Speaking to a pootentially hostile audience

Confront opposition early

If you expect that portion of your audience will oppose your position, then you need to display empathy for their position.

Empathy does not imply agreement with it - merely that you understand how they feel.

Your first role as a speaker in this situation is to diffuse hostility. When the ill feelings that people brought into the session have been eliminated then you can move on.

In reality this may take more than a single speech. Your credibility will be based on your reputation. If people have been told that they have to come and listen to "Max the Axe" speak then you are in for a torrid time. If the source of your influence is hierarchical or coercive, you may win this time. Eventually, however, you will have a demotivated audience if not a rebellious one.

My early jobs were in the coal industry. The culture at the time was confrontational and suspicious of anything that management did. I did not change the culture of the coal mining industry - just the attitude of a particular group of employees towards a particular group of managers. Others were working in the same direction at the same time. Some with more spectacular results, others were less successful. Some were from management, others represented the workforce. It was the efforts of those who saw the need for change that created a substantial change in the culture of the industry. I cringe periodically when I read reports of industrial confrontation in that industry. It seems that for some pockets, noting has changed since the nineteen sixties. On the other hand there are significant areas where the culture has changed.

The key to eliminating confrontation is not sudden change. It is a progressive march towards a specific destination, that needs to be visualised and described.

Encouraging others to head in that direction will follow from a clearly articulated vision, and a practical set of steps. The change agent needs to demonstrate commitment, honesty and sincerity. Progressively others will follow.

First come the early adapters. They may be more able to see the potential future. They may have less attachment to the discredited past. I think of these as the key influencers. The followers come next after these early adapting scouts have shown that they were not destroyed by their courageous first steps. Some will never follow. They have such an attachment to the past that they will never leave it. Good leaders understand that you don't have to have everyone on side, just a critical mass.

How does this affect your speech?

Depending on where you are in a change cycle, the audience that you may need to address will vary. In the early stages, you need to articulate the vision. Later you need to demonstrate that commitments that you have made have been honoured. After the change, you need to focus on the successes to isolate the remaining critics and cynics.

In 1998, a friend of mine went as a volunteer to help in a disaster relief project in New Guinea after the tsunami, the tidal wave which destroyed coastal villages. He is an ambulance driver over here, so they put him in the medical corps over there. Even though he had seen a lot of blood on the roadside, nothing could have prepared him for what he encountered.

He said the thing that saved him was a doctor that he described as more like Hawkeye, the doctor in MASH, than Hawkeye was.

He said that this Hawkeye look alike told him to divide the patients into three categories: Those that no-one could do anything for; those that would get better on their own without any medical intervention, and those whose future would improve with the resources that they had available."

In the same way, some people will accept change intuitively. Some will never be able to accept the demands that change places on them. Our role as motivators is to take middle group - the ones who can only advance with guidance and help and make it possible for them to perform at their best as part of a team.


Move beyond not against

No-one ever won an argument. People have, however been persuaded.

Persuasion requires listening to the other party, while arguing implies shouting them down.

Listening means more than waiting for a break in their tirade, or trying to find a point to refute. It means being prepared to understand the other party's position.

Before you say anything in a confrontational situation, check that it is going to take the matter closer to resolution. To do this, enter with a clear vision of the minimum outcome that you are able to accept. Keep this picture of the "must have" at the forefront of your mind. Add to it the desirable extras that you would like to achieve. Certainly, endeavour to achieve these "likes," but don't let them detract from the "musts."

I have witnessed many industrial disputes where both sides seemed more determined to destroy the other than to achieve a workable solution. They failed to recognise that destruction of either party - the workforce or the company - would not benefit anybody in the medium term. The only result of such a tactic is to prolong the dispute. When the disputes were finally resolved, the main protagonists were quietly removed the pride of place that they had held and replaced by more moderate and constructive people.

In a confrontational situation, I can see little value in playing the man instead of the ball, to use a football analogy.

What happens, though if the other party is determined to attack you personally. Here I believe you will have a great strategic advantage if you focus on resolving the dispute, rather than retaliation. The truly wise person is one can think of something very witty to say in a tense situation, and doesn't say it.

Look for possible attractive transactions, those which have high value to the other party at low cost to you. This is possible where there is some common ground. It means that you must consider the lifelong value of the relationship. Ego gratification is a bad negotiation tactic.

Recognise that the alternative to agreement is termination. There are some situations where this is the only possible strategy. In this case, conflict is generated by a desire to oppress the other party into subservience. This may make you feel good for a while, but even if it is achieved then the best that you can hope for is to keep the conflict simmering below the surface.

Often we see the solution to conflict as convincing the other party of our case. This can only work if you are willing to see their case, too.

Build on the known

Your audience comes into your presentation with a certain amount of knowledge. I have dealt with the need to find out their base level in the introductory step.

You also need to consider any knowledge they already have that is inaccurate or inconsistent with your message. Common misconceptions that you have discovered in other audiences need to be incorporated here. Perhaps they are widely held beliefs that your research has shown to be accurate.

Before you can move on, you need to address these perceptions.

Use these questions to assess the current knowledge level of your audience:

• How much of your message is likely to be already understood by the audience?
• What preconceptions are they likely to hold, which may be inconsistent with your message?
• How can you present your message so that the audience believes that you are speaking to them on a personal basis?

The answers to these three questions will influence the starting point of your presentation.

To Build On What They Already Know:

• Create a vision of the current situation;
• Analyse the make up of the current situation;
• Suggest adjustments to the current;
• Create a vision of the possible.

Toastmasters - A great place to practice speaking

Whenever I am asked about the best way to practice public speaking I inevitably suggest join a Toastmasters club. Go to the Toastmasters International website to find a club near you.

But how well does the confidence gained in Toastmasters translate into confidence speaking before other groups. Toastmasters speak before (mostly) the same people every week and you know everyone is there to help you along.

To answer this question let’s look at how we learn something new. Before we learn we are often an Unconscious Incompetent (we don't know that we don't know how to do it).

For some reason or other we become aware that we could learn. Maybe it's an invitation to speak at a friend’s wedding, maybe it is recognizing that the people who can speak well are advancing faster at work. There are a thousand ways that we may become aware, everyone's story is different.

Even though we are aware, we may not choose to do anything about it - or we may even choose not to do anything. Nevertheless, we are now a Conscious Incompetent. We know that we do not know.

If we make a decision to do something, the first few times we try may be quite uncomfortable. But we stay focussed and we concentrate and we get by. This is the phase of Conscious Competence. We are able to do it, but we have to concentrate.
With practice, and some motivation and support, with knowledge gained from the program we will gradually feel more comfortable, and eventually we will wonder what all the fuss was about. We will become Unconscious Competents. We do it out of habit.

Let me take an extreme example - if you pull your left ear when you are nervous, you may not know it. Someone may draw it to your attention - hopefully quietly and sensitively - and you will become aware. Now you are more likely to notice yourself doing it. Someone may suggest a positive alternative behaviour to help you avoid it - always keep your hands in your pockets. Doesn't look good, I know, but much better than the ear pulling. When you feel yourself about to reach for your ear, whamm hand into pocket. A conscious act. Eventually the habit will disappear and be replaced by another annoying one - hands in pockets - but this is less distracting and easier to change to meaningful gestures.

So back to your original question: the habits that you develop in front of your comfortable group will stay with you. The habit of making eye contact, the importance of a catchy opening, always leaving with a memorable close - they are readily translated.

The other side - being uncomfortable in front of a group of strangers will partly disappear, because you have more confidence as a result of your catchy opening, your eye contact and the fact that your hands are in your pockets, not pulling your ear. But the self belief that this group of people are interested in what you have to say may only come from speaking to several different groups and Toastmasters offers that opportunity, too with over 10,000 clubs in almost 100 countries.
Here is a story that I often use to make this point:

I recently had a conversation with the leader of a band who practices in a garage not very far from my place. Suspecting that he couldn't afford a watch I rang him and told him what time it was. To extend the conversation I politely, although politeness at 3 am is not the same as politeness at midday, asked him "WHY ARE YOU PLAYING THAT MUSIC IN THAT GARAGE ANYWAY?"

He explained to me that they would not let him play at the Sydney Opera House until he got it right. In the garage he could practice the same song over and over in the hope that the nuances that he applied to the music would meld.

He also explained that he received some interesting feedback from my neighbors that was enabling him to adjust the material to suit a wider audience.
He admitted that some of the feedback was not useful (some was physically very difficult) but every now and then he obtained some evaluation that he could use.
Grateful that I had been able to add to his total knowledge, rather than going to sleep (an impossibility, anyway) I compared his method to my participation in Toastmasters.

The Toastmasters club is like a garage. I can try new things before an audience that will give me valuable feedback. Some I choose to ignore, some I modify before include it, some I accept totally.

In return I am asked to provide applause and feedback to my fellow members.
When I get it right in this low risk setting then I will be ready to take it to the real world.

Understand the Technology

My wife recently attended a seminar on a subject of interest to both of us. When she came home, I asked her how it went. She replied: "They couldn't get the video to work."

There was a time when technology in a presentation meant chalk and a blackboard.

Then it became 35 mm slide projection, overhead projection or videos. Today it can mean almost anything. I will not attempt to list the available multi media technology, because by the time that I finish writing it, it will be superseded.

In the old days, making sure that you had erasable markers was the advice to a speaker using a whiteboard. Today the advice is even more simple: Unless you are thoroughly familiar with the equipment, don't use it. Unless there is someone on immediate call who can change a globe, avoid it.

How many seminar participants does it take to change a blown globe? 95 to give unsolicited advice and one to go get another projector.

There is no question that correct use of modern equipment can enhance a presentation. Equally there is no question that poor use of equipment can destroy a presentation. You don't want to be remembered as the person who gave the seminar where the video didn't work.

Listen to the radio news. Even in the best of stations, with high quality equipment and professional operators from time to time the wrong sound bite will be put to air. The announcer will apologise then read a script which contains the information that was lost.

As a presenter you also need to be prepared for technical failure. Know the contents of the video that you are going to show; have reproductions of slides available so that handouts can be generated on site; have an alternative or back up equipment available.