Speech Evaluations: Taking the Pain From the Process

Dr Ralph Smedley, in his book “Personally Speaking”, reduced the complexities of speech evaluation to four simple questions:

 

            1.  Did the speaker have a purpose, and did the speaker make good on it?

 

            2.  What did I like best about the speech?

 

            3.  What definite thing should the speaker do to improve the speech?

 

            4.  Did the speaker “make a sale” to me?

 

Although Toastmasters International has developed a great deal of materials to aid us in the art of ‘growth’ evaluations, nothing yet published captures the role of the Evaluator more clearly than those four questions. 

 

Let’s take a closer look at these questions and see how they come into play during your next opportunity to serve as an Evaluator of a speaker.

 

1.      Did the speaker have a purpose, and did the speaker make good on it?

 

If the speaker is working from either the Basic or Advanced C&L Manuals, the purpose of the project will be known to you.  Then it is a matter for you to determine if the speaker met his/her obligations in that regard.  Obviously, in your role as Evaluator, it is a primary responsibility to read and understand the speech project IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING, if possible.    As you listen to the speech, keep asking yourself if the stated purpose of the speech is being met.

 

            2.  What did I like best about the speech?

 

Here is where you need to ask yourself a series of questions:

 

            What type of opening was used and did it get the audience’s attention?

 

            Was there a smooth transition to the body of the speech?

 

            Was the body well constructed, easy to follow and have a logical flow to it?

 

            If data, statistics, or quotes were used, did the speaker cite the sources?

 

            Did the close seem appropriate to the purpose of the speech and was it well done?

 

            Were the speaker’s gestures, appearance, dynamics, and manner appropriate to the speech?

 

After you have answered the questions, you will need to decide which of these impressed you most and aided the speaker to get the message across.  Pick out the ones you felt were central to the success of the speech and comment on them.

 

3.  What definite thing should the speaker do to improve the speech?

 

            In the limited time you have for the evaluation, you will be limited to one or two suggestions to the speaker.  Here it is important to bear in mind the speech purpose and relate your suggestions to it.  For those who are more advanced speakers, try to avoid comment on basics, such as eye contact, gestures, rate and pitch, unless they have a definite bearing on the acceptance of the speech by the audience.  Rather try and point out how some facets of the speech could have been improved.  For example, limiting the topic so as to cover fewer points in greater detail, or how the (opening)(body)(close) could have been made stronger.  [NOTE:  When pointing out what could have been improved, also provide examples of how it could have been done better.  In other words drop the other shoe.]

 

4.  Did the speaker “make the sale” to me?

 

            Regardless of the purpose of the speech, be it to inform, entertain, persuade, or educate, the final test is whether the purpose was accomplished.  No matte how well the speech was delivered from a speech mechanics standpoint, if it didn’t “sale” you then it failed the final test.  A humorous speech which provokes no laughter or a persuasive speech which doesn’t persuade fails the test and the speaker should be aware of how the speech was received in terms of the speech purpose.  If the speaker didn’t make the “sale” you may want to include the reasons for the failure in your evaluation, or if time, or sensitivity is a factor, talk with the speaker after the meeting when you will have sufficient time to explain your reasons for feeling as you do about the “sale” part of the speech.

 

Dr Smedley was also insistent that a Toastmasters speech evaluation should be “helpful, is always friendly in tone, and never harsh, biting, discouraging or sarcastic.”  Knowing the speaker is the best guide to how “softly” or how “realistic” your evaluation will be.  A novice speaker needs more encouragement and so your suggestions need be phrased in such a manner as to be gentle.  A more seasoned speaker may be anxious to have his or her speech evaluated with more of a fine line approach.  Veteran speakers, having developed the self confidence needed to develop speaking skills are more apt to look to the evaluator for in depth analysis of his or her performance.  Whether you are evaluation a novice or veteran, a good evaluation is like a good cup of coffee………strong enough to get your attention but not so strong as to leave a bitter after taste.

 

 

So let’s try and incorporate all of these points into a mock evaluation.

 

            “Thank you, Madame (Master Evaluator)(General Evaluator), my fellow Toastmasters, most welcomed guests, and especially, John.”

 

            “Your purpose tonight was to present a controversial issue and persuade us to your point of view.  Controversial the topic certainly was and persuasive you certainly were.  I can’t speak for others but I’m now ready to vote for the upcoming bond issue, thanks to the persuasiveness of your arguments.”

 

            “I felt your skillful use of statistics and logic were the keys to the “selling” of your point of view.  By pointing out the consequences of failing to pass the bond issue with believable statistics and then applying sound logic to the alternatives we face, you brought a strong focus to the problem.”

 

            “By urging us to vote in favor of the bond issue you made us a part of the decision process and challenged our thinking on this complex, controversial issue.”

 

            “While it was a well crafted speech, I have two suggestions to offer for your consideration, which I believe could enhance this effective speech.”

 

              “ The first would be to craft a more attention getting opening, such as “Think of it.  There’s an attempted break in to your home.  You reach for the phone to call the police, but all you get is a recorded message that no police are available and you should phone the county sheriff’s office for assistance.  That could be just one of the negative results of a “NO” vote on the city bond issue next month.” Delivered with feeling such an opening could be highly effective.

 

            “Also, in addition to urging us to vote “YES” on the bond issue, you might revisit your opening, by saying something like, ‘I hope if you ever have to phone the police, there will be someone there to answer the phone.  Will there be?  It’s up to you.”

 

            “With minor changes, John, I think you have a speech you should consider sharing with other organizations in our city.  With your skills as a speaker, I’m sure you’ll change a lot of minds on this vital subject.”

 

 In this mock evaluation, all four questions Dr. Smedley posed have been answered and the speaker would feel good about his performance while getting some help on how to make it even better.

 

I tend to concentrate less on style than on purpose.  We each develop our own style as speakers.  Unless a speaker’s style interferes with getting his/her message across I don’t mention it as a part of my evaluation.  Some of the finest speakers in America violate the basic protocol we teach new members, yet they are highly effective.  Tom Peters, the noted author of the book “In Search of Excellence” breaks every rule in the book.  His jacket is always unbuttoned, he paces back and forth without purpose, carries a legal note pad around while speaking and goes of into tangents.  Yet he draws overflow audiences because his messages is so powerful that most people never notice the “speaker protocol” errors. 

 

We, as evaluators, must concentrate on identifying the speaker’s strengths, and offering the speaker our help in overcoming weaknesses.  By answering those four simple questions and doing so in a friendly, helpful manner, we can meet our evaluation purpose.

 

 

Developed by: 

Jim Smith, DTM, PID

District 40, Region VI

 

Visit http://jefmenguin.com and http://jefmenguin.wordpress.com for more public speaking tips.