Moneynomist “Seize the Advantage” Series of Workshops: Dissecting the Message

The following article is expanded from points based on my slide notes for my 30-minute workshop, “Dissecting the Message”, which is about project speech evaluations in Toastmasters.  This is part of the wider Moneynomist “Seize the Advantage” programme, along with Eric Tan Shi Wei, Gerald Yong Kim Heong, Margrette Lo Foong Quan, Oh Cheng Kok, and Zhuo Shu Zhen.  The Moneynomist team is from AIA Toastmasters Club, and are all past presidents.

This programme covers the art of dissecting the message, and evaluating what people really mean when they say what they say.  Or, what they do not say.  We have to understand that conversations happen at two levels: the overt, and the implied.  In the overt, we consider the speech, and the body language.  In the implied, we consider the words not said, the things not mentioned, the actions not done.

It is always important to begin with definitions so that we understand what we are all talking about.  George Bernard Shaw, the Irish playwright and social activist, allegedly said, “The United States and Great Britain are two countries separated by a common language.”  We often use the same words in our conversations, but mean entirely different things.  All workshops should begin with definitions of the subject matter to set the scope and parameters,

What is an evaluation?  An evaluation is a judgement or assessment.  Specific to this case, it is about a speech delivered.  The root word is “evaluate”, and originated from the mid-19^th century, as evaluation, from the French évaluer, as a sort of portmanteau of the Latin “ex”, meaning “out”, and from “Old French “value”, “value”.  It literally means to “out the value”.

We now consider the purpose of a project evaluation.  There are two aspects of evaluation.  The first, and most obvious, is to evaluate the structure of a speech, its points of acclamation, and points of improvement.  This is what we call the technical evaluation of a speech.

The second, and the underlying reason why we have Toastmasters, is ensure that there will be a next speech, and a next speech, and a next speech.  The evaluator must encourage, educate, inspire, the speaker.  Any evaluation that fails to do this, is a failed evaluation.

In the course of an evaluation, we must understand that there are things than an evaluator does not do.  There are several areas where the evaluator oversteps the boundaries of the speech project evaluation.  These are common mistakes that should be avoided.  What may be surprising is that some mistakes are made more by senior Toastmasters, and not beginners.

Firstly, when it comes to the speech, we must remember that the audience heard the speech.  They do not require the evaluator to recount, repeat, re-enact the project speech.  That is not entertaining to the audience, and it is not helpful to the speaker being evaluated.

Secondly, we must understand that there are specific people who hold the appointment roles of language evaluator and ah counter.  They do not evaluate the speech.  The language evaluator looks at enhancements of language, and means to improve specific areas pertaining to grammar, morphology, and rhetorical devices.  The language evaluator does not evaluate the structure of the speech.  The ah counter looks for pause and word fillers.  A good ah counter would be able to explain why and where they occur so that the speaker can take note.  Again, he does not evaluate the structure of the speech.  The project evaluator is not required to undertake those roles, and duplicate it.  His job is to evaluate the speech.

Some project evaluators get personally involved in the speech.  Paradoxically, or not, this is a problem that tends to afflict senior Toastmasters, especially Distinguished Toastmasters.  It is the role of the audience to be moved emotionally and psychologically by the speaker.  The evaluator should note these, but he should not be so affected by it that he cannot judge the technical quality of a speech.

It is not how any of us, as an evaluator, feels.  Just as the speaker channels the speaker persona, the evaluator channels the evaluator persona, and must be neutral and above emotional involvement.  Otherwise, the evaluator cannot properly evaluate a speech.  How is the evaluator going to address the pathos, if he is swayed by it?

Another issue that tends to afflict senior Toastmasters, is when the make the evaluation about them.  We have to understand that we bring our knowledge to bear in an evaluation, but it must never be weighed by the baggage of our experience.  Again, it is not about us – it is about the hero’s journey of the speaker.  Even if we went to the same place, ate the same food, met the same people in the story, it is the speaker’s journey, not ours.  The evaluator is to evaluate the speech, not reminisce our past.

To evaluate a project speech, an evaluator has to understand the structure of an effective speech.  A good speech is like a complete journey.  It starts with a statement, which may be in the form of a rhetorical question.  It then expands and expounds on it, and bring us on a journey.  The art of rhetoric is to put forward that cogent, coherent argument, for or against a position, and sway the audience towards it.  It then brings us home, that return to innocence, and circles back to that statement, which has evolved into a call to action, so that we are moved to act upon the message, and continue that hero’s journey.

Depending on the nature of the audience, and the material, it must have logos, pathos, ethos.  The speaker wears the mantle of the speaker persona, and his purpose, within that speech, is to convince the audience that he channels our thoughts, our hopes, our fears.  That is what the evaluator looks out for.

The first thing we look for is the logic of the argument.  This is the speech coherency.  If it is incoherent, the audience cannot follow, and that spell is broken.  It is for the evaluator to identify these points of incoherency, and address them.  If it is cogent, coherent, contextual, he is to point it out, and state why it is good, because good can always be enhanced to better.  Just as we find points to improve, we must appreciate good elements of a speech.

Then we consider the ethical considerations of the hero on that hero’s journey, and whether it is aligned with the story, and the character.  If there is a disconnect between action and belief, it is the evaluator’s job to point it out.  If there is alignment, the evaluator points out these points of alignment to enhance the speaker.  There must be a reason why people do what they do, and become who they are.  We want to understand that.

Ultimately, people feel.  They are creatures of emotions, prisoners of their historical baggage, their fears, their melancholy, their hates, their loves, their hopes.  We all want that for ourselves, and we all see ourselves in every story.  The evaluator should be cognisant of any incongruency in the delivery, and the story, just as he highlights these points of congruency.

In the course of delivering the evaluation, we should avoid some common tropes.  I will highlight two: the call for vocal variety, and to use the stage.

Vocal variety is one of the tropes we find evaluators use, without considering what this means.  What is vocal variety?  How does it affect the speech?  In which direction would you recommend the speaker go towards?  The speech is not a play.  It is not a re-enactment of parts of people’s life.  It is a recounting of an event, with a message and an intent.  This is not Shakespeare in the Park.  Any call for vocal variety has to be quantifiable and measureable.  Otherwise, it devolves into a cliché, and is unhelpful.

We often hear evaluators tell the speaker to “use the stage”.  This is another trope that is not helpful.  Not every speech requires movement.  We have to consider the context of the speech, and the intent of the speaker, the nature of the audience.  For example, if the speaker is giving a speech in the context of an appointment holder, whether in public office, or as a policymaker, he should not be “using the stage”.  Rather, he is the centre of attention, the focal point of the audience’s universe.  He is to capture it, and hold it tight.  Movement breaks that gravitas, and diminishes the import of the speech.  At worst, it conveys indecision, incredulity, and even a lack of credibility.

As such, when giving the evaluation speech, we begin by addressing the speaker.  He is the centre of our universe for the duration of that speech, and we have become annihilated in him, and his hero’s journey.

My preference is to mention three points of acclamation, why it is good; and three points of improvement.  It is common that we may have a lot to say, but that is not the purpose of the evaluation.  It is the mentor’s job to address these issues in detail.  It is the evaluator’s role to highlight them for all present to learn, good and bad.  The evaluation is meant to highlight the good and bad, not be a detailed analysis and breakdown of a speech.  People only have a certain capacity to learn at a time.  If we mention more than three things, it is ineffective, and it goes above their head.  It may even be demoralising.  We mention only three points; we do not fawn or nag.

One of the mistakes that many newer evaluators make is to be apologetic.  We do not have to apologise for what we have to say.  It diminishes our credibility, and affects our confidence.  The words we hear ourselves say have positive and negative effects.

No evaluator should say that the speech is perfect.  That is a lie, and we all know it.  There is no such thing as a perfect speech.  No matter how good a speech is, there is always another point we can improve.

Some evaluators go the opposite way, and denigrate the speaker.  We must never tell the speaker he is not good enough.  None of us ever started out good enough.  That is the reason we have project speeches and speech evaluations.  It is a privilege to be considered good enough to evaluate someone’s hero’s journey.

The evaluation must be encapsulated with a closing statement of broad intent.  This should inspire the speaker to give another speech.  Areas to look out for include breadth versus depth, credulity of the story, veracity of sources and quotes, and transition from one point to another.  A credible speech must have facts, and verified quotes.  I am particular about quote attribution, for example; and scientific facts.  Too often, we hear clichés based on misconceptions, outright fabrications, and superstition.  A good speech educates, not spreads misinformation.

In the delivery of the speech, there is a rule of thumb in time management, beating the clock.  There is a reason why a speech evaluation is around three minutes.  Psychologically, people have a lesser tolerance for criticism, and so, it is an art to be give feedback in a diplomatic manner, elevate their speech, inspire them, and make it meaningful.  By the time the timer has flashed the green light, the evaluator should have covered all the points of acclamation, and have started on the recommendations.  By the time the timer has flashed the yellow light, the evaluator should be thinking of transitioning into his summary.  By the time the timer has flashed the red light, the evaluator should have begun summarising.  Thirty seconds is more than sufficient to wrap up.

Ultimately, speech evaluations are one half of project speeches in a Toastmasters journey.  A good Toastmaster should be proficient in both since they encapsulate two halves of effective communication: the ability to speak, for the project speeches; and the ability to understand, for the project evaluations.