Skip to main content

With business speakers, courtesy wins

Wikipedia image
Supposedly, our most common fear is public speaking.

Yet some experienced speakers, overly comfortable at the stump, blithely deliver presentations with so little regard for their audience, one wishes they’d contract this phobia and never speak publicly again.  And yet many other speakers, who are utterly paralyzed by the prospect of giving a speech in public, are the ones we ought to hear from. Sad irony.

Fortunately, most public speakers are conscientious enough to adhere to a few intuitive rules and share their knowledge, views, etc. in a responsible manner. Only simple courtesy and common sense are required. 

Back in 1992 retired U.S. Admiral, Stanford University professor and Ross Perot running mate James Stockdale began to speak at a vice presidential debate by asking, “Who am I?” “Why am I here?”  That opening was greeted with laughter and later parodied on TV and I laughed too. 

At that moment, Mr. Stockdale sounded like a slightly out of touch player before a worldwide audience.  This was unfortunate since the Admiral was a genuine American patriot, scholar and highly decorated Vietnam War veteran who also suffered years in captivity.

Although Mr. Stockdale, who died last year, was mocked for those lines, he began that debate by trying to explain exactly who he was and why he stood before us.  Totally appropriate and so simple, yet how many times do other speakers drone on without giving even the most perfunctory information about who they are, what their organization does, or what we can expect to learn from them today?

Before drafting your presentation, consider what your audience really wants or needs from you.  Then stick to it. Save the meandering town hall style for friends and family.  Start by explaining who you are, your organization’s mission and your role. Share an agenda or an outline for the presentation that tells your audience the sequence of topics you’ll cover. Mention that after your prepared remarks, you’ll take questions (if that's part of the format). Don’t leave us guessing or assume we know any of these things mentioned above. We don’t.

Of course, some famous speakers don’t require much introduction or a clearly stated agenda because those things are often obvious to their audience. But famous speakers don’t get a free pass. We come to hear them for the same reason we come to hear ordinary people like me. We want a better understanding about something the speaker knows and the speaker’s job is to transfer that understanding as effectively as possible in the time allotted.

Years ago I attended a breakfast event in Chicago where the keynote speaker was a renowned economist. People, who had paid handsomely to eat cold eggs and hear her views, packed a hall at a swanky hotel.  Midway through her presentation, she began talking about her relationship with one of her children. now, I don’t mean a short, illustrative anecdote that related to her topic. No.  I’m talking about multiple paragraphs spewed out to an audience that politely "listened".  Although I witnessed some eye rolling; I doubt anyone in the audience was inherently uncaring about family.  Rather, the problem was a speaker who forgot her purpose and indulged an impulse to stray from the expected topic for what seemed like an eternity.

Finally, if you use technology to underscore your points, please make sure it works  beforehand or don’t use it at all. If you can’t connect to a website, get that video clip to run properly, etc. don’t hope for the best knowing you can summon an attendant while your audience waits.  Think about a paper chart or sock puppets instead.

In sum, as a present to all of us subjected to public speakers from home, school, church, government, nonprofit organizations, or business - when it’s your turn to speak; please respect your audiences’ time and they’ll respect you for it.

Popular posts from this blog

Blessed with friends on the other side

Wikipedia image This post contains excerpts from an April 10 e-mail response to a dear friend of mine (edited for emphasis and anonymity).  “Dear Mortimer, I’ll say hello to the guys for you and I’ll be thinking about you this evening. As for politics, yes, we tend to gravitate toward sources that share our views.  However, I also read the New York Times Op-ed pages and watch MSNBC (as hard as those tasks are for me).  I suppose you watch Fox on occasion and I know you read the WSJ – so good for both of us.  We try.  The state-sponsored education you cite that we both benefited from, came largely from our parents' sweat equity – translated into tax dollars – that funded the University of Wisconsin system. True, my friend.  But, I'm not arguing for zero taxation, or zero government involvement in our lives.  When Progressives argue in favor of entitlement programs, they'll sometimes cite Social Security (under-...

Economics 101 for the rest of us

W arren Buffet and Carl Icahn are famous investors but fewer people may know Ray Dalio.  Mr. Dalio founded an investment firm 40 years ago called Bridgewater Associates.  With $160 billion under management, Bridgewater runs one of the largest hedge funds in the world. Bridgewater founder Ray Dalio, Bridgewater website I recently discovered (among 3 million other people) a thirty minute YouTube video that Mr. Dalio produced to explain fundamentals of what he calls  the economic machine .  This video, which he narrates has been translated into several languages and viewed over 3,200,000 times.  The content begins slowly with basic concepts but progresses to explain the primary levers that policy-makers use to manage and stimulate the economy.  You can find it here .   There are numerous lessons cleverly and clearly explained here.  Example: I hadn't appreciated why economists seem obsessed with Wage Growth until I watched this simp...

Because it's not theirs to change

Freepik image This week  there was  controversy  stemming from a publisher's decision to edit versions of children's stories written by the late  Roald Dahl .  The edits, whether inspired by Netflix (who according to Forbes purchased the rights to Dahl's work) or the publisher  Puffin Books , sparked a public outcry and PR nightmare. The publisher curated an alternative version to the original work from Dahl's  Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,  (a story later adapted to make the film,  Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory ), ostensibly to remove insensitive terms. There are several reasons why this ill-conceived, if well-intentioned attempt at inclusiveness --  a term becoming increasingly elastic -- failed miserably.  I'm not discussing the evils of censorship today.  Altering original art work to appeal to others is ill advised for another reason.....it's not theirs to change (and doing so can backfire).   One ...