Archives For Speak

How to Rehearse a Team PresentationOne way to make sure that your team makes a coherent and winning presentation is to rehearse them using what is sometimes called a wall walk.

Team presentations are tricky things, with advantages and disadvantages.

In the plus column, team presentations can draw on the expertise of different individuals, each person speaking about what he or she knows best.

In the minus column, team presentations can be disjointed.

To make the best use of a rehearsal, of course, you need to pull your presentation together — to develop your overall strategy, your message, and your PowerPoint slides.

Check out How To Plan a Technical Presentation.

Once you’ve created, edited, and revised your team presentation, you’re ready to go.

To Rehearse a Team Presentation

Continue Reading…

DNA of a SpeechA great speech isn’t about you.

A great speech is about your audience and how your idea or information can help them.

But who you are–your outlook, beliefs, values, interests, temperament–determines every thought, every image, every word, every tone and nuance of the speech you give.

And that’s how it should be.

A great speech is not and never should be impersonal, detached, objective.

A great speech is highly personal, it takes a stand, and it is as true as you can make it.

If anyone else could say exactly what you have to say about a particular subject, you’re doing something wrong.

Photo courtesy of Caroline Davis at flickr.com.

Give Better SpeechesThe best way to become a better speaker–to learn how to give better public speeches and presentations–is to make more mistakes.

It’s counterintuitive, I know.

You would think that reducing or eliminating mistakes would make you a better speaker. But you’d be wrong…for three reasons.

Reason #1: The Willingness to Make Mistakes Allows You to Practice, to Learn, to Improve.

Continue Reading…

Leaders Speak too OftenA speech is one of the most powerful ways for leaders to advance their organization’s success.

Leaders give a lot of speeches, presentations, informal talks, and interviews. Sometimes they speak too often and, as a result, dilute their message.

The speeches that leaders give should align with their three primary responsibilities:

1)      To Advance the Mission, Vision, and Values of their Organization

Leaders help their organization formulate, promote, and achieve their mission (what we do/hope to accomplish), vision (where we are headed), and values (the principles and ethical standards that inform what we do).

2)      To Promote the Vitality of their Organization

Leaders tend to the internal workings of their organization to promote its ongoing health. They know that focusing exclusively on getting the work done can, ultimately, lead to the organizations’ dissolution.

3)      To Contribute to the Welfare of the Community/World at Large

Organizations thrive in the long run not only by doing well (achieving their goals), but also by doing good (benefiting their members, their customers/clients, and society/the environment).

Here’s the question leaders should ask when given the opportunity to speak:

Will this speech to this audience, at this time, in this venue promote my organization’s mission/vision/values, its vitality, and/or the community/world we live in?

Effective leaders know when to give a speech and, just as importantly, when not to give one.  

Making the Best of Q&A

When handled well, Q&A–questions and answers–becomes the most important element of a presentation.

A presentation is not an information dump. It’s not the opportunity for presenters to say everything they know about the topic at hand. It’s not a one-way transfer of knowledge.

That’s not how adults learn. Adults want to be involved in what they’re learning.

A presentation is like a focused conversation. They build on what the audience already knows. And they keep adding to it.

And presenters–effective ones, at least–give their audiences time to absorb and think about what they’ve said.

Q&A allow the audience to engage with the presenter and the content of the presentation. The more the engagement, the better the presentation.

Here’s how to make the most of Q&A

Continue Reading…

Tell the truth in a speechIt’s hard for me to write about public speaking in the age of Donald Trump, as if speeches matter.

I believe that the two most important elements of a speech are 1) the speaker’s goodwill and integrity, and 2) a message that is supported by evidence and reasoning, that is wise and beneficial to the audience.

And yet Trump’s rhetoric—lacking in both of these elements—has proven successful.

It seems revolutionary these days to suggest that leaders, in preparing and delivering a speech, should be concerned about—passionately committed to—speaking the truth.

Because the truth is rarely plain and never simple, speaking the truth requires thoughtfulness and discrimination.

Speaking the Truth in a Speech

First, examine the evidence.

Continue Reading…

speak to sell your bookIf you’ve published a book, you already know the sad truth: it’s entirely up to you to promote it.

Whether you’ve published your book yourself or had a mainstream publishing company put it out, you—and you alone—are responsible for marketing and promoting it.

There are ways to make people aware of your book, to make them want it, refer it to others, and buy it. Here are a few of the most effective strategies:

  • Create a website for your book
  • Write a blog and post material from you book on it
  • Be a guest columnist on other people’s blogs
  • Participate in online communities
  • Use social networking tools—Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc.
  • Send out an email newsletter
  • Create and share podcasts and videos
  • Get articles (with a byline that mentions your book) published in print or online
  • Host webinars and teleseminars
  • Give speeches and presentations

The best strategy is, of course, to use as many different strategies as possible.

I’m a big fan of giving speeches to promote a book.

Continue Reading…

persuasionWe can’t reason people out of beliefs, opinions, judgments, prejudices, and behaviors that they didn’t reason themselves into.

We can’t change people’s ways of thinking and acting simply by giving them new information and leading them step by step through a logical process of analysis and understanding.

We can’t, in short, persuade people to change by logic and reasoning.

There are two main reasons for this.

First, we form our basic beliefs and behavior patterns as children, when our ability to reason is underdeveloped, if not entirely lacking. For the most part we adopt, without thinking, the beliefs and behaviors of those around us.

When we question our beliefs and behaviors later in life—if we question them at all—we’re still inclined to give them credence. Reinforced by habit, they “feel” right, natural, proper.

And second, we aren’t rational beings. At least, rationality isn’t our primary way of understanding and relating to the world.

The process of reasoning—gathering and assessing information, questioning assumptions, forming opinions, analyzing them and revising them when necessary—doesn’t come naturally to us. It’s a skill we have to learn.

Reasoning takes time and effort. And in a world that comes at us like a Mack truck, at a thousand miles an hour, with horns blaring, demanding an immediate response, we tend not to reflect but to react.

We don’t say, “Whoa, hold your horses. Give me some time to think this through.” We don’t, in short, reason our way through each new situation. We fall back on our tried and true ways of understanding the world and of coping with its incessant and clamorous demands.

I’m not arguing in favor of abandoning reason and logic.

I am proposing that if persuasion is our goal—if we want to change how people think and feel and act—we have to develop strategies and techniques that build on something more than reason and logic.

The question, of course, is how? Any suggestions?

persuasionThe US presidential campaign dragged on seemingly forever. And it was–even by political standards–ugly, dirty, and mean spirited. I’m glad it’s over.

I wish I could draw some positive lessons about public speaking and persuasion from either of the candidate’s speeches, but I can’t. I was largely uninspired by Clinton’s speeches. I was appalled by Trump’s rhetoric.

What concerns me most–as a citizen and, more specifically, as a speechwriter–is how frequently and effortlessly misinformation, distortions, and flat-out lies were asserted, only to be refuted (by those pesky little fact checkers) and then repeated.

It’s no surprise that the Oxford English Dictionary selected post-truth as the international word of the year for 2016.

Post-truth: relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.

“Appeals to emotion and personal belief” have always played a key role in persuasive public speaking. Over 2,500 years ago Aristotle identified three proofs of a persuasive speech:

  1. Ethos: The character and knowledge of the speaker
  2. Pathos: Appeals to the audience’s emotions, interests, and imagination
  3. Logos: The clarity of the message’s logic and the evidence put forth to support it

In this recent election pathos was the clear winner. Ethos and logos were almost nowhere to be found.

In future posts I’ll examine why pathos was so dominant. I’ll draw some lessons about the use of pathos in public speaking and persuasion. And I’ll point out why in non-political arenas pathos, divorced from ethos and logos, is not only ineffective, but calamitous.

What makes a speech bad?A bad speech can be bad in two ways.

It all depends on how you define bad.

Bad can mean of inferior quality, or defective, failing to measure up to standards, unpleasing, or unable to perform as required.

Think of a bad wine, or a bad movie, or a bad performance.

A bad speech, using this definition of bad, is ineffective. It fails to accomplish its objective.

A speech can be bad for any number of reasons:

  • It lacks unity and cohesion.
  • It fails to address the needs and concerns of the audience.
  • It is confusing, illogical, or boring.
  • It relies on poorly designed visual aids or fails to use them when appropriate.
  • It is poorly staged and delivered.

Bad can also mean morally deficient, repugnant, evil, wrong.

We often shy away from using bad in this sense, afraid of sounding judgmental or ceding the term to preachers and pundits who see evil everywhere they look.

But I think that some ideas—many ideas—are bad and deserve to be labelled as such.

If an idea can be bad—immoral, reprehensible, worthy of censure—a speech that advocates it is, by extension, bad.

I hate to go there, but Hitler is the best example of what I mean.

His speeches were good in the sense that they achieved their objective. And they were bad—demonstratively and monstrously evil—because the ideas they advocated so effectively were bad.

To judge a speech in this sense—to weight its moral worth—requires us to clarify our values and the way we determine right and wrong.

When I think of a bad speech, in this sense, I think of one that distorts the truth, plays on an audience’s prejudices, focuses their attention on trivialities, justifies injustice, and targets the weak and vulnerable.

What do you think makes a bad speech bad?

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...