It is very common to see panel discussions at business events. There is danger lurking in the shadows, though. The hosts invite a number of experts, usually around three to four, to interact with the MC. The idea is that a range of views will emerge and a richer resource of information will be provided this way, compared to the single speaker model. Sometimes, there will be a hybrid, where you might be asked to give a short burst on your subject and then join the rest of the panel for the discussion component.
The danger here is your personal and professional reputation is being put up for public evaluation. This is not just against an absolute standard, but also in a comparison with the other panel members. Some colleagues up on stage can be quite competitive, but you didn’t get the memo. Your insights may come across as paltry, when ranked against another panellist’s sterling efforts. Or you might struggle to give a meaningful reply to the MC’s questions and come across as a “fake” expert. The other end of the problem are those panellists who just talk way too much and lack self-awareness. Technical people can often be like this. They ramble on and on and the MC has to publicly reign them in. This is not a good look, so be succinct in your answers.
When we are asked to give a talk, hopefully we prepare well for the occasion, and we should rehearse what we are going to present. With a panel discussion it is a bit illusory, because it doesn’t seem to be a “presentation”, but in fact it is. It is certainly judged that way by the audience. They don’t say to themselves, “Oh, this is just a panel discussion, so I will suspend my usual cynicism, high expectations and unrealistic standards accordingly”. No, they are in full beast, critic mode, as per normal.
Thinking of the panel talk answers as your own personal mini-presentation is a good starting point. This will drive you to prepare properly. What does that mean, though? We should know what the MC is going to ask us in advance and prepare our answers ahead of time, so that we are not struggling to come up with a response on the spot. It is always good to check with the MC on the day, because things may have moved since they sent you the email on the questions they were planning to ask.
We also have to be on the ball with paying close attention to the comments of the other panellists. The MC may suddenly ask us to match our comment to their remarks. If we are concentrating only on what we will say next, we may miss the cue and look frazzled. As the discussion moves, we have to be ready to make an unprepared comment and so we should be mentally manufacturing possible answers to any questions which may arise. We need to be constantly adjusting to the flow of the conversation in real time.
Being able to sprout statistics, references, quotes on the subject really adds weight to our reputation as an expert in this area. Normally, if we have a slide deck in a presentation, then all of the data is there and we don’t have to remember any of it. On a panel, though, being able to quote the information from memory is very attractive and impressive to an audience. Opinions are cheap, but knowledge has to be gained and we need to demonstrate we have this subject firmly in our grasp.
Now having said that, it is not a bad thing to refer to some notes if the content is complex or challenging to recall. Don’t worry, the audience won’t rise as one and denounce you as a fraud for checking your notes or quoting from your notes. However, being able to unload the data unaided, elevates your level of credibility to a very great height. This is particularly useful if you are the only one of the panel who can pull off this magic trick.
I was chatting to a panellist before the action got underway and he was telling me about the public speaking training he had received at his legal firm, so I was expecting a good performance. Well, it was pretty average. Why? He ummed and ahhed his way through it and had negative vocal mannerisms such as saying “you know” way too often. That detracted from the believability of his comment content. What we say and how we say it matters.
The other big error was he ignored his audience. I could see he hadn’t been on too many panel discussions. The MC was seated at the end of the row of experts. Our panellist would receive a question from the MC and, while solely looking at the MC, deliver the response. Amateur mistake. He had an entire audience there to speak to, but he chose to ignore them. He could give a six second blast to the MC and then work his eye contact on individual members of the audience.
In one minute he could make six seconds of direct connection with ten people each in the crowd. Generally, our answer takes three to four minutes, so there is a possibility of strongly engaging 40 members of the crowd per answer. That is a totally different result to ignoring the audience and just answering the MC’s questions.
One other thing is posture. Women have this worked out, so they rarely ever make rookie mistakes. However, some male panellists slump in their chairs and look simply unprofessional. Guys, never kick your legs out like you were watching the sports on TV at home. You might think that wouldn’t happen, but you will see it. I recall an MC himself doing this during the discussion. I couldn’t believe it, but there he was, in full sight destroying his reputation.
Also, please spare us a ringside view of your hairy shins, because your socks are too short. When we are up on stage, we are elevated, so the eyeline of the audience is looking up at us and hence the brutal calf exposure no one needs to see. Sit up straight and tall, keep your knees together and remove all distractions from your message. Don’t forget to use gestures which include the audience in your answers.
Remove the risk and danger from being a panellist and instead turn the opportunity into a triumph of personal and professional brand building.
The education system in Japan from the early stages, right the way through varsity to most corporate training, is based on the lecture model. The instructor provides the information, and the participants write it all down. It is a very one directional, passive approach. When we are presenting, what do we do when we are using the “inform” model? Where are we supposed to draw the line between just passing on valuable information to the audience and trying to engage the audience? Are these two aims mutually exclusive? Isn’t the reason we are invited to speak is because we have valuable things to impart to the audience? Isn’t the reason the audience has turned up is to gain insights, perspectives and information they don’t already possess?
I am sure we all agree that the speaker has to provide value to the listeners otherwise what is the point of them paying the dough and investing their time to attend? The question becomes how to provide the required value? Can the speaker have excellent experience, clear insights, rich data and be engaging at the same time? The answer is yes and let me use a local example to make the point. Jesper Koll is a well-known economist here in Tokyo and he does a lot of public speaking. I am a fan and have attended maybe twenty of his presentations over the years. To my mind, they always hit the right combination of excellent experience, clear insights, rich data and are kept engaging.
What is Jesper doing which is working so well? He is always high energy, humorous, provides high quality statistics and data and most importantly, he has an intent to engage everyone in the crowd. Speaker intention is a key asset to be successful. He doesn’t see his role is to just dump a lot of data on his audience and imagine his work is done. He is going for much more than that. He wants to get a strong reaction from his audience and he is always successful in that aim.
Storytelling is an asset for Jesper. Rather than just giving everyone a download of facts, he wraps them up in stories. This makes the information much easier to absorb, digest and recall. Think about what stories you have to thread your data through. The story sticks and therefore so does the data. Here is a simple example. Say the data showed that the number of young people in Japan aged 15-34 has halved in the last twenty years and is going to halve again in the next thirty-five years.
We could just state the facts or we could wrap it up in a story like this: “It was a snowy day in Tokyo and I was visiting my client in Otemachi. It was really miserable outside, so I was glad to get out of the cold and into the warmth of his office on the 23rd floor. We were sitting in their expensive, well-appointed leather and walnut Boardroom with his HR team and we were discussing the problems of recruiting and retaining staff. I didn’t know these numbers, but on the huge monitor on the wall, his head of HR Ms. Inoue put up the demographic projections for Japan. In the last twenty years we have halved the number of people age 15-34. What was highlighted to me was that the projections showed we would lose another half again over the next 35years. I was silently wondering where we would find the staff we need to expand the business in the future”. By using storytelling we have taken the audience to a place in their mind’s eye, where they can see a snowy Otemachi, a gorgeous Boardroom, and a huge monitor showing the statistics. Threading the numbers into the story makes it more likely we will retain the data well after the talk and as speakers that is what we want isn’t it, to be remembered as someone providing value.
Jesper also uses rhetorical questions very well. He will come and stand right in front of someone in the audience, towering over them and lay down the question. The victim is usually paralysed by fear at this point because (a) they think they have to provide an answer in public and (b) they don’t know the answer. Just in the nick of time Jesper wades in to the rescue with the answer. At this point, the victim realises that this was a rhetorical question after all and not something they were obliged to answer. Floods of relief abound at this point.
The upshot is that he keeps his audience on their toes and engaged with the proceedings. Trust me, you don’t want to be daydreaming when he is speaking, so he keeps everyone paying close attention to what he says. He is using his eye contact constantly with individuals in the crowd. This personalises the talk, rather than leaving it as the spray the eye contact everywhere, at the same time, alternative. That method engages precisely no one. Watch Japanese politicians. You will see they are masters of fakery, looking like they are making eye contact with the crowd, swivelling their heads to and fro, without managing to make any engagement with anyone.
Why is the lecture style of speech here so popular? As I mentioned this is the model most people have been exposed to since birth, so this has become the default standard. Anything else looks like heresy in a culture where conforming is the best path to safety. You get along in Japan by going along and so no rocking the boat. Does anyone audit the results of these lectures masquerading as speeches? No, so the crime against humanity continues from one generation to the next.
The reason this style of speech has reached its end use date is because of technology. The mobile phone instantly connects everyone to the lure of the internet. With advances in AI you can access data so quickly, we don’t need to be told stuff anymore. Just data by itself isn’t enough. We need insights, fresh perspectives, guides on how to apply the data and access to the experiences of others. We want to learn what we should do in a similar situation.
In the past, the moment the speaker looked boring, that is to say, started lecturing, the Japanese audience’s traditional remedy was to fall asleep. I have seen plenty of that in my 39 years here. However today, the listeners are now wide awake and on their phone accessing the internet. The competition for mind space is relentless and getting harder, as concentration spans shrink, and distractions abound.
The speaker has to thread the needle between imparting valuable data and information and keeping the audience engaged and with them, so that the listeners can receive the key messages the speaker is trying to convey. As mentioned, we need to be energised and highly proactive to secure their engagement. Fresh data, insights, rhetorical questions, eye contact, voice modulation and storytelling are excellent tools for achieving that outcome.
At the start, I asked the questions, “When we are presenting, what do we do when we are using the “inform” model? Where are we supposed to draw the line between just passing on valuable information to the audience and trying to engage the audience? Are these two aims mutually exclusive?”. The clear answer is they are not in opposition to each other. Take Jesper’s example to heart and there will be no reason why we can’t all have both.
There is a famous speech construct which we have all heard; “Tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what you just told them”. Basically, this says open the talk by flagging what your central thesis is, expound on that thesis and then, in the summary, revisit the key points. There is nothing wrong with that approach, except that it is a bit basic and boring. Apart from that, it is fine! Given the bombardment we all face every day from the media, social media and advertising, we have to rise above the deluge and stand out or be washed away with the mass effluent.
How do we do that? Here is a simple formula we can use when constructing our talk. We can create our talk and involve some central characters. There will be the villain. It could be a person or a system or an issue or anything which is a danger to our getting done what needs to be accomplished. Also we need to add a bur under the saddle of the audience. We need to outline how bad things will become if we don’t take the action we are suggesting and take that action right now. Make the audience the hero of this talk. For ourselves, we play the role of the wise sage, the guide suggesting what would be the best approach to overcome this issue. We outline the call to action and we clarify the plan. Finally, we need to make clear the benefits of the outcome we are suggesting.
A good place to start is with the villain. We need to open the talk in a way which will break through all the competing messages inside the mind of our listeners. Today, they have a lot going on. They are worried about things they cannot control which happened in the past. They are anxious about the things they need to be doing right now. Additionally, they are projecting forward to drag in concerns which will appear in the future. In the midst of this maelstrom, we innocently turn up to give our little talk.
The opening is designed to smash through all the noise and grab the audience by the throat. We need to force them to put their phone down, stop thinking about something else, and give us their full attention. Bad news sells. We know that because look at what we are served up by the media all of the time. “If it bleeds, it leads” is a classic headline filtering exercise by newspaper editors. So let’s start strong with a big downside. For example, “We in business are all doomed, because we won’t be able to recruit the staff we need due to the shortage of workers here in Japan”. Hopefully, that start will set off a hundred “thuds”, as mobile phones hit tables in the room and all eyes are fixed on you.
Having grabbed their attention, we now go into detail on how bad it is and will become. We must make a strong case that if we don’t take action now, then Armageddon is just around the corner. For most people, doing nothing is thought to be a zero cost option, but we destroy that notion. The implications of no action have to be laid out in full. At this point, we need data, statistics, evidence, proof to make our point. Opinions are interesting, but so what? We want to know the facts to make up our own mind and this is when we give them to the listeners.
We make the audience the hero and we appeal to their better selves to make the right decision. Don’t leave this to chance. We try to control their reaction to what we are saying by setting it up during the talk. Our explanation will include statements like, “I am sure now that you have heard the numbers you can see that….” and “Based on the data, I am sure we will all agree that….” and “I hate to be a bearer of bad news, but I am sure we would all prefer to be forearmed and forewarned for a difficult future. So you can see why I am giving this talk now and I invite you to take action today.”
We as their wise guide come with the solution, outline what action they need to take in detail and save them all the work needed to fix the issue. Our plan is outlined comprehensively, and we include some “what if” scenarios. Do this because we must anticipate what the pushback will be from the audience before we give the talk. Don’t allow any doubts or concerns about what we are saying to fester while we are giving the talk. We go after them during the talk. Try to completely crush these objections and do that inside your talk before you get to the Q&A.
The success they will have from taking our advice has to be concrete, simple and presented in a way which will make it doable for the audience to adopt. We try to have them visualise the changes they need to make inside their firm to adapt what we are outlining to make it their reality. Get them to see the benefits in their mind’s eye through using word pictures.
When we parade these central characters in the story and arrange the talk using them, we create a presentation which will grip everyone’s attention. We can do this despite all the temptations of the internet, which, by the way, is within easy grasp and only a few clicks away for everyone. Old formulas for talks are fading fast as audience attention spans shrink, patience disappears, and time is in shorter supply. As presenters, we must lift our game and go harder to breakthrough all the barriers to our messages. If we do this, then we will stand out from the crowd and our personal and professional brands will be not only protected, but enhanced.
“I want to be perfect when I speak”. No, you don’t! Let me tell you a tale of two CEO presenters with different approaches to addressing their audiences. One CEO used recent movies as his navigation for his speech. Actually, I had watched none of them, but he added enough context for me to get the point he was making about his own journey as a CEO, in a tough industry, in tough times. Actually, we all love a talk about hard times and woe, followed by ultimate success against the odds. This type of speech gives us a mix of empathy for the presenter and hope for ourselves. By the way, which version of a talk would you be more interested in – “How I made $20 million” or “How I lost $20 million”? Most of us would probably be more interested in the latter, because our risk averse natures are always looking for clues as to what we should avoid doing. The other CEO speaker was just perfect. The speech flowed beautifully, it was carefully crafted and manicured. The navigation was exact and it had no delivery blemishes. It simply failed.
Part of the difference was in the storytelling aspect of the two talks. The first CEO got us hooked on his struggles, his despair, his tale of redemption. He opened up the kimono to share his vulnerability, his imposter syndrome, his raw fears. It was painful and real. We had a context to gauge his ultimate success, because he took us to the bottom, to the depths. He helped us visualise, through his word pictures, his challenging ascent back into the fiscal black. The other speaker told a tale of solid progress, a stable journey onward and upward. It was hard to hear, because it sounded too foreign, too far removed from the reality of the last couple of years of struggle.
The delivery styles were also diametrically opposed. The first CEO stumbled over his words at times, had a foreign accent which frankly challenged my ears to comprehend certain terms. He used the movies selected as navigation and spoke to the point each one represented and stitched his own story into the narrative to make his points come alive. His hands were empty for gestures. He was relaxed and concentrated on engaging his audience by looking at us throughout the talk. He used the stage area to cover the room to the left and right, but he wasn’t manic and aimlessly wandering around free range without purpose, like so many crazed speakers you see.
The second CEO sent a chill through my spine when I noticed he was bringing his iPad with him to the podium. Uh oh! Sure enough, he read that perfectly constructed speech to us all. He was a much more fluent speaker of English, had no pronunciation flaws and the construction of the talk and the navigation was excellent. He had clearly labored hard over the text to whip it into shape and make it as perfect as possible. That was the problem. It was perfect, but it lacked authenticity. He didn’t feel engaging as a speaker. It was a canned speech and by choosing to read it to us; he disconnected himself from his audience. He looked down at the iPad to give that talk and that meant he wasn’t 100% concentrated on his audience, unlike the first CEO.
We are not perfect when we speak, mispronouncing words and stumbling over cartain phrases. We have flaws and that is why we are appealing to our listeners. They know themselves that they are like that too. We forgive the speaker for our common flaws. There is a limit, though. Anyone who has had the misfortune to hear a speaker um and ah their way throughout the entire talk, says to themselves, “end this torture now please”. That is at the other extreme of flaws which surpasses the audience's ability to bear the unbearable. By the way, if that is you, constantly uming and ahing, then please do the rest of us a favour and stop speaking in public, until you can string two words together without destroying our souls.
Counterintuitively, when the delivery is too perfect, we struggle to feel any great commonality with the speaker. They are a different animal to the rest of us. Reading the talk guarantees perfection, but it comes at a severe cost. It can easily become a lifeless, moribund and boring exercise.
My guess is that this second CEO speaker spent the entire preparation time working on the crafting of the text. Effort was spent on shuffling words around and working hard on the flow of the document. There seemed no idea in play of “how can I deliver this talk and really engage the audience when I read it?”. Our word emphasis, phrasing, pauses, eye contact and gestures can still be employed when reading the text to bring it alive as much as possible. We can depart from the text to tell a side story or make a key point. Let’s engage in eye contact with the crowd, so that it feels like we are talking directly to them. We have all the tools at our disposal and we need to be drawing on them.
My advice though is to avoid perfection and go for authenticity. Concentrate on your audience. They will forgive your few flaws and will gravitate to you when you speak. Think about it. It is exceedingly rare that someone reading a talk can hold the audience in the palm of their hand. Have you ever witnessed that phenomenon in actuality? Our first CEO achieved that breakthrough, because he made us the centerpiece of his talk, not his carefully crafted text, like the second CEO did. You don’t need perfection – go for being truly authentic. If you are going to read it to me, word for word, then send it by email – that would be better.