because it has never had to be understood by anyone but you.
We can help you sharpen your brand story to enable you expand into other African countries, just fill the inquiry form here.
or send a mail to tori@riascolony.org
Sources
-
Rozenblit, L., & Keil, F. (2002). The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive Science, 26(5), 521 to 562. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2605_1
-
Newton, E. L. (1990). Overconfidence in the communication of intent: Heard and unheard melodies. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University. Widely summarized in Chip Heath and Dan Heath, Made to Stick (2007).
-
Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., & Weber, M. (1989). The curse of knowledge in economic settings: An experimental analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 97(5).
-
Chen, X.-P., Yao, X., & Kotha, S. (2009). Entrepreneur passion and preparedness in business plan presentations: A persuasion analysis of venture capitalists' funding decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 199 to 214. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.36462018
-
Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (2003). Assessing creativity in Hollywood pitch meetings: Evidence for a dual-process model of creativity judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 46(3), 283 to 301. https://doi.org/10.5465/30040623
-
Flynn, F. J., & Lake (Bohns), V. K. B. (2008). If you need help, just ask: Underestimating compliance with direct requests for help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 128 to 143. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.128
-
Bohns, V. K., & Flynn, F. J. (2010). Why didn't you just ask? Underestimating the discomfort of help-seeking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 402 to 409.
-
Brooks, A. W. (2014). Get excited: Reappraising pre-performance anxiety as excitement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 1144 to 1158. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035325
-
Gollwitzer, P. M., Sheeran, P., Michalski, V., & Seifert, A. E. (2009). When intentions go public: Does social reality widen the intention-behavior gap? Psychological Science, 20(5), 612 to 618. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02336.x