Toastmasters & Etc.

Listening * Thinking * Public Speaking * Self Improvement

4 Responses

Subscribes to this post Comment Rss or TrackBack URL
Lisa Braithwaite says,
in 5-13-2008 @ 09:31:34    

This post cracked me up, John. I think speakers need to get used to presenting in the real world, with waiters banging plates and people walking in and out, and horns honking on the other side of the door. But beans in a jar? That’s just ridiculous, especially because, as you mentioned, the use of “um” suddenly becomes the only measure of a successful presentation.

Here’s my take on “um” and “uh,” by the way:
http://coachlisab.blogspot.com/2006/11/barack-obama-says-uh.html.

Jason Black says,
in 5-13-2008 @ 14:51:51    

Amen, John!

I understand the motivation for the clicker or bean jars or whatever: to draw the speaker’s attention to the ‘um’ _at the moment it happens_. The desire to do this stems from the fact that people usually have no idea that they’re committing so many ums in the first place.

But I’m with you: that particular cure is worse than the disease. Far better–and IMHO more effective–is to let people become aware of ah-counting by means of the ah counter’s report, and especially by making that person serve as the ah-counter (one of the better newbie meeting roles) before they do their Ice Breaker. Teaching someone to _listen_ for ahs and ums in other people’s speech will also enable them to be aware of their own. It takes time, but it’s far, far gentler than more overt methods.

I can’t listen to _any_ public speaker, radio talk show host, etc, anymore without being painfully aware of their ahs and ums. I’ve been able to eliminate them from my speeches as a result, and all without clickers or beans.

Great post!

Jeff says,
in 5-23-2008 @ 20:43:40    

I vaguely remember leaving a comment on Lisa’s site about this.

I think that Toastmasters place a lot of emphasis on “ums” and “ahs” because it is easy to measure. You simply have to count. It really doesn’t do a lot of good to place so much weight on them. A simple, “the ‘uhs’ were distracting” is quite enough. Listen to Steve Jobs, he has issues with this and still does an outstanding job.

On the other hand, if the people running it know what they are doing then real-time correction is very, VERY, valuable. When I was an instructor we used this technique to train new folks. It is not very effective for the filler word issue. The problem with this technique is that the people doing the correction have to know what is important. It you try to correct every little flaw you will quickly overwhelm the “victim.” Done right it is a very effective technique.

A guy in an advanced club asked me to do this for him during a presentation. I had described our work training sessions and he was eager to try it. He had a habit moving behind a desk during his presentations; it was as if the desk had a gravitational field. Plus, he had no idea he was doing it. I used a hand signal to let him know when he was moving in that direction. It worked quite well.

In most Toastmasters clubs it would be an absolute disaster;)

I enjoy your blog,
Jeff

Shawn Levasseur says,
in 6-13-2008 @ 11:19:30    

Agreed, evaluations are for after the speech. Mid-speech critiques are a mild form of heckling.

Now Jeff’s example of a requested “you’re doing it again” hand signal is pretty good for an experienced speaker. It’s much more subtle and could be compared to a timer’s signal.