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.