I’ve had enough of grappling with the philosophical question of what makes a good presentation—I’m a little dizzy. Instead I want to move on to more practical matters. So I’m thinking a lot about what good presentation planning should include. Here are some ideas:
- Rhetorical Genuiness (or an appropriate topic). One of the big differences between the work we do in the classroom and the work we do in the professional world is that in the real world, we don’t typically have to “pick” a topic; instead the topic is determined for us by the event or because of our area of expertise or both. So in an academic arena, is it not unusual to find students giving presentations about things they don’t know a lot about or about topics that are kind of random—in other words, topics that are not rhetorically genuine. In the professional world, this is not as much of a problem since most of us speak about what we know.
- Strong Credibility: The need for rhetorical genuineness presents a real problem for those of us without a lot of experience or expertise because we know that a central ingredient in a good presentation is credibility and if the speaker is not experienced with the topic then it is more difficult to earn or build credibility with the audience. That’s why, though it is interesting to watch very established public figures give presentations, it seems unfair to use them as models for the rest of us, because these presenters begin with a huge advantage—they walk in the room, usually, with an already established credibility because of who they are and what they have done in the past (or because of their mesmerizing personal stories or experiences as in the case of Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor http://www.ted.com/index.php or Randy Bausch (see link in previous post).) So where does that leave the rest of us? At a distinct disadvantage because if we don’t have an inspirational story or an established reputation, we have to “earn” credibility in the process of speaking. How do we do that? (to be continued . . . )
In thinking about rhetorical genuiness and earning credibility, personality counts. By that I mean that each individual needs to look inward and really know themselves well. For instance, if I know that I am somewhat introverted and handle conversation better on a one by one basis this could pose a challenge in building credibility in front of a large group. So, what else about myself do I know that may help in building that credibility? Am I: –funny –sincere –passionate, etc.?
If I can take any one or more of these soft skills that I may possess and apply them appropriately to a subject that I am an expert on, it will immediately set me at ease when presenting to a large group. Through that ease I should be able to begin building credibility with the audience if I can also connect it to my expertise on the subject being discussed.
Tom Peters is a well known management guru. At the same time, he delivers his presentations with such passion that you are pulled in to his message. Watch this :60 clip that introduces his way of thinking at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6qZ8ZmqsQU then find many more passionate Peters videos to see examples.
I am sitting in a hotel, in Washington, D.C., waiting to go to the airport and head home from the United Jewish Communities’ Washington 15 Conference. The purpose of this conference is to inspire young (25-45 years of age) leaders to get more involved in their respective communities — or to “Make it Matter,” as was this year’s motto. This leaves me sitting in the perfect place (figuratively…I’m actually the lobby of a hotel room, next to a bar) to address the issue of rhetorical genuineness.
Over the past three days I have listened to about 20 public speaking presentations. They ran the entire spectrum of what you would expect. I heard a scientist talking about the facts and figures of an emotional issue…using a PPT to write out everything he said. I heard Madeleine Albright give an engaging speech, using no visual aids at all. Ari Fleisher gave a talk that made about 900 Jews actually consider conversion — to the Republican Party. And, back to the other end, we ended the conference by hearing a presentation from Jenna Bush about her experiences with Unicef, and her new book, that would have you doubting she is the president’s daughter (although, i guess not with this president).
All of this people were able to get their message across clearly, and the message — even if not agreed with — was heard, understand and absorbed. This clearly was because of credibility. However, some of the most informative and persuasive talks we heard were given by people of whom I had never heard. They still had credibility. How?
Credibility and rhetorical genuineness do not have to come from an established knowledge and respect of the speaker. They do not need to be established by having an expertise in the topic, either. Genuineness can come from expertise with the speech.
Confidence. Composure. Authority.
The worst talks I heard over the weekend came from my fellow RI delegates. Earlier today we went to capital hill to exercise our first amendment and we petitioned the Government for a redress of grievances. We Lobbied. We went to the offices of all four RI congressmen and spoke about the same issues with each one. Time and time again, my fellow constituents had their heads down and read from a paper. There was no genuineness in their talks, because it was clear they did not have a grasp on the issue and information about which they were talking. A couple times people actually delivered, looking down only to check a fact or get a name right.
The experiences over these last few days have made me eager to hone my personal speaking skills, so that I can give presentation like the ones I saw, and I have also gained more confidence in my current abilities to create credibility and show rhetorical genuineness.
Speaker’s credibility, importance of content and understanding of audience’s need are reciprocal to each other. In this point, only credibility can’t win a game. We see hundreds of presentation in our academic or professional life and majority of them carry some sort of credibility, but still they fail. Without a good content, even a credible speaker is ignored by audience. A speaker knows what audience need and he attempts to give all the things, but it does not make sure that the presentation will be applauded by the audience. For a better presentation, these all three composition must be mixed and delivered in unique or innovative way, which we say genius.
Rhetoric has always a very significant role in delivery of knowledge. I have a big impression of “Allegory of the Cave” throughout my life. (The Allegory of the Cave can be found in Book VII of Plato’s best-known work, The Republic.) Delivery of knowledge, if we relate it to the PowerPoint, somehow can be the same as Plato did on his work “Allegory of the cave.
The question of credibility has a big impact on audience. Personal experiences, achievements and positions are always the strongest source of credibility. But if we have none of them, then rhetoric and storytelling are the strongest tools. Either on the very spiritual subjects like Buddha practiced on preaching salvations or Plato delivering knowledge on politics to make ideal nation, rhetoric has been proven to be an effective way of communication.
I believe every single person on earth has something to talk about in a passionate way. Everybody knows something better than rest of the people, because everybody had different experiences in various parts of their lives. Your presentation does not have to be scientific, environmental, historic or related to some topic which you need to show your research and tones of data. So I do not think presenters may lack Rhetorical Genuine and that would be a problem In terms of credibility. The only thing the presenters should do is to pick a topic that they know about, they are passionate about, and they have experience about. First of all, we should get to understand that we do not need to pick a cool, smart, already interesting topic. We can add these values to a presentation if we are passionate about sharing our thoughts and involving the audience. Credibility also lies in passion too, if you are passionate and you are sure what you talking about, your credibility definitely increases. My point is; if the topic of the presentation can be anything, anybody can be genuine because everybody has knowledge about something. Here is a link from a toastmaster’s class; the presenter, Andy Dooley is talking about his own personal story, content and delivery looks awesome and he could get his audience attention. He is starting off with a Rhetorical Genuine question “Have you ever had a serious problem?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HsCIu7ARKM
I have always believed in the strong effects of credibility, now Rhetorical Genuine is another huge topic. As I stated in my last post the topic of the presentation is really important in terms of the getting audience attention and if the topic is not attractive for the audience, a presenter may not even have a chance to make a good presentation. However, if you know what you talking about, your audience can easily realize this when you are presenting. Your power to persuade, to influence, to impact will expand exponentially. To conclude, in terms of being Rhetorical Genuine, we create our own advantages because I believe everybody has an inspirational story, we just need to think about it.
Presentation Planning
I think the Rhetorical Genuiness or idea of an appropriate topic is a valid concern in the business world and classroom. I do think that sometimes this is uncontrollable in both setting. If given the opportunity I think it definitely makes it easier for a person to present when they get to select the topic but that does not imply that the presentation will be of better quality, which is determined by the speaker. I always give the speaker my respect but might stop listening if it is uninteresting but will defiantly not pay any attention if I think I am being given the wrong information. I don’t like to correct people but if I know something is 100% for a fact the wrong information, I don’t listen. I believe that credibility is more important than interest and some may disagree with me but that’s what I believe. The key to planning a presentation is to in sure a way that it is credible and interesting at the same time. The best example of this I think was the women that told her person story about her brain as well as provided facts that further supported her main point. This is a speech that I will not forget because there was no doubt in my mind that all the information she gave was 100% correct and she kept me on the edge of my seat through out the whole presentation listening in a way in which I didn’t want to miss anything, almost like a suspenseful movie. This was one of the most useful examples that I could use to model my presentations, although I don’t think I will ever be able to engage my audience in the way she did but I would like to. I would like to end this comment by stating that I think personal emotional stories are the best way to capture any audience. The problem is in a business setting these types of stories are often not appropriate to the subject or topic.
In planning for a presentation, I believe that there are many considerations for a speaker. While many have agreed with Professor Sisco’s comments on rhetorical genuineness and credibility, others have added their own spin on the potential components of a great presentation. The concepts of adding individual personality, confidence, composure, authority and passion have been cited as critical elements in delivering a topic.
While I agree with these ideas, I do not think it is necessarily one element or another that clearly defines a good presentation. Rather, I have begun to think of presentation planning as recipes, each requiring a different list of essential ingredients (or elements). Each ingredient is essential to the overall success of the recipe (the presentation), although each is different in terms of the amount used, depending upon the desired effect of the chef (the presenter). In this way, presenters may consider the different elements that they deem necessary to make it all a success.
Important ingredients most certainly, I believe, include rhetorical genuineness and passion for the topic. An appropriate topic, one that the speaker is familiar and comfortable with, allows the presenter to focus on delivery and expression as opposed to worrying about remembering content. Familiarity with a topic, however, does not guarantee presentation success. I agree with Gulen’s statement on the importance of selecting a topic with which you feel passionate about. Passion for any topic generally means that you are also knowledgeable about it as well. Indeed, it is also easier to convey, both verbally and nonverbally, your genuine feelings for the topic at hand. This in turn, contributes to credibility, confidence and composure without necessarily focusing on trying to intentionally deliver these specific components.
Lack of knowledge about a subject is definitely a big barrier for a student while giving a presentation. Topics that are rhetorically genuine would definitely help presenter to give a successful presentation. If the topic is not rhetorically genuine in a presentation, it is still possible to convince your audience by making lots of research and try to give as much information as you can.
Strong credibility will answer the question of “Why should I care?” That means credibility adds a lot to a presentation. Self confident individuals can create strong credibility without too much effort. One way is pretending to be a professional. However, it is not easy to do all the time. For example, an audience asks a question and you do not have any idea about the answer, it will certainly damage your credibility. Another way is supporting your ideas by giving examples from real life experiences of others. Especially when they are famous individuals, audience will believe more as they already have an established strong credibility.
I think that credibility is a very important factor in presentation planning. Developing strong credibilty with your audience defines the audience mood. If they assume that you are not credible, or if you have not succeeded at developing you credibility, it will be even harder to get your audience to pay attention to what you are saying. Simple things, such as briefly stating your credentials as they pertain to the subject matter, may be all that’s needed to aid in credibilty development. In addition to this, you may also simply use the selected tone of your voice. If the audience see the enthusiasm and passion that you express about your presentation, they will assume that you know what you are talking about, which plays into the rhetoric genuity.