I went to a slew of parties over the holidays. When people asked me what I do, I found myself saying, “Consultant,” or “Speech consultant,” or if I’m feeling really insecure, “Itinerant rhetorician.” I am essentially dodging the phrase “presentation skills” because I’m paranoid that people will think of me as the guy who tells you to look people in the eye, stand still, and wave your hands around.
In fact, I spoke to a lady the other day who differentiated between “speaker training” and “presentation skills.” To her, “speaker training” is getting doctors to master new data; presentation skills is delivery.
I am currently working with a pre-clinical group in the pharmaceutical industry, helping them prepare presentations to an internal committee in order to win approval for promising new compounds to be tested in humans. When I did some interviews, I found that many in the department had underlying attitudes about presenting.
Here they are in no particular order:
– Scientists must be dispassionate and objective, therefore passion in a scientific presenter is unprofessional.
– Management should leave me alone and let me do what I’m good at.
– Most good scientists are not good presenters, therefore, if you’re a good presenter, you’re probably not a good scientist.
– I should not have to care about my “image.”
– I have no interest in improving my presentation skills.
– Content is king. Presenting is a necessary evil – Presenting is a burden, not an opportunity- Publishing my data for peer review is good; presenting my data to my peers is a pain.- My data slides ARE my presentation.- Reading slides is what my mentors did. If it was good enough for them, it’s good enough for me.- Rehearsing is for actors, not for a scientist like me.
My impulse was to quote Cicero in response, a snooty approach I successfully avoided. But I wanted to tell them what he said: “If truth were self-evident, eloquence would not be necessary.” To my mind, eloquence is, at bottom, speech that creates clarity and feeling in listeners–enough to cause them to take action.
In this case, the scientists have a tough job–to recommend that the company spend millions on a research project that, if history is any indicator, has only a tiny chance of succeeding. They’ve got to get the audience to salivate over efficacy, safety, and marketability, despite the presence of vast uncertainty on all fronts. If the speaker doesn’t demonstrate conviction and clarity, and strive to create the same in her audience, what are her chances of success?
Uh…slim to none, and slim is leaving town!