The Presentations Japan Series

In Part One, we looked at the ideas of primacy (the first thing we remember) and recency (the last thing we remember) and what this means for speakers. Now in Part Two we will go deeper with our entry and exit points of the chapters within the talk and how to choreograph the big crescendo for our polemic's sparkling conclusion.

We naturally have to pump a lot of energy into designing the opening stanza of our speech. On the surface of it, this would seem to be our one big chance to establish our theme, point of view and talk direction with the audience. The opening is a battering ram to smash into the brains of the assembled masses and launch a takeover of their every thought. This is easier said than done though, because any lapse of logistics or vocal quality and energy will see them scampering for the mental exists to get their internet fix mainlined through their phones.

Even if we do manage to hijack them at the start, we cannot presume we won't lose them somewhere midstream. That is why when we do the planning for the talk we need to design distinct chapters into the talk. These chapters are constructed around the evidence that supports our central proposition. Now these chapters have a primacy and recency function as well. The opening of the chapter has to dislodge that last thing we told them and replace it with the new bauble.

Most speakers pay no attention to this chapter idea and just arrange their talk to move from one section to the next. The sections of the talk compete with each other for audience attention and we have to be aware of that. At each chapter start we need a mini-battering ram to blast the tunnel deeper into the listener's mind. We have just told them some scintillating detail backing up our overall point and now we need to dislodge that, so we can ship in the next point.

Stories are good for this exercise as are questions, quotes, facts and statistics. We are wading deep in our evidence portion of the talk at this point, but the facts need to be arrayed before the audience in such a way that makes them irrefutable. In a forty minute speech each chapter will be about five minutes long, so taking out the blockbuster opening and the first stupendous close before the Q&A, we probably have time for six or seven chapters. So that means we need some variety with each opening. Starting each chapter with the same thing becomes predictable and boring. Predictability is the speaker's nemesis, because it invites the audience to escape from us now that they know what is coming next.

In the planning stage investigate the point you are making to support your overall argument and see what type of opening the evidence lends itself to. There may be some doubling up with opening gambits, but try for as much variety as possible to keep audience attention on you the speaker. The end of each chapter is mini-close as well. That means we have to come up with a zinger one sentence finisher that really makes your key argument sing. This is all a matter of planning and that is the rub. Most speakers do a poor job of planning because they are waist deep in slide assembly and logistics. This is what they call planning but that is delusionary.

We have used each chapter to make our case and each chapter ending to summarise the facts and evidence of that section. At the first close, before the Q&A, we need to bring the whole juggernaut to a crescendo. Again, this is all about our design creativity and communication expertise. Naturally the vocal delivery is a rise at the end of the final sentence that barks credibility, power, conviction and belief.

We finish strongly, implant a pregnant pause that invites the audience to recognise we have finished and that they may now unleash their frenzied applause. We then glide straight into the Q&A, following which we add another powerful close. It can mimic the first one, it could be different, it is all in the planning and what type of impact you want. Nevertheless, the vocal delivery will again be triumphant, strong and commanding. Many speakers end with a whimper, their voice quietly falling away. Don't be one of them. Go out powerfully, with energy, verve and supreme confidence. Deliver an ending they won't forget, because we know the power of recency and we want our message to stick.

Primacy refers to the beginning of something, as it enters our brain. This new entity has a powerful impact on our memory and our concentration. To muscle itself into our existing brain thought stream, takes a lot of mental energy. If successful, the new direction grabs us more powerfully than continuing with the same existing thought pattern. Recency is focused on the last thing we have heard. One of the narky criticisms of some people is that the thoughts we share with you are the result of our most recent conversation. We tend to remember the last thing we heard. That makes a lot of sense doesn't it, but what does this mean for speakers?

Are we only able to have our audience remember our openings and closings of our speechs? Yes, the audience will certainly most easily recall the first and last pieces of information. They will also strike an impression of us, on the basis of our first and last visual and vocal touches. Obviously, we need to plan for and control the delivery of all of this opening and closing business, but we can go beyond that. There will also be numerous other opens and closings going on during the audiences' busy day. How do we shove all of those completely aside and dominate the minds of our audience. We want them to absorb our message and to exclude all other competing thoughts?

Why do we have only one opening and one closing? Could we break the talk up into chapters? Each chapter is given a gangbuster opening and closing for that particular thought or point we want to convey. Could we bring some physical action to the fore to differentiate the chapters and lift the audiences' engagement with us? This is only possible if we switch up our thinking about what is achievable with a talk. The speaker's normal fare is the same as everyone else's normal fare. We are immediately at a disadvantage to stand out from the crowd. Sadly, we are at one with the speaker push, fitting in with standard operating procedures and methodologies. We become another grey automaton lined up with all the other robot speakers. Let's stop doing that.

In a forty minute talk, there will be room for around seven to eight chapters, an opening and the first close before the Q&A, then the final close. Let's change up the opening at both the mental and physical levels. We want an opening statement, question, quote, testimonial or story that rocks the audience back into the folds of their seat and makes them take note that they are strapping in for a major ride here today. This shatters everything that came before for them up until that point. We must extinguish their previous thoughts and proclivities. This is especially so, if you are one of a number of speakers tumbling along one after another, launching forth on some worthy topic.

Let's organise some crew, instead of always going solo. If there is a switch between you and the MC or the previous speaker, there is always some dithering around with the tech to get the laptops exchanged and your slides up. This drains the lifeblood of your first impression and the energy in the room simply tanks. The MC roars, "Ladies and Gentlemen, the incomparable, the amazing, the stupendous Dr. Greg Story. Please welcome him to the stage, because he is going to totally rock our world today". You scramble up on stage and are immediately bent over like an old, old man, head down, trying to get the laptop hooked up to the projector. This unwanted intrusion into the opening segment continues while you are zipping around with your mouse, looking to boot that slide show up. This lull in proceedings has cratered the impact of that powerhouse MC introduction. It has now effectively been driven down to a pathetic whimper. People have whipped into scrolling through their Facebook, LinkedIn or email, ignoring you while you get your act together. The opening's marvellous, magical momentum has melted away.

Why not get someone else to handle the logistics, so that you can get straight into your talk? They set it all up while you are already speaking to the audience. At the right moment they leave the slide advancer for you on top of the laptop, gracefully glide off stage and leave you to continue solo. This way we float directly onto the power stream of the MC and then take the audience even higher with our own energy. Yes, we need to have a lot of energy at the start, because remember there are two bodies on stage. We want to monopolise the audience's attention for ourselves. We purposely stand on the far side of the stage, to draw everyone's looking line away from the tech God and have the audience focus on us instead.

In Part Two, we will go deeper with our entry and exit points of the chapters and then how to choreograph the big crescendo for our polemic's sparkling conclusion.

Bruce Springsteen's song Glory Days lyric, "Boring stories of Glory days yeah, they'll pass you by" pops into my head sometimes, when I hear a speaker reminiscing about their glorious past. I was sitting there at a chamber function when the speaker began to talk at length about his start in sales and his experiences. It was fascinating for him no doubt, but it made him sound dated. He seemed to have become covered in dusty cobwebs too all of a sudden. Talking about ourselves is great and dangerous at the same time.

Usually when we speak, there will be our introduction done by the hosts. If we are on the ball, we don't place ourselves in their hands, so we write what we want them to say. That doesn't mean they are on the ball and can carry out a simple task. If we make it too long, the hosts usually manages to murder it by dropping bits or getting things wrong. I am always astonished that they cannot successfully read a piece of paper with words on it.

The audience is also on danger alert because they know the propaganda offensive is about to hit them. It is hard to write about yourself though, because there are so many things you want to include. Why is that? We are desperate to establish our credentials with the audience, so that they will become more accepting of what we are saying. We believe that volume is important so we should cram as much in there as we can. In fact, we are defeating our own efforts because either the host mangles the text or the audience switches off.

Avoiding the chronology approach is always a good start. Sometimes these details are included in the programme flyer and you don't need to mention them at all or you can organise your own flyer for the attendees. This is a good tactic and not hard to do. When we are speaking about ourselves, we should focus on the key points only. These are the things which relate to our expertise on this specific topic. I am a 6th Dan in Shitoryu karate, which is wonderful, but probably doesn't have anything to with a topic like presenting. I could instead say this is my speech number #342 and that would be congruent with establishing I am a real world expert of the dark art of public speaking and have the experience required to tell others how to do it.

Often we are using powerpoint, so we can bring up some slides about our company. This should also be brief. Simple clear slides are what we want and the selection of information should be limited to the most powerful USPs or unique selling points of our firm. Slide after slide makes an audience restless. They are sitting there thinking, "enough already, get on with it". When I worked for a long established Australian Bank which was rather unknown in Japan, I would show a photograph of the establishment of the first branch back in the 19th century. It was a black and white photograph with people dressed in the fashion of the Victorian era and it oozed with longevity. I also attached the date in the Japanese Imperial reign format, rather than the Gregorian calendar, to make it seem even more ancient and venerable. That one photo showed my Japanese audience we had stood the test of time and could be trusted with their money.

The CEO cowardly public speaking escape route of reliance on the souped-up corporate video at the start of the talk should be avoided at all cost. These videos are rarely a good match with the specific topic for that day, because there is usually only one video. It has to be the Swiss Army Knife of propaganda videos, to travel around the world boring people of every persuasion. If there is a particular section in the video which is really powerful, then just cue that part and don't bother with the left over detritus.

Giving our own examples is a good idea in the talk, but again, we have to steer away from too much recalling of our glorious triumphs. The audience is only interested in how what you are telling them will result in their own glorious triumphs, now and into the future. We have to get a balance struck between talking about ourselves for effect and not for the stroking of our own massive speaker ego. Where possible, use client examples of what you did for them, rather than droning on about what you did.

It is a tricky equation of how much is too much, which bits are more important than other bits and how much time should I allow for it. Err on the side of caution and go minimalist, recalling Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, "less is more".

In the public arena most presentations follow a set formula. I speak, I stop, you ask me questions and then I finish up and leave the venue. Inside of companies though, there will be different types of presentations. We may be creating a new project, getting the team members together and taking them through what we need to do. It might be a report on the progress of the section, where we are with revenues and clients etc. In some cases, we will be leading a discussion on where we go from here or how we will approach the project. We want people to buy into the direction, by helping create it. We might be doing a SWOT analysis as a group, to gauge where we are and what we need to be.

In these cases, we don't want to be doing all of the talking and we want others to get involved. One of the problems though, is that people are hesitant to speak up in meetings. They do have great ideas and good insights. However, they keep them to themselves and leave the room with these little gems still stashed away out of sight. People are not stupid. They have been taught the dangers of speaking up by bad bosses or evil colleagues.

At some point it has happened to them directly or they saw it happen to a peer. An opinion or comment is shredded on the spot and humiliation is being handed out in big gobs. Once you experience that for yourself or witness the shredding, you are cautious about what you say and who you say it to. Never forget, that the people in our building are up against a bunch of people in another building somewhere in town. The quality of our ideas and our execution of those ideas, is what determines who wins in the marketplace. If the ideas of our team are being traumatised at birth, then the other crowd will win.

In any meeting, the same confident three people will dominate the airwaves and all of their ideas will be adopted. There will be others sitting there with better experience, insights and ideas who are never heard. There are also cases where the politics is so rife, that jealousies and petty quarrels impede the development of an all team approach to beating the competition. We are too busy for them because we are fully occupied squabbling amongst ourselves. Or the boss is so dominant, no one dares to speak up, so the whole meeting becomes a monologue, with the boss talking talking, talking. This is where the facilitator's role becomes important.

Often it is better to bring in an outside facilitator who has no axe to grind, no revenge to extract, no agenda and no dog in the fight. They don't care about the past or hierarchy and are focused on getting the most out of the group in front of them. They are strong and can shut down any crap that some people want to pull, when trying to drag the proceedings back into the usual quagmire. I often play that role for senior executive groups, so I have seen all the typical shenanigans up close and personal.

If you are using the DIY approach, then set yourself up for success. Set some clear ground rules at the start or some of your colleagues will try to hijack control away from you and engage in their own agendas. Control who gets to speak and for how long. This is important because if you want to suppress the few noisy ones, you have to have the authority to tell them, nicely, to shut up and let others speak. Sounds good except when the person who is talking too much is the boss or one of the senior heavyweights, who enjoy throwing their weight around. Bit of tricky situation there for your career. If you do the right thing, you may be in the big shot's bad books and future retribution is headed your way.

Set the rules and get everyone to agree to them up front, including the corporate nobles as well as the hoi polloi. When you want to shut them down, you just cut them off while they are droning on and sweetly say, "thank you for your insights and I want to follow our agreement, that we will seek enough time for everyone to contribute, so let me ask you to please finish your current point and then I will get some other comments". You won't get fired for that one!!

The other problem is getting people to speak up, without someone else trying to destroy them, because they disagree with what they are saying or because they have a grudge or whatever. We set the rules that any comments will come in two forms – what you like about what they just said and your suggestions for taking their idea to a further and better place. Also, that except for you, no one else is allowed to cut anyone off, when they are speaking. It will happen and then angelically, you say, "Thank you Tom, and please allow me to play my role as facilitator and note that I am glad you are ready to weigh in. Also please let me allow Mariko to finish her point first, then you can tell us what you liked about it and then how we can make it even better". You won't get fired for that either, if Tom is one of the big bosses!!

Make the meeting rules the sole arbiter of correct behaviour, rather than yourself. Get everyone to agree before you start. Be an exemplar of tact, good manners and humility, when you assume the regal crown of controlling the meeting. Internal facilitators are walking around in a mine field, so always nobble the boss before you agree to take the role. Get their support and agreement to allow you to shut them or any other worthies down, if you have to. This facilitator gig is not for the faint hearted.

For many people it may seem we are getting into oxymoron territory here. "Public speaking…enjoyable? You must be kidding mate". Many are called upon to speak and reluctantly they give their talk without talent, enthusiasm or particular motivation. A duty, an unavoidable pain, like going back to the dentist for that root canal. As we rise in our careers, the necessity to speak in public goes right up in frequency and length. Unfortunately, no one tells you this is what is on the cards for future you, so you are perpetually unprepared. If we knew this was part of our unescapable future, then we would all get the training and end the misery right there.

Even for those who are sufferers, do they seek relief through getting training? No. They just continue blundering forward, reeking havoc wherever they go, destroying their personal and professional brands. This includes those who are devastated by nerves, quivering, pulse racing, hot flushes sweeping over their body, faces going bright red, knees knocking, stomach queasy and throat parched. Do they get training? No. They just lurch from fearfulness to fearfulness, whenever they are required to speak in front of others.

What do we need to fix this. Obviously training is one part and so is repetition. Most speeches though are one offs, a one and done affair. The speech has been used up for that audience, on that day and then it is shelved forever. So how do we get repetition? We may not get the chance to repeat the content, but we can give more talks. To do that though we have stop hiding from the chance. As a child in Brisbane, I watched the Three Stooges on black and white television and one of the jokes would be two of them would step back when asked to volunteer, making it appear that the other one had stepped forward, wanting to do the task. Reluctant speakers are mentally doing the same thing. Whenever the chance to get some repetition going comes up, they step back and let others do it.

Even if the chance to present to an audience is a one time thing, that doesn't mean the talk is a one time thing. If we are smart, we are giving this speech numerous times. We do these without an audience, in private, as a rehearsal for the big event. I competed in senior level Karate competition for many years and would never dream of going on to the mat and doing the kata or prearranged patterns, once only just for the judges. I would be practicising for months in the Dojo, rehearsing that kata, over and over again until I dropped. Why would putting your reputation out there in business require anything less?

By the time you hit that stage you are well practiced and confident. Consequently your brain doesn't release masses of chemicals preparing you for battle with a sabre toothed tiger, where you either run away or stand your ground and fight. Consequently, come showtime you are not so nervous. Some nerves yes, but not debilitating.

The other mental shift is to decide who this speech is about. Not what it is about, but who it is about. For people who hate speaking in public or become crippled with nerves, the speech is all about them. It is about their mental trauma, induced by how they feel they will be judged by the audience and their deep fears of imminent, unmitigated disaster, about to humiliate them for the rest of time.

We must switch the focus to the audience. We are giving each person six seconds of eye contact, inducing that feeling in them, that they are only person in the room. Hawk like, we are scrutinising their reaction to what we are saying. We are judging if they are with us or do we have to push harder to bring them on board. We are pumping out our ki (気) or intrinsic energy into the audience, to maximise our body language. We are using congruent gestures to add lustre and power to our words. Tonal variety, variations in speed and power engage the audience, such that they are eschewing their mobile phone's siren call to escape to the internet.

In response, some will smile, nod, laugh at your amusing asides, follow you through the navigation of the talk. After a while, some will start to lean into you. It will only be a few millimetres, but what a rush that feeling is. When twenty, thirty, fifty, one hundred people start doing that at the same time, there is a powerful energy in the room. It hits you like a drug racing through your veins and leaves you looking for your next hit. This is when public speaking surpasses duty and becomes a real pleasure.

Experts, pseudo experts, amateurs, believers, sceptics, supporters, enemies make up that sea of faces in front of us when we get up to speak. We can get some basic data from the organisers about who is in the room. What industries, companies, gender, age configurations are arrayed in those venue seats. What we can't tell are the information assimilation biases of our audience members. This means we have to plan for a spread of reactions to what we are going to say. By plan, factor that into the content and the delivery of our talk. How do we do that?

There will be four basic personality styles in that random selection of individuals gathered to hear our talk. Obviously we can't easily satisfy four different demands at the same time. During the course of the presentation we have to input elements which will appeal to all four, at different times. Usually speakers don't do this at all. They plan and deliver based on their own preferred styles and to hell with the rest of the room. Actually, it isn't that nuanced. It is not a conscious decision and more of one by neglect.

Content needs to have evidence. The degree of granularity we can go into however will be linked to our knowledge base and also to the time available to cover the topic. If we just bludgeon our audience with numbers for forty minutes, the Analtyicals in the room will be euphoric and everyone else totally nonplussed. They love the detail, the proof, the evidence through numbers and 0.0001 is a fully acceptable number for them. They don't care about us speaking in a monotone or being fully boring, as long as we keep coming with more valuable data. They will ask us incredibly detailed questions about what we presented and will be carefully checking to spot any contradictions or errors in the numbers or the assertions.

Amiables are very conservative and low key. They don't like bombastic outbursts. Radical ranting and venting don't go down very well with them. Calm delivery, in not too a loud a speaking voice is appreciated. They like plenty of reference to people. Who was involved, what did they do, how did they feel about it, are all curiosity factors for them. They generally won't raise their hand to ask a question, because they prefer to keep a low profile. If we are low key throughout the talk, then the Analyticals and the Amiables will be fine with that, but not so other key types in the audience. We need to have periods of calm interaction with our audience, to keep these first two groups happy. Focusing on data and people tends to go down well.

Expressives are bored with all of that data and hate that low energy stuff speakers get up to. They want some action, flamboyance, excitement, passion, enthusiasm, pizzazz and entertainment. They don't care too much for the nitty gritty detailed evidence. They want to see some powerful belief and emotional commitment to what we are saying. They like the towering rhetoric of the motivational speaker. If really moved, leaping out of their chairs and being supportive would be no problem for them. We need to provide some big picture speech elements for this group. At specific moments we can unleash our passion for our recommendations, get very powerful in that advocacy and really push out the volume and the energy.

Drivers are very outcome focused, so what value can you bring to me? What can I learn that will make me better so that I can use it to improve what I am doing now. The "five key things", the "ten steps" are all super attractive frameworks. They want to know the why, the what and the how. They don't need the cheerleader, because they want the takeaways. They are their own cheerleader, so they search for new knowledge they can apply. Your passion is appreciated but the viability of the information in concrete usage terms is more appealing. Having lots of energy is fine but having very little is not. Be powerful at times but come laden with gifts of guides to doing better.

In our talk we need to have phases that provide value to all four groups. We cannot favour our own style or one other style exclusively, because we have effectively excommunicated the rest of the group. This is a delicate act to pull off, which is why it needs careful thought and planning beforehand. You can't make this stuff up or get the balance right on the fly. We have to start with the premise that we have a range of people in the room. We need to give them all a taste of wonder, defined by how they see that playing out.

In our High Impact Presentations (HIP) course, we do a number of presentations over two days of training. What I love about teaching this programme is that you see the results immediately. If we are teaching leadership or sales, it is very hard to see immediate results and those programmes are multi-week efforts. Day One we have the first presentation which forms the marker for the programme. I challenge everyone to give me their very best, knock it out of the park, most spectacular presentation they have ever given in their life. When we get to the end of Day Two and they compare the last video of their presentation with this first one, everyone has exactly the same reaction "oh, my God" because they have made such vast, almost unimaginable improvement in just two days.

People who are already quite good, become more polished and sophisticated in their presenting. The real eye poppers are those who are shy, panicking, timid or inaudible through fear. Two days later they are unrecognisable from what they were the day before. I was looking at some of this amazing progress being made and I was thinking to myself, what has made this huge difference?

Kiai is a key factor. Kiai (気合) is a Japanese word made up of two characters ki ( 気) and ai (合). Kiai means to bring your life force to a point of convergence. In karate terms, this means the blow is delivered with a total commitment at the point of impact. Your whole bodyweight, mind, breath, voice are all layering on top of each other, to register an explosive outcome inside the body of the opponent. Your middle body area from the hips to the rib cage, are compressing like a vice. All of this is being done at hyper speed as well, to create the maximum amount of power.

The first time I heard a kiai was in February 1971. With other beginners, I was waiting outside a door that led to our first karate class and we could hear all this crazy yelling going on inside. I peaked through the gap in the door and saw many people dressed in these white pajama looking get ups, leaping around and making a hell of racket. I didn't know then that for the next 50 years, I would be doing the same thing.

The same phenomenon is not limited to martial arts. If you have ever watched competitive weight lifting for example, you will hear the kiai when the lifter drives total concentration to the point of the lift and exhales with a strong breath at the same time. This is what we do in karate and what we need to be doing in our presentations. Instead of grunting and exhaling, we are using our vocal delivery range to bring impact to our message.

The students I was teaching presenting had no kiai when they started the HIP. Their words were just words, spoken at normal conversation level, as if they were chatting with the person sitting next to them. The presenter has permission to lift their speaking voice to a much higher level than is normally the case in polite conversation. Remember, we are standing up in front of others seated in a venue, so we have to project our voice to the back of the room. If we are presenting online, it is the same thing. Video has two nefarious impacts on us. We appear to have gained three kilos in weight when on camera and our normal voice strength is down by about twenty percent. That means we have to raise the speaking level twenty percent online, just to get to a normal level, let alone going a bit harder because we are presenting.

In the course, I explain that we have to speak with more power. We have to hit the words harder than normal. We also have to mentally project our energy into the audience. So it is not just the voice range that is important. As I mentioned, we are focused on the kiai, the convergence of our life force. We push our body energy toward the people sitting in front of us through our body language. The breath is being exhaled with the delivery of the words and the energy output level is extremely high. Our gestures are also being added in to provide even more physical presence to what we are saying.

I always need to encourage the participants to go bigger with their gestures. This helps to raise their energy level and to add more power to their presentations. When I am telling them to go bigger, they never go big enough, so I have to really push them. They think this looks completely crazy and is making them come across as totally out of control. Every single person coming back from the Review Room having looked at themselves on video say that even though they thought they looked over the top, it didn't look like that on the video and in fact it looked completely congruent with what they were saying.

When we are speaking using more kiai, the audience feels our presence. They feel our passion, commitment and belief in what we are saying. This is very attractive to the listener and they are more likely to accept and support what we are saying. Bring your breath, physical energy, gestures and voice to a point of convergence when you speak and you will have real impact as a presenter.

Sometimes the organisers of the presentation event ask us if they can distribute our slides before the speech. They are thinking that this will help the audience to follow what we are saying. Especially in Japan, audience members are probably better at reading than hearing the content. So having the slides at hand to refer to during the talk makes a lot of sense. Never do this! Ignore the supposed sage advice of event organisers, who themselves rarely if ever give public presentations. There are very few occasions when you need to be handing out bits of paper to support your talk.

The only exception to this rule of mine would be if there are numbers involved and they are locked into tiny cells in a spreadsheet. I am sure you have suffered the ignominy of sitting in an audience and struggling to make sense of the numbers being shown on the screen. The speaker gracefully moves through the spreadsheet, pointing out various gripping correlations and conclusions. Of course, they have added an important caveat before their pontifications about what we are all looking at, by saying "you probably can't see this but….". Naturally we can't see it. The tiny number squiggles are unable to be claimed from the cells on screen, because the presenter has not considered the needs of the audience.

I could arrange for just those spreadsheet numbers to be distributed before the talk, so that people can read along with my explanation. This is giving verity to what we are claiming because the audience can check the numbers themselves. I am still reluctant to do that though. As soon as I refer people to the sheets of paper in their hand, I have lost my connection with them. They are now looking at bits of paper and not at me. I can't see how they are reacting, because their faces are looking down.

I would prefer to treat the spreadsheet numbers like wall paper on screen. They form a backdrop, but I don't expect anyone to plumb the depths of numbers they cannot see, let alone read. Instead I would use some animation and blast out key numbers in huge font in a call out emerging from the background. Now everyone is looking at one huge number and I would explain the importance of that statistic or number. The wall paper in the background is a type of proof that we have the numbers, we are not hiding them. We don't need to show every number in the collection though, because there will be some numbers more important than others.

We just keep repeating this animation process for every key number. We can make the sheets of paper available at the end, for anyone who would like to go more granular. In this way, all eyes are kept on me as the presenter. I can also read the faces of the audience as I present these key data points. I am scanning their faces for resistance. Am I going to get any pushback during the Q&A? Are they buying my argument?

If we distribute the entire slide deck before the talk, then what is the point of the talk in the first place? We may as well all stay at home and just send everyone an email with the attachment and they can read through it all at their leisure. Once the audience has that document, they are reading page eighteen while you are explaining page one. You have lost control of the narrative. They are now processing what they are seeing in the document and somewhere in the background, they can hear some white noise. That white noise is you, by the way, droning on about your presentation. They are not fully listening any more and as the speaker you have effectively lost your audience.

As the presenter, we must never become second fiddle to the slide deck or the spreadsheet. We must control the flow of the argument. The story is meant to unfold in a certain logical order, a build that pushes ever onward, toward a powerful conclusion. We are here to sell our argument and that means we have to get right behind it all the way. Don't delegate the point of the talk to the slide deck. Get out in front where you can dominate proceedings and where you can read ever nuance of your audience's reaction to what you are saying. We must be the star of the show, not the cells in a spreadsheet or masses of text on screen.

So, when the organisers, those never presenters, insist we need to distribute the talk beforehand, cast them a steely glance. In an icy voice of shivering indignation refuse their idiotic offer. Others are allowed to be unprofessional, but we must be the island of insight, knowledge, intelligence and experience. That is the path of the real presenter.

Donald Trump has made this technique of "many people say…." famous for dealing with opposing views. This is not an exercise for or against Trump. Rather, it is just looking at different ways we can head off opposition to what we are saying. We should have a point of view when we speak and therefore we should also be prepared for opposing points of view. Getting to the Q&A to deal with pushback is okay, but it is better to deal with it inside your presentation.

Most of us are one dimensional when we prepare our talks. We are thinking of ourselves and what we want or need to say. We don't give much thought to how others will receive it. In Japan, it is unusual for anyone to go after you when you are speaking. Good manners requires that everyone be stoic and put up with annoying counter opinions. No one should lose face in a public arena. This is fine, but those who disagree may not bark, but they do bite. They will do it afterwards, rather than in public. They will criticise your failings to others and you will go merrily on your way, never realising that the audience thinks you are a total light weight. Better to grasp the nettle in the moment and end it then and there.

The key is to first design your talk in the first draft. I don't mean write the whole thing out word for word, but to design the two endings for before and after the Q&A, to create the key points with evidence and finally design the blunderbuss opening to grab everyone's attention. Once you have this framework start looking for your points of view interventions. There will be a few of these in the speech. These are the things you want us to believe or to do.

Now isolate these out and think about the opposite point of view. What would be the strongest arguments against your point of view. If you say there aren't any, then a big reality check on your self awareness sounds like it is in order. Take the lawyers approach of preparing the brief for the other side in the argument. What would they say, how would they refute the points made, what counter evidence would they proffer. You might not think the evidence is comprehensive but that isn't the viewpoint of those holding those ideas. Also consider what questions would they ask to find any holes in your proposition?

In the talk, you can draw on the Trumpian technique of putting up a stalking horse argument and then disposing of it comprehensively. You might say, "there is an alternate viewpoint that says XYZ. Most experts however believe that ABC is more convincing and better supported by the evidence". You have said that not just you, but the experts are opposing this XYZ viewpoint and what is more, they have looked at all the evidence and concluded that what you are saying is more accurate. Third party interventions from experts makes it harder for people in the audience to disagree with you.

"Japan is different" is an all weather counter for just about everything that people base their views on. Japanese people disregard any surveys or research presented unless it includes Japan in the comparisons. It doesn't matter what it is, unless there is a Japan component involved, they conclude it doesn't apply here because, well, Japan is different. We can say that normally we would expect EFG to apply, but because this is Japan then we get UVW instead. This is hard to argue against because it is well accepted here that this logic makes sense. Of course, we have to have good evidence that this is how Japan does work in this case and that usually isn't hard to muster.

Another method is to mention that the evidence is not complete yet, but that the trends seem to be pointing to whatever it is you are recommending. This is allowing that later research may refute what you are saying, but as far as we know up to this point, this looks to be true. Again, we make ourselves a small and elusive target for counterattack.

Mentioning this is your experience allows other to have had a different experience, which is fair enough. You are not saying that you are the sole guru on this subject, but everything you have seen so far, tells you this viewpoint seems to be the best case. You are open to other's experiences and this comes across as a very even handed and balanced approach.

The key is in the planning, to know where the hot buttons will be pressed by people in the audience and to head them off at the pass, before they get going. Taking other opinions into account will make your talk seems more rounded and less dogmatic. You come across as knowledgeable on the subject and an expert who should be listened to. It is hard to argue against and your talk will go very smoothly when you get to the Q&A. The Q&A is the graveyard of many a good talk by the way, because the speaker didn't plan ahead for pushback. We won't be in that category anymore, going forward.

"How was it?" is a pretty lousy survey question a presenter may ask of acquaintances, friends or their staff immediately after speaking. Unless they are your sworn enemy or a sadist, they are not going to tell you what they really think if you stink, because of the relationship you have with them. We need to make sure we are growing and improving as presenters, so objective feedback is crucial to achieving that aim. How can we grab ourselves some of that good oil?

I always talk about the importance of eye contact with your audience. The reason is simple. This is the key factor in getting objective feedback in real time. By engaging in eye contact with as many people in the audience as possible in the time allowed, you have a greater chance of reading the reaction to your words. We want the lighting in the room to be up and not darkened, so that the slides can't dominate you as the speaker. This is because we want to be able to clearly see the audience.

If they are leaning in or leaning back, there are two completely different messages there. We get the lean back posture in our training classes from those individuals who were told by their boss to "go to training". It is a common posture of sceptism, reluctance, irritation and disbelief. The same applies when speaking. There is no greater feeling when presenting than to have a large audience lean in to you. It only has to be a few millimetres but when done on mass, it is like a drug. Once you have experienced it you want that feeling every time.

Facial expression in Japan is a tough one. The serious "I am really listening to you" face and the "this is crap" face look exactly the same here. I was giving a speech in Japanese to 150 salespeople in Kobe and there was a gentleman seated about half way down on the left. Right throughout my talk his face oozed with the "this is crap" reaction. At the end, he sprang out of his seat and bolted down to where I was standing exchanging business cards with some of the audience. I thought my karate training was about to come into play here because he was going to hit me. Instead he was pumping my hand in the handshake and telling me how much he liked the talk. I was silently reflecting that I wished he had told his face he was enjoying it. Most people will have a positive or at least neutral facial expression but don't assume a serious face is a negative reaction was the lesson for me.

Nodding the head up and down is a sign you want to see. It says the audience is in agreement with you. When you start to get this head nodding going on across a lot of faces it is a powerful acknowledgment that you are doing a good job selling your message. A way to train your audience to do this, is to nod up and down yourself when you make a statement you want people to agree with. They will mimic what you are doing and get this head nodding habit of responding that way to other things you say which they like.

Japanese audiences have zero conception that they are expected to take any action during your talk. We have to get them physically involved which helps to get them supporting your key points. We can't go crazy and overdo it, but in a 30 minute speech you could get them to raise their hand twice and that wouldn't feel like it was too much. Beyond that however and resistance will emerge. So, to increase engagement you can ask a question, a rhetorical question. That is good because it forces everyone to concentrate on what you are saying, rather than allowing their minds to roam around. You can also ask an actual question and raise your own arm up to model what you want them to do. The question you ask has to be delivered in such a way that the only possible answer is a "yes". This makes it as easy as possible for them to raise their hand. For example, "Raise your hand if you are getting tired of Zoom meetings by now?".

If you have someone with you when you make the speech, don't ask them what they thought about it. Ask them to tell you what they thought went well and what could you do better next time. Having some helpful friend start canning your talk is not going to make that speech a positive experience for you. We have to ask them very specific question too, as far as possible. For example, "Did you find the speech opening grabbed your attention to stop thinking about other things?"; "When I mentioned the names of a couple of people in the audience I met before we started, did that help to make a deeper connection with the audience?"; "When I summed up again after the last question, did that help to recall what my main point was?" etc.

Some speech host organisations do surveys of the event and their response rate is usually microscopic and so of little help. You can always distribute a flyer to every table, with the QR code access to a site, where they can answer a few short questions. You can do this during the speech as you are wrapping up. It is not great timing, because you are asking people to divert their attention from what you are saying. However, if you wait until after the talk has finished very few people will bother to do the survey.

Instead say "please take one minute to do the survey using the QR code on your tables and then I will go through the final bonus slide for you". Stop speaking for that minute and just wait. After the bonus slide has been covered, we sum up again to make sure our key message is the last thing they remember. In this way, we will get a much better survey of the crowd and the feedback will help us to focus on the areas needing more work.