by Hubert Lin

Listening to a speech is a subjective experience.  A passage that is clear and persuasive to Tom might not have as much impact or can be confusing to Jane.  Perhaps Tom had had similar experiences to the speaker, and therefore could relate to what the speaker was talking about.  But Jane did not have the benefit of shared history and was missing some important background information.  If an audience is homogenous and share the same experience and knowledge, their reaction to the speech may every well be similar—either similarly persuasive, or similarly confusing.   That is why public speaking, or communication in general, is not about how the speaker delivers the message, but it’s about how the listener perceives the message.  This is what makes public speaking so dynamic and exciting: the process of figuring out how the audience would feel, especially when they are from a different background than the speakers themselves.

When it comes to speech evaluation, especially at Toastmasters, it is easy to fall into the trap of assuming there is a standard, an objective measurement.  One particular dangerous and yet common trap is the assumption that advanced speakers cannot benefit from the feedback of beginner speakers.  Because Toastmasters clubs often have members who are at different levels of their Toastmasters career, this misconception about evaluation is particularly counterproductive to the development of speakers and the growth of the club.  Advanced speakers would feel that they have little need of the club, and leave for ‘advanced’ clubs, or leave the organization entirely.  Now, of course we realize we deliver speeches in our Toastmasters club for the purpose of preparing ourselves for the ‘real-world’ presentations, right?  So are we saying that in the real world, our audiences are all advanced speakers?   In the context, I would argue, the most valuable feedback are from:

1. Beginner speakers who are able to verbalize their feelings about the speech
2. Advanced speakers who can put themselves in the shoes of a beginner speaker.  However, this is much more difficult than the first.  Therefore, the best would be
3. A combination of the above.

During the group evaluation at our CHIC Toastmasters meeting on Sept 15, 2010, I worked with our fairly new member Ouyang to understand our own reactions towards the speech.  The discussion started with a simple probing question.  Below is a paraphrase of the dialogue.

Me:   What do you think about the speech?

OY:  I like the title of the speech.

Me:  Why?

OY:  It is like a good metaphor.  Just by reading the title, I can think deeper and imagine what the speech is about.

Me:  You mean, it stimulates you to reflect.  What about the structure?

OY:  The structure was really good.  There were three points, and very interesting examples.  But I just didn’t remember what they are?

Me:  Why do you think that is?

OY:  But that is just me.  My English is not that good, and I’m only a beginner.  I think other people remembered the points.

Me:  But this is about you.  Why could he have done better for you to remember three points?   Did he talk too fast?

OY:  Compared to last time, he spoke much slower.

Me:  What about compared to me?  Did you understand me?

OY:  I did.  But I have been listening to you for six months.  I am familiar to the way you speak.

Me:  So, you’re saying that it takes a while to get used to a new member’s speaking.  I completely agree.  So, perhaps, the speaker should slow down even more, especially for the first few speeches, because the audience is unfamiliar to him.  (This is a very good and insightful point)

OY: Yes, that would help.

Me:  What about the structure?  How could he structured it so you can remember better?  Perhaps repeat it more?  Do you remember him mentioning the three points in the introduction?

OY:  No.  Also if he could repeat it again in the conclusion.  That would be helpful.

Me:  In fact, if he stated the point after each body, wouldn’t that be helpful for you to remember?

OY: Yes.

From this exchange, we uncovered two very valuable points for the speaker, and for all members.  First, speakers must speak slower when facing an unfamiliar audience, because they are not used to their speaking style.  Second, it is important to repeat the points throughout the speech.  More advanced speakers tend to assume, wrongly, that the audience can pick up their points quickly and naturally.  Third point that I learned from Ouyang:  It is critical for advanced speakers (and native English speakers) to control their pace and structure in order to accommodate the audience, who are not native English speakers.  Sometimes, that may mean the speakers sacrifice specific delivery techniques (speaking faster to simulate an excited mood, for example), or colorful languages (metaphors or poetry that takes too much time to decipher).  The objective of the speaker should be enabling the audience to understand the information, and not finding ways to feel good about his/her own stage performance.

The key for beginning speakers to make that profound impact as an evaluator for an advanced speaker can be broken down into three steps. First make sure you’re listening carefully, and not distracted.   Second, be honest about your own feelings about the speech, whether it is good, or bad.  Don’t hold back.  They are your own feelings, and they are valid.  If you don’t understand the content, even though you’re focused on listening, then it’s not your fault.  It’s the speaker’s fault.  Describe how you feel in as much detail as possible.  Third, if you have a good feeling about the clarity, the power and the persuasiveness, ask ‘why’, the reasons you feel that way.  And verbalize it in terms of the language used, the structure, the voice, the body language, etc.  Ask the same question when you feel confused, lost, or uncomfortable.

Granted, a beginner speaker needs to have a basic understanding of speech elements in order to verbalize the third part of the evaluation.  However, this is not rocket science.  Reading through the first six assignments of the Competent Communicator Manual will provide the basics.  Language level difference is not a problem.  I repeat.  If you don’t speak English as fluent as Jennifer, that is not a problem!   In fact, it is an asset.  After all, our club is based in Beijing.  The native English speakers, like me, want to improve our communication to non-native speakers.  Your feedback in this regard is particularly valuable.  Granted, if the speaker’s end-goal is to win the International Speech Contest, where they will be judged by native speakers, then that’s another story.  So, it is important to have a common understanding of our objectives and what we’re all trying to accomplish.

No matter what level you’re at, your input is valuable to the speakers.  There is no shame in being a novice.  In fact, at this point, the pure feelings you have as a listener has not yet been ‘corrupted’ by the techno-speak of an advanced Toastmaster.  You just came from the ‘real world’, and your feelings reflect how the speeches would be regarded outside the Toastmasters world.  It is the Toastmaster veterans who need to go back to the basics, remove all the pollutants that had infected our perceptions about communication.  I know some members feel that giving evaluation is getting old, repetitive, and lacking challenges, as if you’re saying the same things over and over again.   Then it’s time to shift your mind.   We need to ‘evaluate’ the speech like a real person, instead of an evaluator.   After all, the next time you deliver a presentation in front of your colleagues and bosses at work, do you suppose they are more concerned about your silly speaking techniques, or about remembering and understanding your points?