Professionally Speaking...

Presenting in Africa

I've just returned from two trips to Africa where I spoke and ran workshops at the Women in Management and Business (WimBIZ) conference (Lagos, Nigeria) and the Kenyan Association of Women Business Owners (KAWBO) conference (Nairobi, Kenya). They were both amazing experiences and I thought it would be interesting to make some comparisons between African and U.S. presentation style, format and approach.

STYLE

The style in Nigeria was definitely more formal than we're used to here. The wife of the Governor of Lagos State attended the entire conference and each presenter started her comments with, "Her Excellency, First Lady of Lagos State, distinguished ladies and gentlemen..." When speakers referenced someone in their remarks, they always used the title Mr. or Mrs., never a first name. This was a challenge in my own presentation; when I wanted to refer to another speaker, I had to be sure I could correctly pronounce the unfamiliar, Nigerian name.

Kenya was more similar to here, with first names being used freely.

Also worth noting in both countries was the politeness of attendees. They paid serious attention to the speakers, didn't leave the room and clapped enthusiastically. Conference delegates in Nigeria were really put to the test as there was a power outage which delayed the start of the conference by over an hour. Unlike one might imagine, attendees sat patiently, without complaint, using the time for additional networking.

FORMAT

The majority of the presentations at both conferences were in the form of moderated panels. Each panelist gave a short presentation, commented on the other panelists' remarks and answered questions from the audience. I found this to be a richer format for attendees as it gave them a number of perspectives on a given topic and encouraged greater dialogue among panelists and between panelists and audience. And it minimized the pain of a bad presenter!

Handouts were, refreshingly, non-existent at both conferences. All speaker notes/presentations were going to be put up on the websites of the sponsoring organizations, for download by interested attendees.

I am sorry to say that PowerPoint is just as ubiquitous and badly done in Africa as it is in the US. Bad PowerPoint slides have clearly become viral. One of the presenters at the Kenya KAWBO conference, Dr. Julius Kipng'etich, Director of Kenya Wildlife Service, gave me a great definition of PowerPoint I hadn't heard: "PowerPoint is too many points without power."

Keeping to a time limit presented as much of a challenge in Africa as it does here. In Nigeria, speakers who went past their alloted time were silenced by a moderator who took enforcement seriously. In Kenya, speakers went over time frequently, to the delight of the audience who were getting such value, but to the chagrin of the organizers who were forced to then constantly juggle time lines.

APPROACH

The presenters at both conferences were generally better prepared than what I experience at presentations here in the US. It was obvious that many of the speakers had rehearsed their remarks and most spoke conversationally without heavy reliance on notes. Almost universally, they included stories and anecdotes, many from personal experiences, to underscore their message.

The true measure of any speaker's or conference's success is the satisfaction of the attendees. KAWBO and WimBIZ did an awesome job of putting on as professional and relevant a conference as any we would attend here in the US. Based on the conversations I had with attendees and their reactions throughout the conferences, both organizations passed the success test with high marks.

In Presentations, Audiences Have Responsibilities Too

I'm a huge proponent of audience rights. I believe every presenter owes his audience complete focus and the respect of being well-prepared, interesting and relevant. However, audiences have some responsibilities in this partnership called a presentation. There is an implicit contract between presenter and audience, where each gets from, and gives to, the other. Too frequently, I have observed audiences just not living up to their end of the bargain. 

Here are the key obligations an audience has in order to fulfill their "contractual" responsibilities:

1. PAY ATTENTION. Give the presenter the courtesy of paying attention, at least long enough to determine if you are going to receive value. If you feel compelled to multi-task while in the presentation (e.g., checking or sending e-mail [I'm not talking about Twitter here], surfing the web, reviewing documents you brought with you, taking a phone call) consider not attending the presentation at all. You won't get much out of it, you'll be distracting to the speaker and other audience members and you certainly won't be able to provide constructive, meaningful feedback at the end.

2. ANSWER QUESTIONS. When the presenter asks a question, volunteer an answer. Don't sit like a lump, averting your gaze to ensure no possibility of eye contact. The more you engage in the conversation, the more value you are likely to get out of the experience. Obviously you're off the hook if you have no idea what to answer, but in most cases, you're likely being asked for an opinion...so share.

3. ASK QUESTIONS. Unless everything is crystal clear to you, ask questions and challenge the content being presented. Ask for clarification, ask for jargon to be explained, ask for an example of how this would work in your situation. Not only will this make it more interesting and relevant for you, it's quite possible that others in the audience may have the same questions, so you're helping everyone by asking.

4. RESPOND. Be involved rather than sitting passively. When appropriate, laugh or smile in response to what the presenter says. Maintain eye contact to capture the nuances of meaning on a given point.

5. EVALUATE. If you engage in the above four behaviors, you will be in a great position to provide meaningful, specific feedback to the presenter which will improve his skills thus ensuring better presentations for future audiences. Take the time to fill in that evaluation sheet thoughtfully. Even if you're not an expert in assessing presentations, you know what worked for you and what didn't. Make some notes throughout the presentation about areas or techniques you found useful and other areas where you wish the presenter had covered something in more depth or used more examples or made eye contact instead of reading from his slides. The majority of presenters want to hear how their audiences felt about the information they provided, even if the feedback points out some weak spots that need improvement.

So what's in this for you, you ask? As Seth Godin says, being a responsible audience member has big paybacks -->> more energy and insight from the presenter and more focused answers to your questions. And by raising the bar for the presenter by evaluating critically, you will contribute to a better presentation the next time around. 

So, audiences, make the choice to hold up your end of the bargain. The rewards will definitely be worth it!

When Audiences Give False Feedback

I have written recently about the lengths to which a presenter should go to obtain specific, timely, usable feedback. The most critical source of that feedback is, of course, the audience. Yet what if the audience isn't cooperating?

I'm beginning to think that business audiences and presenters are in collusion. Theoretically there should be checks and balances between these two entities, much like there are between buyer and seller or the executive branch and the legislative branch.

Audiences should be the watchdog for the presenter, alertly evaluating whether or not they're getting value and their needs are being met. And ready to provide constructive feedback if that's not happening. But too, too frequently I see audiences providing at least adequate, if not highly positive, feedback to crummy presenters.

SHOULDN'T WE RAISE THE BAR?

If we keep telling presenters they're OK, how will we ever encourage them to stop reading PowerPoint slides, to rehearse their presentation before delivering it, to incorporate examples and stories to help us understand better, to stop saying "you know" every 5 seconds, to use simple words instead of jargon, to....? Those 3s, 4s and 5s (out of 5) on the feedback questionnaire allow the presenter to dwell in a self-congratulatory bubble, neither cognizant of nor caring about his presentation inadequacies. After all, the scores were pretty good, weren't they?

WHY ARE AUDIENCES RELUCTANT TO BE HONEST?

I think it's either fear or apathy. Fear of not being a nice guy, of delivering feedback and a low score that the recipient won't like or that will hurt her feelings. Or...perhaps worse...too apathetic to take the time and energy to provide thoughtful, constructive comments. Hmmm...who's the loser here??

This begs for someone to develop a list of audience responsibilities. Stay tuned.

PowerPoint: It Depends On Where You Stand (or Sit)

There is a striking dichotomy between what people say and what people do regarding PowerPoint.

When I ask participants in my presentation skills classes what bothers them the most as they sit in the audience listening to a presenter, they invariably say, "...too many words/bullet points/text on the slides." When I probe to uncover why that behavior is so annoying, I get responses like:

• It makes it more likely that the presenter will read most of his slides.
• It's too distracting to have that much information visible...I can't concentrate on what the speaker is saying and read at the same time.
• The type is so small I can't read it. 
• The presenter isn't adding any value to what's on the slide...why didn't she just send me the PowerPoint deck?

Yet the puzzling part is that when these same participants start working on their own presentations, they typically have way too many words on the slides.

So why the disconnect between audience attitude and speaker behavior?

I think the big reason is that overloaded PowerPoint slides are so ubiquitous and standard operating procedure, many people are afraid to deviate from the method that everyone else uses...even though they know, from the perspective of audience member, this method is not effective. [Read about more reasons in Olivia Mitchell's excellent analysis].

I also think that most presenters care about having an impact, care about engaging their audience and are looking for opportunities to improve. But they may not be prepared to go totally "Garr Reynolds" with simple, elegant graphics, numerous pictures and minimal text.

So I suggest the following steps to course participants as a way to test the waters:

• In preparing the presentation and slides, put your audience hat on and think about how you would respond to those text heavy slides.
• Try changing just a couple of slides to start with. Perhaps pick a complex point in your presentation or an aspect that always generates a lot of questions; develop another way besides text to display this information, like a chart, graph or image that symbolizes your meaning.
• Then assess how the audience responds to the information in this format. Do they understand better? Do they have fewer questions or are the questions different? Do they seem more engaged?
• Solicit feedback from audience members to validate what you observed.

What kinds of experiences have you had using a PowerPoint format markedly different from the norm?

Presenting in a Crisis

When most of us think about making a presentation, we don't typically think of having to do that in the aftermath of a tragic event. Yet that is the situation faced this week by Washington, DC and NTSB (National Traffic Safety Board) officials following Monday's subway train disaster in which 9 people were killed and many others injured. Mesmerized by the television coverage of the shocking accident, I couldn't help but observe (and be proud of) how skillfully these officials communicated to the public in this difficult situation.

There was no PowerPoint. There was no time to rehearse. But there was an audience of reporters, commuters, family members desperate for information and assurances.

WHAT ARE THE PRESENTATION LESSONS?

Among the presentation lessons worth noting:

• At Monday night's press conference, all presenters started their remarks with condolences for the families of the victims, recognizing that no matter what details, facts or explanations they might be providing, at the core, this presentation needed to connect with the audience on a human level.

• Debbie Hersman, NTSB Lead Investigator and Dennis Rubin, DC Fire Chief, instilled confidence in the audience by assuring them that the accident scene was under control and that both entities had a clear idea of their objectives going forward. They looked directly into the cameras and spoke clearly, explaining what the next steps were, what they already knew and how their investigation would proceed. Transparency in providing details is a key strategy in crisis communications. As Dan Hicks describes here, in his blog, Communicating Through a Crisis, the court of public opinion is unforgiving when it appears that information is being withheld or officials are hiding behind corporate shields.

• One can only imagine how difficult it was for John Catoe, General Manager of WMATA (Washington MetropolitanArea Transit Authority) as he stood before the cameras, having lost one of his employees and ultimately holding responsibility for the accident. Visibly moved, he spoke with sincerity and simplicity. With no euphemisms or gobbledy-gook, he gave the details he had.

(this clip is not of the press conference I referred to, but it does give you a sense of the speakers' styles)

Here are some additional ideas about managing crisis communications.

Let us hope that none of us will ever have to make a presentation following a disaster. But the lessons learned from how communication was handled in the Metro accident will be valid for any of our presentations: concern for the audience, sincerity, transparency and quiet confidence.

THOUGHTS ON A CONFERENCE

I spent most of last week at the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) International Conference and Expo (8000+ attendees) here in Washington, DC at the very impressive Walter E. Washington Convention Center. The days were chocked full of interesting sessions, interesting people and interesting observations. 

• The organizers did a great job. A month prior to the conference, they set up a LinkedIn group for conference speakers as a forum to ask questions and share ideas/best practices. I was asked to post a Presentation Tip of the Day 2-3 times a week. Having a specific place for speakers to congregate virtually generated good discussion (PowerPoint and how to be interactive with a large audience were hot topics) and also forged connections prior to being on-site.

• Once at the conference, the organizers provided a Speakers' Room, equipped with screens so presenters could rehearse presentations and even use other speakers as a mock audience. We all know how challenging it is to find the time to rehearse so facilitating that by having a dedicated space, populated by other folks with similar needs, is a grand idea.

• Twitter most definitely had a presence. There were hashtags set up for the conference (#astd09) and for the local chapter (#metrodcastd) and there was a steady stream of tweets sharing session information, impressions, questions and meet up details. What was lacking, however, was a public display of the Twitter stream where people could see it as they were moving about the Convention Center. This would have been a great way to share ideas and engage more people in the conversation going on in the back channel.

• An interesting experiment was conducted by one of the speakers, Doug Caldwell. He projected the live Twitter stream during his session. Doug set up a hashtag ahead of time and populated it with tweets encouraging people to attend. Yours truly was his assistant/scribe during the session. We used Tweetchat as the platform to gather and project the hashtag tweets. Since none of the attendees were tweeting, I ended up capturing key messages and participant comments for the Twitter stream. Couple of lessons: the scribe has to be familiar enough with the content to determine what the nuggets are; figure out how to toggle back and forth between the big screen and the laptop screen before the session; recognize that there is a several seconds delay between hitting enter on Tweetchat and having the tweet appear in the stream. Participants, although very engaged in their workshop activities, did notice when one of their comments hit the big screen. This is also a great way to archive the 'in the moment' participant comments for future sharing or dissemination. Kudos to Doug for experimenting. It was a cool experience and I'm anxious to use Twitter again in a presentation.

• Teleprompters were used for the general sessions, with video screens placed around the hall so everyone could see. It was clear that several of the presenters did not have much experience with the teleprompter. One of the main presenters was extremely good and the contrast was stark. Plea to speakers using teleprompter: please, please rehearse, with teleprompter, more than 10 minutes before your speech.

• In almost every session I attended, presenters ran out of time; they were either trying to cram too much into the allotted time or they had not accounted for questions and dialogue from the audience. When developing a speech or presentation, allocate time for audience questions and comments. The amount of time depends on your topic and the overall duration of your presentation; for example, in a 90 minute presentation, leave a good 15 minutes for questions.

• Session evauations are one of my hot buttons (more on that in a subsequent post). Feedback is the most valuable thing a speaker can get from the audience. So as a speaker, don't skew the audience's opinion (one way or the other) by stating that you're trying to maintain your perfect scores (or some other attempt to influence). By the same token, if you're in the audience, do the speaker the courtesy of providing honest, thoughtful feedback. Don't say the presentation was good if it wasn't; if you have thoughts for improvement, offer them.

Attending a conference is both an exhausting and exhilarating experience. And it is most definitely a juicy learning lab for a presentation trainer!

TWITTER IN PRESENTATIONS...LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT?

With the explosion in popularity of microblogging tools like Twitter, presenters are now faced with the possibility, or even likelihood, that some members of their audience will be tweeting (posting on Twitter) during the presentation. Initially, that idea is off-putting to many presenters. They sputter, "But that means the audience won't be paying attention to me." Or "It will be distracting for me to see everybody typing on their iPhones." Or "What if they say something negative about me or my presentation?"

Those concerns are all worth examining. Let's look at them one by one.

THE AUDIENCE WON'T PAY ATTENTION

Even without Twitter, you run the risk that your audience won't pay attention to you. Certainly to minimize that concern in any situation you must craft a presentation that is relevant to the audience, addresses their needs and employs the various presentation techniques designed to involve and engage the audience.

Interestingly, however, some research suggests that the audience may be even more engaged when there is a Twitter backchannel in a presentation. In the Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching(Volume 2, 2009), Dr. Martin Ebner, Head of the Social Learning Department at Graz University of Technology in Austria conducted research at the e-learning conference, Ed-Media 2008, to determine the behaviors of attendees using Twitter during a presentation. Throughout the keynote, the Twitter stream was projected on the screen along with the presenter's slides. During the 45 minute presentation, there were 54 tweets which Ebner categorized into 4 buckets:

• concerning the presentation content (22%)
• discussion between 2 or more Twitter users (2%)
• links to various resources (31%)
• comments, including reactions to the speaker's presentation, feelings, thoughts and opinions (43%)

As presenters, assuming we have created a relevant presentation, we need to ascribe the respect and integrity to our audiences that they will, in fact, be engaged in what we are saying and thus, will further the discussion through their tweets. Particularly when the Twitter stream is projected for all in the room to see, most attendees want their tweets to be intelligent and germain rather than silly or off-topic.

I'LL BE DISTRACTED

This may indeed be the case initially. But let's break this down. Audience members punching letters into their phone or typing on a keyboard is really no different than audience members taking notes. We need to ensure that we don't let our self-talk convince us that the audience is no longer listening to us simply because they are using an electronic device.

More challenging in terms of distraction is projecting the Twitter stream on the screen behind you and knowing that electronic dialogue is going on while you are talking. Here the speaker is competing with the constantly changing flow of information.

You could speak directly to the tweets. This requires ultimate flexibility, a thorough knowledge of your subject matter, a crystal clear understanding of what you want your presentation to accomplish and the ability to return to your presentation flow after responding to a tweet. If you can manage it, this is the pinnacle of real time, interactive exchange between presenter and audience, furthering and deepening the conversation.  

A complementary option is to have a moderator or partner who can help you manage the dialogue. The moderator can prioritize the tweets, answer or redirect some and pass questions and salient comments to the speaker.

Most definitely, rehearse these techniques several times before going live. This is a fast-paced exchange of ideas and information; being super prepared and comfortable with your subject matter and giving thought to the audience's point of view are the keys to success.

THE AUDIENCE MIGHT BE NEGATIVE

Yes, there could be a tweet that says something negative about you or your content. However, most audience members have the maturity and integrity not to post something inappropriate or cruel, particularly when all their fellow audience members can see it. More likely, someone might post a legitimate disagreement or difference of perspective. Handle this the same way you would any objection in a presentation...with grace, respect and facts.

SO, IS THIS TWITTER THING A GOOD IDEA?

Yes, I think it is. It's still a bit scary for most presenters. The dynamic is evolving and we will no doubt continue to refine how to integrate the Twitter backchannel into our presentations. Look for a subsequent post on best practices for how presenters can become comfortable with this tool.

But the benefits of using Twitter during a presentation are unmistakable:

• It gives the audience more ownership as they have a tangible role in shaping the discussion.
• The presenter can gain immediate feedback.
• It facilitates and encourages discussion among tweeters after the presentation.
• It creates a wider audience and more visibility for your message, since the presentation tweets will go out to everyone's followers and even be re-tweeted.
• It gives your presentation a longer life through archiving (the symbol # before any word or phrase creates a hashtag [#twitinpres] which then allows Twitterers to use that hashtag to group all relevant tweets).

The exciting thing about Twitter in presentations is that it removes the presenter/audience barrier that we all bemoan. The speaker is no longer delivering wisdom from on high. The audience becomes an active participant in the conversation, shaping it to meet their needs. And isn't that the ultimate example of audience focus?

What experiences, either as a presenter or an audience member, have you had using Twitter in presentations?
 

 

BANISH CLICHES

I've been blogging recently on the power of language, focusing on the elegance and impact of certain types of words and sentence construction. One hundred and eighty degrees from this elegance are hackneyed cliches that don't communicate anything meaningful. I just came across this post at Harvard Business on 10 Business Words To Ban and I had to share it. I laughed out loud at some of the commentary from David Silverman.

All our business communication...including presentations...would definitely benefit if we eliminated these words. What other corporate-speak words do you think we should banish?

PRACTICING WHAT I PREACH

I am pleased to have been listed in Alltop's Best Speaking Blogs. Alltop, the brainchild of Guy Kawasaki, has been described as an "online magazine rack" of popular topics. Check it out! 

For those of us who teach presentation skills, we constantly emphasize the importance of being well prepared to give a speech or presentation. But do we actually take our own advice?

Yesterday I spoke at a conference and put my own advice to the test.

I had been told by the session organizer that I would be able to get into my room thirty minutes early and that I would have A/V support for the projector and microphones. Having nailed down those details well ahead of time, I crossed them off my list.

Arriving at the hotel a bit early, I settled down just outside my room to wait for the meeting going on in there to break up. Thirty minutes before my scheduled start time came and went; so did twenty-five minutes. As the clock was moving toward twenty minutes before start time, the meeting was still going on. I was thinking it would be impolite to interrupt the meeting, optimistically assuming the people in the room knew that a speaker was waiting to get in and set up. But at start time minus twenty, I decided polite was not serving me well.

I walked into the meeting, excused myself and said that I was the next speaker and needed to get set up. They assured me they'd be breaking up momentarily. Perhaps it was the look on my face...because just as I walked back outside the room, one of the attendees came out and said that if I didn't mind setting up while they were finishing the meeting, that was fine with them. I was back in the room and setting up my computer before that fellow got back to his seat.

Now where the heck was my A/V support? Off I go to the conference check-in area and ask one of the staff to get an A/V person to meet me in the room. Luckily the tech person appeared fairly promptly and set about getting everything hooked up.

Before presenting, I like to get a feel for the room in which I'm presenting and "get centered". I do this by standing quietly at the front of the room and "feeling" the environment. I also like to rehearse the first five minutes or so of my presentation "in the space". Needless to say, yesterday I didn't have this luxury.

So what's a presenter to do when things don't work out as planned, potentially setting up a rocky beginning to the presentation? Here's what I did:

1. I overcame my normal tendency to be polite and wait until the folks using my space were finished. I interrupted in a calm and professional manner to articulate my needs.
2. I let the A/V guy take over setting up the computer and projector and microphones. I didn't look over his shoulder (in spite of his muttering about my computer not having the right interface) but I did check everything before he left to confirm that it was working properly.
3. I did an abbreviated centering exercise seconds before people started walking into the room.

The moral of the story: I had indeed taken my own advice and was well prepared in terms of the content of my presentation and what I wanted to accomplish. This gave me the confidence to deal with the little unexpected glitches without letting them throw me off my game.

What are some of the glitches you've experienced before a presentation and how have you dealt with them?

[P.S. The presentation went extremely well, the audience was very engaged and I have a hot lead as a result!]

PRESENTATION NERVES AT A PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURAL

You may be able to identify with feeling nervous when speaking to a group of people. It's perfectly normal. We all worry, to some degree, about forgetting what we intended to say or stumbling over our words.

Now imagine standing in front of 2 million people (with countless more millions watching on TV and the internet) and blowing your lines.

That is exactly what happened to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and our new President at the swearing-in on Tuesday.

Justice Roberts started to utter the oath that President Obama was supposed to repeat..."I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear..."

But Roberts got only as far as the first four words when the President chimed in and spoke over top of the next three words. This apparently threw the Chief Justice off and he flubbed the following line, getting the next part of the oath woefully confused ("...that I will execute the office of President to the United States faithfully..." instead of "...that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States").

And in that moment, President Obama hesitated and waited for the Chief Justice to offer him the correct line. When Roberts didn't, the President quickly repeated the line that Roberts had given him, even though he knew it wasn't correct.

LESSONS TO BE LEARNED

So what is the point of highlighting this uncomfortable moment in an otherwise flawless ceremony?

It captures three lessons we can all apply:

• It's easy to get nervous in front of an audience...even when we are accustomed to speaking  frequently to large groups.

• It's the sign of a professional to keep calm, even after a mistake. Neither the President nor the Chief Justice appeared shaken or paralyzed by the gaffe (despite the millions of people watching and listening).

• It's helpful to stay focused on what's most comfortable for the audience. Both the President and the Chief Justice realized, in the moment, that the audience would find it awkward for them to belabor the mistake by going back to the beginning and starting again. What their audience wanted was for them to simply keep going.