Donald Trump has made this technique of “many people say….” famous for dealing with opposing views. This is not an exercise for or against Trump. Rather, it is just looking at different ways we can head off opposition to what we are saying. We should have a point of view when we speak and therefore we should also be prepared for opposing points of view. Getting to the Q&A to deal with pushback is okay, but it is better to deal with it inside your presentation.
Most of us are one dimensional when we prepare our talks. We are thinking of ourselves and what we want or need to say. We don’t give much thought to how others will receive it. In Japan, it is unusual for anyone to go after you when you are speaking. Good manners requires that everyone be stoic and put up with annoying counter opinions. No one should lose face in a public arena. This is fine, but those who disagree may not bark, but they do bite. They will do it afterwards, rather than in public. They will criticise your failings to others and you will go merrily on your way, never realising that the audience thinks you are a total light weight. Better to grasp the nettle in the moment and end it then and there.
The key is to first design your talk in the first draft. I don’t mean write the whole thing out word for word, but to design the two endings for before and after the Q&A, to create the key points with evidence and finally design the blunderbuss opening to grab everyone’s attention. Once you have this framework start looking for your points of view interventions. There will be a few of these in the speech. These are the things you want us to believe or to do.
Now isolate these out and think about the opposite point of view. What would be the strongest arguments against your point of view. If you say there aren’t any, then a big reality check on your self awareness sounds like it is in order. Take the lawyers approach of preparing the brief for the other side in the argument. What would they say, how would they refute the points made, what counter evidence would they proffer. You might not think the evidence is comprehensive but that isn’t the viewpoint of those holding those ideas. Also consider what questions would they ask to find any holes in your proposition?
In the talk, you can draw on the Trumpian technique of putting up a stalking horse argument and then disposing of it comprehensively. You might say, “there is an alternate viewpoint that says XYZ. Most experts however believe that ABC is more convincing and better supported by the evidence”. You have said that not just you, but the experts are opposing this XYZ viewpoint and what is more, they have looked at all the evidence and concluded that what you are saying is more accurate. Third party interventions from experts makes it harder for people in the audience to disagree with you.
“Japan is different” is an all weather counter for just about everything that people base their views on. Japanese people disregard any surveys or research presented unless it includes Japan in the comparisons. It doesn’t matter what it is, unless there is a Japan component involved, they conclude it doesn’t apply here because, well, Japan is different. We can say that normally we would expect EFG to apply, but because this is Japan then we get UVW instead. This is hard to argue against because it is well accepted here that this logic makes sense. Of course, we have to have good evidence that this is how Japan does work in this case and that usually isn’t hard to muster.
Another method is to mention that the evidence is not complete yet, but that the trends seem to be pointing to whatever it is you are recommending. This is allowing that later research may refute what you are saying, but as far as we know up to this point, this looks to be true. Again, we make ourselves a small and elusive target for counterattack.
Mentioning this is your experience allows other to have had a different experience, which is fair enough. You are not saying that you are the sole guru on this subject, but everything you have seen so far, tells you this viewpoint seems to be the best case. You are open to other’s experiences and this comes across as a very even handed and balanced approach.
The key is in the planning, to know where the hot buttons will be pressed by people in the audience and to head them off at the pass, before they get going. Taking other opinions into account will make your talk seems more rounded and less dogmatic. You come across as knowledgeable on the subject and an expert who should be listened to. It is hard to argue against and your talk will go very smoothly when you get to the Q&A. The Q&A is the graveyard of many a good talk by the way, because the speaker didn’t plan ahead for pushback. We won’t be in that category anymore, going forward.