Five Mistakes To Avoid During a Technical Presentation

... focusing solely on content is not sufficient to keep the audience engaged. You can distinguish yourself from the majority of other speakers by avoiding the same common mistakes.

You can read the rest on CIOUpdate.com:
Five Mistakes To Avoid During a Technical Presentation

How Not To Read a Speech

This morning, I attended the funeral of a friend's mother and I had the opportunity to see two speeches, one from a professional and one from a non-professional. The amateur got it right.

The professional (the priest) read his sermon, as well as many other parts of the ceremony. In fact, at times I had the impression that he was on automatic pilot, and was just going through the motions. He made the following mistakes:

• He rarely looked up. He was very focused on his sheet, reading almost every word and rarely connected with the audience.
• No vocal intonation. I go to Catholic churches and for the most part, the priests are boring. They all sound the same, display no energy, and no passion. Come on! This is supposed to be your calling in life. This is supposed to be the one thing that makes you happy. At least make it sound that way!
• He read the script to the letter. At least two or three times, the priest said "he" instead of "she" when speaking of the deceased. I found that highly disrespectful, while also being very impersonal. It gives the impression that he couldn't be bothered to do anything special for this person, that she was just one of many others that pass through his church.

The non-professional read a speech that was written by the daughter of the deceased. This is what she did:

• She took notes before reading it. I saw her reviewing the text and scribbling something on the sheet. She didn't just get up and read it, at least she was familiar with the text before standing in front of the audience.
• She spoke slowly, paused, and put some life in her voice. She acted as though she was delivering the message for her friend instead of just reading words on a sheet.
  
• She connected and it showed. She took the time to look up between sentences and establishing eye contact with the people in the first row. When I looked around the church, I could see that that crowd reacted much more during her three minute speech than they did for the entire duration of the priest's performance.

I abhor speeches that are read, but sometimes you have no choice but to read a speech. There is a right way, and a wrong way to do it. In this case, don't act like a professional!

Using web conference software to present

One of my clients uses web conferencing software to present their solutions to potential clients. Some of the things I have noted in their presentations that can help your next webinar or conference:

• Have many slides that change often. Sameness is your enemy. If people get bored, they will quickly go to their iPhones or their Blackberrys.
  
• If you can, use two computers when you present: one as the host, the other to monitor what the audience is seeing. Sometimes there is a lag between what you see and what the audience sees. It's useful to know what your audience is seeing.
• Practice, practice, practice, to feel at ease with the technology. Nothing feels as amateurish as someone bumbling around, trying to figure out the technology during the delivery.
• If you are trying to convince someone at the other end, get them emotionally involved and if it is a small group, get them to say something out loud. Limit the number of time you incite them to say no (for example, "Do you have a question?")
  

Do you speak like Oscar LOSERS?

Every year I watch the Academy Awards to hear the acceptance speeches. And what amazes (and saddens me) every year, is how often the winners act like losers. Many of the winners are people who act for a living, or have been actors in past lives. Furthermore, many of them won earlier this year in other award ceremonies. You can NOT tell me that it hasn't given them the adequate preparation time to give a decent speech.

Now, I have never won a big award like this, so I can imagine that the adrenaline level is extremely high and it probably affects the delivery in unforeseen manners. Still, there are some things that just make some winners seem like LOSERS:

• Lists and more lists: Some people come on the stage and all they do is read a list of names, without giving much more importance to one or another, adding no personal commentary. This, to me, is similar to someone delivering a presentation and reading the PowerPoint slides during the entire speech. I understand the importance of thanking as many people as possible. However, there needs to be something more than a list of credits. Just a tad of a personal touch.
• Outpouring of nothing: this is supposed to be a joyous occasion. Some award recipients look like they have been condemned to eternal suffering. No smile, no excitement, nothing. I see many people do that when they stand in front of an audience. An otherwise entertaining and outgoing woman becomes an utter bore. A strong, confident man becomes a meek weakling. All because they may be trying too hard to control their emotions. Yes, you need to keep some emotions in check, but you need not thwart them completely.
  
• Surprise, surprise: this year, I didn't hear anyone say: "I wasn't expecting this," nor did I hear "I don't know what to say." So kudos for that. Unless something is absolutely, completely unexpected (one chance out of five is not completely unexpected), there is no reason for these types of comments. You don't apologize for being unprepared.
  
• Errring and Uhmming your way though: one "uhm," "ahh," or "err" doesn't kill a speech. But 20 in 45  seconds? Puh-leez! Ok, so maybe I'm exaggerating a bit, yet some bad speeches are made considerably worse by the constant hesitation of the winner. It is a habit that is quite annoying, and even Barack Obama suffers from it (just watch any interview where his speech is unprepared). Getting rid of those annoyances will greatly enhance any speech.
  
• Respecting time: there are rules and some people feel their moment in the limelight is more important. I say, if they give you 45 seconds, aim for 35 seconds. It helps you focus your message and, for the audience at home, it makes the show more watchable. Is 45 seconds insufficient for such an important moment? Fine, give them 60, but whatever the amount of time available, award recipients need to respect it. If the people want more time to speak, then they will need to give out fewer awards on air. Always respect the time given for your speech.
  
• Saying thank you: this is one thing that everyone does. They show appreciation for the recognition they receive. My belief is that most speeches should end on the words "Thank you" or something to that effect. Of course, sometimes you don't want to end on "Thank you" because it does not fit the final bang you are looking to deliver. However, I disagree with the school of thought that says "You never thank the audience. They should thank you for sharing your wisdom." Hardly. The audience took time out of their lives to listen. Saying thank you is just good form. In no way does it diminish you, or your speech.

You may never be in a situation where thousands of eyes are fixed upon you while millions are watching on television. Yet, you may need to give a speech in front of colleagues, or toast the bride at a wedding, or maybe you will receive an "outstanding service to the company" award. If that ever happens, will you pull it off, or will you end up like a LOSERS?

Obama: a speech for the times, maybe someday for the ages

As I watched the inauguration ceremony for Barack Obama, I was in awe of the entire operation. It felt more like a rock concert than an inauguration. The crowd of thousands chanting “Obama! Obama!” waiting to see its hero. Anticipation was palpable. All around the world, people watching, eagerly waiting to hear the first words of the 44^th president of the United States of America.

Anyone expecting a rah-rah-rah speech must have been sorely disappointed. This was a down-to-earth, accountability- and responsibility-filled speech. Barack Obama pulled no punches and delivered a rousing, but difficult speech. He did not shy away from the fact that times are difficult and the American people have a lot of work to do, in order to get out of the current mess.

Rating his performance, I would give it a 9.5 on content and 8.5 on delivery.

Delivery

Obama's delivery was nearly flawless. There were a couple of hesitations, but nothing major. Martin Luther King stumbled slightly also in his “I Have A Dream” speech.

Obama spoke in a deep, soothing voice. He did not move much, he did not rush the speech, he was poised. His tone was conversational. He was at ease and he put his listeners at ease.

His delivery, sing-song at times, reminded me of Martin Luther King as he spoke to a throng of supporters on the Washington DC steps.

So why 8.5, for such a great speaker? Maybe because my expectations were so high. However, there were two elements from his delivery that perturbed me. One was purely mechanical, the other was emotional.

Mechanically: I HATE that teleprompter! He looks like a Bobble Head when he's constantly switching from the left to the right. Furthermore, he does it multiple times in the same sentence. It is hugely annoying. I never recommend that people write out their speech and read it during delivery, but at times I wondered if that wouldn't have been better for him.

He never looked at the camera nor did he look at the crowd. The only time he tried to make contact with his audience was when he thanked George Bush for his service to the nation. At that moment, he briefly turned away from his text but returned to it immediately after.

I am not sure why Obama so heavily relies on his text to deliver his speeches. Is it because he cannot remember it all? Is it a crutch he uses? Or is it the equivalent of PowerPoint in business presentations: a necessary tool that everyone feels the need to use?

He needs to ditch the teleprompter completely, or find a better way to use it because it affects his effectiveness.

Emotionally, I was constantly expecting the Big Explosion. Something outstanding, a defining moment in the speech. There were a few, somehow, they didn't stand out from the rest of the speech. Obama did not put more emphasis on one part of the speech, than another. All of it seemed to be of equal importance. Yet, in most great speeches, there is an emotional nugget that is carried on for generations:

• We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

• Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

• I do not know that woman... oops, no, that's a different speech!

While there are many good moments in the speech (as we will see in the content), he did not use any of the tools that make a speech memorable: alliteration, repetition, the rule of three, just to name a few. That made the speech less appealing emotionally: it's the Moment that really defined the speech.

Content

What was so good about the content? At what is considered a defining moment in America, Obama's words were timeless and deeply rooted in the nation's history. He named no names, he named no nations. His words could be spoken again, almost verbatim, at another time, and they would still have the same power. Words such as:

• “In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. ”

• “Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.”

• “To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.”

• “Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.”

When analyzing the words, you can see that the speech was inspired by some of the greatest American speakers. One line stuck out for me, one that could have been uttered by John F Kennedy: “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.”

His speech contained beautiful imagery: “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

That image is also an excellent example of the inclusive language used by Obama. He has promised to bring people back together, and his words are tailored to that effect:

“To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.”

Obama shows that he definitely understands American history, that he knows where the nation needs to be headed, and that he will get it there albeit with the help of friends and “former foes” alike. He shows that he expects hard work, sacrifice, ambition and creativity from everyone, including himself.

His speech needed to get that message across clearly and simply.

It delivered.

Obama's speech: lessons for all speakers

Many preparation and delivery lessons can be gleaned from studying Obama's inaugural speech. Here are just a few:

• It's OK to be nervous. When Obama first appeared on screen, you could tell from his pursed lips that this wasn't a walk in the park for him. As others before him spoke, he clenched his jaw and often closed his eyes. These are typical behaviours of someone who is a bit nervous before speaking. It took him a while to shake those jitters but they seemed to have disappeared by the time he delivered his speech.
  
• Writing is important. You cannot come up with phrases like “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” You can't. This has to be written, rehearsed, and re-written. If you are aiming to deliver a powerful speech, think of writing it out.
• You can make mistakes. On a couple of occasions, Obama had a slight hesitation in the speech. Notice that he did not apologize, he did not become flustered, he did not lose his composure. He just kept on going. His biggest blunder, though, occurred before the speech when he messed up the words during his swearing in (to his defence, the chief judge messed up first). What did he do? He smiled and kept on going. He will be picked on a bit by the comedians, but that's it.
• Converse with the audience. There was not a lot of fanfare during his delivery. He did not jump up and down to make a point. He remained poised and calm throughout, as if speaking to more than one million people in his backyard. That helped make it more effective.
• Don't lie. Obama pulled no punches. To summarize his speech: times are hard, we made errors in the past and everyone is paying for it today. Everyone has some responsibility for the current mess and everyone is going to work together to fix it. This was not your typical rosy, rar-rah-rah, "You can do it!" speech. It was somber and set the tone for what's to come. It won't be fun, but it's got to be done. A great speech will set the tone for the changes to come, but if you lie to the audience it will come back to bite you.

Obama's speech may have longer-lasting impacts on oratory style, but that's for another discussion.

How to connect emotionally with an audience, in a few seconds, using PowerPoint (or Keynote, or OpenOffice Impress)

When you look at the following video, focus on your feelings; don't focus on the speaker. What emotions do you get from this presentation? And more importantly, why?

David Hoffman on losing everything | Video on TED.com

PowerPoint slides tips for presenters

At the Toastmasters District 61 conference this weekend, I presented a workshop entitled "Breathe New Life Into Your PowerPoint Slides." The goal of the workshop was to explain to the attendees how to avoid "Death By PowerPoint" simply by changing a few things about the way they created their slides.

I presented a lot of the concepts that Garr Reynolds discusses in his Presentation Zen blog. My PowerPoint slides have been greatly influenced by the information on his site. Judging from the reaction I received, I believe that many of the attendees will change their views about the function and the design of their slides as a result of attending this workshop.

A few of the elements I focused on:

• Death by PowerPoint is never the fault of PowerPoint it's always the presenter's fault. Sorry.
• Slides are there to aid the presentation, they are not the presentation. When building a PowerPoint "presentation" the slides are only part of the picture (no pun intended). The most important part of the presentation consists of the information you provide and the way you deliver it.
• The slides are primarily for the benefit of the audience, not the speaker. Yet most of the time, they are built with the speaker in mind.

One thing I learned: you cannot over-check your technology. Before the start of the workshop, I checked everything inside and out, making sure it all worked. I did this because I don't begin by showing the title slide on the screen as people walk in. At the start of my presentation, the screen is blank because the first slide is designed to elicit laughter. Well, it did, but not the way I expected it.

For some reason, when I put up the very first slide, nothing was displayed on the screen. My first joke fell flat, and I had to fiddle with my computer to get it going again. It took about 10 seconds, but it was long enough for someone in the audience to say "It kills me when that happens." I'm not sure if the comment was directed at me, or if she was sharing her past experience...

I got things back on track quickly, although the image was only projected on the screen: my laptop's display was blank, which forced me to turn my head constantly to make sure the audience was looking at the right slide during the speech. Not as seamless as I wanted it to be, but it worked out very well in the end.

It's all about proper preparation, putting the audience first, and not depending on the tool to deliver your message.

District 61 Fall conference

As I am writing this, I am lying in bed, my lovely wife asleep by my side, in the lovely Manoir St-Sauveur, at the end of the second evening of the Toastmasters District 61 2008 Fall Conference. I've been to a few conferences and I can safely say that this has been one of the best experiences (if not the best) I've had at Toastmasters.

A few months ago, my friend LouLou called me and told me: "I'm organizing the district conference and I want you to be the master of ceremonies for the banquet. Would you do that?" LouLou is a big fan of mine. When I listen to her talk about me, sometimes I feel like I could walk on water.

I thought about it a bit. I hadn't been to a conference in a long time. Most of the time, when I attended, I did so as a competitor in one of the speech contests. Once, I had chaired a contest. But a banquet? I almost said no, but I decided to accept. She was thrilled! And I told her, "Well, since I'll be there anyway, put me down for a workshop." And so today, I had double duty as workshop leader and as banquet MC.

My workshop went very well, but I'll discuss it in a separate post.

MC'ing the evening's proceedings was even better. Honestly, I wasn't sure about the banquet. I wasn't sure my style of irreverence would go over well. And since I hadn't MC'd a formal banquet before, I wasn't sure how it would come off.

Well, if the standing ovation was any indication, it looks like I did a pretty good job. After the banquet, I received many compliments from people telling me how much they enjoyed themselves.

To me that's what it was all about: giving a bit back to the community and organization that helped me launch my speaking and training career. I'm not sure I took the time to thank them in my closing remarks, because I was too busy trying to get a few jokes in before the curtain went down. If I had to do it over again, I would focus my closing remarks more on expressing the gratitude I felt, rather than trying to be clever.

I've MC'd other events before, and looking back on my past successes, these are some of the things that stand out:

• Although, as MC, I am the most visible person, I am not the star. The MC's role should be to let the guests shine, by not keeping the spotlight on him/her at all times. Billy Crystal was a great MC, because he took the spotlight only when needed but kept it on the actors, producers, directors most of the time. Other Oscar hosts were not as gracious.
• The MC must be adaptable. Although you have a script, I have found that things rarely go as planned. This weekend, I had to adapt the ceremony to the meal service and other unexpected events that occurred. If I had decided that we absolutely, positively had to stick to the script, it would have been a disaster. One phrase will stick with me for a long time, I'm sure: remember the member. You don't want to know.
  
• Making it personal will make it more memorable. Whenever I can, I try to make things somewhat personal. Last year at a wedding, I asked married members of the audience to share a story that would entertain us, but also would be helpful to the newlyweds as they began their life together. This weekend, the theme was "The Oscars" so I asked all the people I introduced about their favourite movie. In the process, we all learned a few great things about some of the leaders of District 61. It made them shine even more, and I was happy to contribute.
• Use humour and be yourself: a few years ago, I attended a CAPS conference where the MC was side-splittingly (is that a word?) hilarious. The reason was simple: he was irreverent, he had no idea who were the sacred cows among the speakers, and he acted accordingly. His wit was quick, and anyone who tried to have the last word with him paid the price. He was invited to host the following year also. Boring galas, banquets, and other ceremonies are often caused by hosts who are afraid (or don't know how) to be funny.

Next weekend, I am slated to host a charity evening. I will see if the same rules can apply. It will be a first, once again.

This was a great weekend, I saw some old friends I had not seen in a long time, and it was great to be in such a festive and positive atmosphere.

I thank LouLou for asking me to host the banquet. It was an honour, and a privilege to serve the District. Hopefully, it contributed to making LouLou's conference a great success!

McCain vs Obama

Tonight was the second of three U.S. presidential debates, in a town hall format. So basically, they are responding to questions, either from the Internet, or from people present at the session. I'm not sure what the rules are, but it seems like they had as much time as they wanted to answer the original question but were allowed only one minute to "discuss" the question.

The moderator was Tom Brokaw, the NBC News anchor, who also acted as timekeeper.

The Good

Obama showed confidence. Once he started talking on issues that he felt comfortable with, he stuttered less and was more assertive in his statements. At one point, Obama even said “During my first term,” signalling that he fully expects to win and to be re-elected.

McCain tried, not always successfully, to inject a little humour in the debate. Yes, this is a serious situation but a little humour is often welcome.

Both candidates got up, got close to the people asking questions and looked them in the eyes when answering. They didn't just sit in their seats and force people to strain their necks to view them as they answered. There were a couple of instances, though, where I found that McCain walked in too closely to the crowd. Yet, after looking closely, it looks like it was a trick of the camera. At the beginning, McCain spent too much time speaking to the person who asked the question and not enough time addressing the audience as a whole. As the debate progressed, he improved that aspect.

Both were gracious enough at the beginning, acknowledging that each had done some good things, and even agreeing on a few issues. As time went by, though, the cordiality slowly went by the wayside.

Obama seemed more at ease than McCain. His movements were more fluid and he was better able to connect with the audience. In fact, I saw more nodding of the heads and smiles in the background when Obama spoke than when McCain spoke, a testament to Obama's greater effectiveness. McCain did not seem as comfortable. Of course, part of it is due to the injuries he suffered in Vietnam. However, it's questionable whether people will look past that when they look at him.

The last question of the evening was an opportunity for both candidates to show a little vulnerability. McCain took it and admitted he didn't know the future. OK, a bit banal, but still he admitted to it. Obama didn't. Yes, he said that his wife Michelle has a list of things he doesn't know, but Obama himself did not admit it. That only adds to his image of being arrogant and over-confident.

The Bad

Not enough stories. A lot of the themes tonight were very emotional for many American people. Yet both candidates failed to deliver compelling stories to illustrate those issues. Obama came close when replying to the "Obama Doctrine" question. In his answer, he posed questions directly to the American people, asking them to give a moral answer. But most of the examples were reduced to attacking the opposing party.

Obama stuttered at crucial times in his answers. They gave the impression that he was either lying, making it up on the spot, or he wasn't convinced about what he was saying.

McCain used the term “my friend” and “my friends” too often. It can be endearing, but as with any colloquialism, when overused it loses its effectiveness and becomes annoying.

McCain, at one point, forgot to use his microphone while answering. Normally, that would only be funny. However, that can be seen as a “brain fart” which is not a good thing for him.

When asked whether medical coverage is a right, a privilege, or a responsibility, McCain said responsibility. I am sure many people who have trouble paying medical bills felt insulted or stunned by that answer. That could play against him during this campaign. Especially since Obama stated it was a right.

The Ugly

Where was the timer? If you have ever been to a Toastmasters meeting, you know that one of the important functions in a meeting is the timekeeper. The timekeeper is the one that reigns in the people who think that their time is more valuable than other people's time. He or she uses (surprise, surprise!) red, yellow, green lights to tell people when to stop talking. And they are punished when they go overtime.

During the discussion period, Obama and McCain paid no mind to the time, and received a small warning from Brokaw. In effect, they were allowed to ignore the rules as they pleased.

McCain was dismissive and disrespectful twice in the debate: when he called Obama “that one” and when he assumed that one person had never heard about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That's a slight on McCain, and one that is not very presidential.

Final word

Overall, it was an interesting debate, as much in its form as in the content. I would have preferred more interaction between the candidates and a bit more dialogue so they could challenge each other more effectively.

The debate itself was closely fought. Obama wins it though, because he came off as more polished, more confident, and he better connected with his audience.

Delivering a motivational speech, political style

Have you seen Sarah Palin's speech at the Republican convention? This was a great speech, whether you agree with the GOP's political agenda or not.

Why was it so great?

• She was engaging: she smiled during the entire speech. Her smile seemed genuine and like it or not , a genuine smile is always more appealing than a sourpuss face. Too many political candidates forget to smile when they speak to their constituency. You can learn how to do so, but it always comes off better if you don't have to fake it. Palin seemed to thoroughly enjoy her moment in the sun, and it showed. If you want people to enjoy your speech, you need to enjoy delivering it also.
  
• She made it personal: most of her stories were personal. This is a hallmark of this year's political campaign: all candidates and their running mates focus on personal stories whether it be Palin's dealings with the old guard in Alaska, McCain's days as a political prisoner, or Obama's rise to become the first black presidential candidate. It is easier to identify with someone when that person opens up and lets us know how they are very similar to us.
  
• She made it about the audience: she identified the most important issues for the people in the room and addressed those, while skimming over the others. It is a fact that most voters don't really care about what happens outside of their country: it's what happens close to home that is important. In this type of setting, discussing foreign policy is a waste of time, except when your sons or daughters are serving overseas in a war-torn nation. For most Americans, foreign policy is not very meaningful unless it helps get their sons and daughters home safely, and soon. Palin stuck to themes that are important locally.
• She showed grace and fury: one way to deliver a speech with impact is to include contrasting elements. She did so by using fierce words and tone of voice when talking about her political opponents ("What is the difference between hockey moms and a pit bull? Lipstick!") but using a decidedly more nurturing tone when speaking about children with special needs.
• Few facts, much emotion: if you are looking for policy statements and programs in Palin's speech, you will find it lacking. But what she lacked in content, she more than made up for with flare. She brought the crowd on an emotional roller coaster ride for close to 45 minutes, and they loved it!

I don't fancy myself a seasoned political analyst by any stretch of the imagination. However, if the GOP wins the vote in November, Palin's performance last Wednesday night will no doubt be seen as a cornerstone of that victory.

You can see Sarah Palin's speech here: Vice Presidential Candidate Gov. Sarah Palin (AK) Full Speech at the RNC

Communication Tips for Geeks and Other Experts

Information is what you say. Communication is what your audience understands.

Coming from a techie background (as a programmer, no less) I've been accustomed to the following tenet: if the client doesn't understand, then the client is stoopid. We've even got expressions for that: the problem is between the chair and the keyboard, this is an ID ten T problem (also known as ID10T), and so on.

As geeks, we often place ourselves above the fray, looking down upon the masses. We require our audiences or our clients to raise themselves to our level, to speak the same language we speak. If they are unable to do that, we consider them morons. We obfuscate our speech in techno-babble, to ensure that the "little people" clearly get our message: you aren't worthy, this is my domain, get out of my way.

This self-aggrandizing posturing is a mask for a geek's inability to speak in language that can be understood by most people, without making the listener feel stupid. It takes a lot effort to take your expertise and explain it in layman's terms. Few people do it effectively.

Seth Godin's recent post "The posture of a communicator " touches on this topic in a concise, insightful way.

A few tips to help geeks get their points across:

• Ask questions. If your client or your audience or your listener doesn't understand, ask them what they don't understand. Also ask them what they do understand, to help you figure out what the gap is.
• Use metaphors and other images to explain difficult concepts. It is harder to grasp a vague topic like directories and inodes; it is easier to understand folders and documents.
• Put yourself in the other person's shoes. Think of something you can do, but not very well. In my case, that would be playing the guitar. I can make it sound like a guitar, but nobody would ever mistake me for a great (or even a good) guitarist. I can't fathom my reaction if in my first course, the teacher were to tell me: "What's wrong with you? A Gm7b5 chord is easy to play." (The chord is easy to play, I just can't figure it out without a picture in front of me.)

The band should play on

I watched a bit of the Grammies tonight, and saw when Kanye West received his award. His speech was too long, if the band-playing was any indication. Now, I don't know what the rules are, but I suppose nominees are given a list of guidelines for their acceptance speech. I know they do this for the Oscars. The actors are warned that should they speak too long, the band will start playing and they have to wrap it up.

At any rate, Kanye West gave his speech and the band started playing. West kept on speaking as if nothing was happening. At some point, he asked the the band to stop playing... and the band did. The audience applauded to show their approval.

The band should have kept on playing.

I have seen this too often in meetings. An agenda is set, time has been allocated to discuss specific issues. But some people in the meeting decide to take as much time as they want to state their views or opinions, and the meeting leader does not have the courage or the power to tell that person to shut up.

Net results? Meetings last longer than they should, some people are given more air time at the expense of others, and so on.

A successful meeting requires many of the same ingredients of a successful speech:

• A roadmap: prepare an agenda containing a goal and the topics to cover.
• An adequate amount of points to cover: too often, meetings or speeches try to cover too much ground. Having 14 bullet points is too much for a 60 minute meeting. More often than not, less is better.
• Stick to the plan: if you realize that your speech is going to take more time than you expected, you need to cull on the fly. Same thing with a meeting. At some point, the moderator may need to say: "All right, we need to move on. We will schedule another meeting for this specific topic." Or: "We will not have enough time to cover everything we had planned to cover. I suggest that we complete the discussion on this important point and schedule a different meeting to address the rest of the points."

Doing so shows respect for everyone's time and will increase the effectiveness and usefulness of your meetings.

Public speaking on the campaign trail

There are some interesting lessons on public speaking that can be gleaned from the current presidential race. Here are a few. Mike Huckabee displays poise while answering a question he deems inappropriate. Also, pay attention to the interviewer: he asks a question, Huckabee answers it, yet the interviewer asks the question again -- probably because he wasn't paying close attention to the answer.

Huckabee, again, using (mean) humour to make a point. If he can use humour in a presidential debate, why don't more people use humour in business presentations? No, I don't advocate nasty humour unless you are a professional comedian.

Speaking of John Edwards: these two clips shows how you use a catch phrase (in this case, "You can't 'nice' these people to death") and keep a constant message.

Mitt Romney, showing how you control your Q&A session. Don't get mad, keep your smile.

Hillary Clinton showing emotion in her statements. Public speaking is not about being stone-faced during your entire speech. If you feel anger, display anger. Controlled anger, but anger nevertheless.

Clinton, again, noting the evolution of language:

Barack Obama showing the dramatic difference in energy between reading a speech and delivering a speech.

Body movement from Barack Obama. Ok, it's not on the campaign trail but you gotta love a guy who dances like that!

Why you should never end on a Q & A session

I have been advocating to my clients and workshop attendees never to end a speech with the traditional Q&A (Question and Answer) session. Rather, do the Q&A first, and then conclude. Here's why:



Imagine that this was the last question of Mr. McCain's Q&A session. What impression would it leave in the minds of the audience?

The fact that only this segment, without the conclusion, appears on YouTube makes me wonder...

Q&A sessions are an important part of your speech. However, they wrest control from your hands and puts it squarely into the hands of your audience. You don't want that.

Always make sure that you leave a bit of time to conclude after you have answered questions. By doing so, you maintain control of your speech and you can end it on your terms, not on your audience's terms.

Ethics, politics, and storytelling

Christmas is coming; my kids need new clothes; I'm flat broke but my friends and family expect me to display a certain lifestyle. I think I'll go rob a bank. The judge will understand.

Sounds preposterous, doesn't it? Yet, that's what it sounds like when a former politician says: "I accepted money because I was broke and I had a lifestyle to preserve." The act is then brushed off as a "colossal mistake." Never mind that he, Brian Mulroney, denied for years that he ever took the money. (For more background information on this, please see this Globe and mail article.) Although it is yet to be proven that Mr. Mulroney acted illegally, it does toe the lign of proper ethical conduct very closely.

Ethical conduct is closely tied to one's values. Being ethical means that you are being honest and you act with integrity. As I once heard, integrity is acting the same way whether people see you or not. So in the case of Mr. Mulroney, a simple way to know if it was ethical or not is to ask: "Would you have done it in front of a camera with people watching?"

Ethical conduct is something we constantly face in the world of professional speaking. In one of my study groups, a few weeks ago there was a heated debate about storytelling. Storytelling is a central part of public speaking. You can get your points across much faster and more easily when you tell stories to illustrate them.

Some stories have become so popular that most professional speakers cringe at the thought of hearing it one more time. Examples include The Starfish Story and The US Aircraft Story. The act of using those stories in and of itself is not unethical; it just shows that as a speaker, you lack originality.

However, many speakers will tell stories that they heard somewhere else and act as if it is their own stories. And sometimes, they even believe it is their own stories. Telling someone else's story and taking credit for it is considered highly unethical in the speaking business. Once people realize you've been lying, your credibility takes a big hit and your reputation is severely tarnished. It can take a long time to recover from something like that.

If you decide to use public speaking as part of, or as all of your professional endeavours, you can prevent such a situation from happening to you.

• Make a decision to use very little of someone else's material. If all of your stories are original, it will be very unlikely that someone else tells the same story. It can happen, though. I know one speaker who told a story that was eerily similar to another speaker's story, which I had read in a book. When I confronted him with it, he maintained that the story was his, even after I cited the author, the book, and the page where I originally read the story. Is it possible that he had a similar experience, but in a different context and location. It should be noted, though, that I've never heard him tell the story again.
• If you need to use someone else's material, get permission or at least give proper attribution. I've been bitten by this one, myself. I reported someone else's story, from my perspective. I gave proper attribution, saying it was not my story but my impressions about something that happened to someone else. I told the story's protagonist about it after the fact, and he was not too pleased about it. I made some factual mistakes and I did not get his permission beforehand, which was damaging to him. I made corrections afterwards and he was okay with it, but that's still a black mark on me.
• Don't toe the line. If it feels awkward to do something or say something to an audience, don't. Now, that doesn't mean you cannot push the envelope. It means that you have to push it ethically, so if you are challenged on what you say or do, you have solid facts to explain your decisions and your actions.
  

Too often, ethics become situational. We will act ethically when others are present or looking, but act unethically when nobody is around to supervise.

In Mr. Mulroney's case, there will be an inquiry to determine whether he acted illegally or not. If he is at fault, he will probably be asked to repay the money in some form, or the matter may be taken to court. If not, he will be cleared but his reputation will still have been tarnished.

For the rest of us, life goes one. Yet every day, situations will come up which beg an answer to the following question: would I do this if there was a camera filming me?

The first words are the most important

Seth Godin's blog is an excellent illustration of why it is so important to have a good introduction to your speech:

Seth's Blog: Sorry to talk so long...

I especially like the way he likens a speech to a gift. You wouldn't apologize for offering a gift to someone. Why apologize for speaking, unless you really have nothing to say? And if you have nothing to say... why are you there?

About brevity: he mentions that he saw this behaviour at a gala. In galas, people usually have a drink or two. Once that happens, it is much tougher to hold the crowd's attention.

If you speak for more than a couple of minutes, gala attendees will tend to lean over to their neighbours and whisper: "This is kinda long, don't you think." A response will follow: "Yeah, really. I was at this gala honouring Such N. Such the other day and..."

"You were there? So was I, how come we never met? How did you find it?"

"Well, let me tell you..."

"Shhh..... I'm trying to listen!"

This tends to be repeated over and over again until eventually, speakers are drowned in the... hush of the crowd.

The best remedy? Get to the point immediately, conclude quickly, go back and have some fun!