I'm with you, but I think it takes a very socially confident person to elegantly and peacably steer the conversation. Slightly different, but made me think of the BBC's programme In Our Time - which is a managed conversation (instead of a presentation/documentary) about incredibly in-depth things for 45 minutes each week. It's one of the BBC's most popular podcasts. You should check it out. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/
Christopher S. Penn
· 2 years ago
Whether it's presentation or conversation, there are elements of showmanship in each. One of the best books ever on the topic, hands down, is by Darwin Ortiz, called Strong Magic. It's out of print and expensive, and worth every penny and then some.
Sue
· 2 years ago
I had someone say to me a few weeks ago that "I don't really prepare much for presentations, I just get up there and ramble on". I'm all for the "free flowing" approach you speak of here, but I saw this person's presentation - and it wasn't all that great. It lacked focus, people lost interest, and they walked away confused.
I have given tons of presentations and the most successful I've done are when the audience feels as if they are a part of it (like you say, it's a conversation). But no matter whether I am pointing at a rectangle or sitting in the middle of a group, I am always prepared.
Just because someone wants to perform a "managed conversation" doesn't mean they can just get up and ramble. It is the facilitator's responsibility to keep the conversation flowing and to ensure that people are going to walk away with the knowledge and information they came for. Otherwise the presenter may waste their audience's money and time.
Connie Reece
· 2 years ago
Our last Social Media Club meeting was held in an arena theater that seats about 125. I forgot to rope off one section of the seats to make an area where the presenter and I (facilitator) could stand and address the group. So naturally, the 50 or so participants spread out when they arrived. We wound up having to use the stage as it was intended -- theater in the round.
Turns out it was the best thing we could have done. We were constantly turning around to make eye contact with different sections of the audience. It made for a lot of movement, which helped focus attention. The theater was small enough that microphones weren't needed and it was easy to get participation from the group.
We got the venue at the last minute, so we were not able to reserve equipment to run a PowerPoint presentation. Again, worked out to be for the best. John Moore, our speaker, wrote out his main points on index cards and handed them out to 10 people before the program began. Instead of a slide, each point was announced by someone in the audience. (You can see a low-res video clip on John's blog: http://tinyurl.com/35jvqw.)
Lesson learned: ditch the technology and engage the audience. It made for a much more memorable event.
Chris Marsden
· 2 years ago
I have had the opportunity to speak (and preach at church) somewhat regularly over the last few years. I have also sat through a ton of these same kind of lectures. This is something I am still struggling with, but the short answer is Conversation Wins.
BUT... very hard to pull off. And the biggest obstacle is me getting over myself. I am much more comfortable lecturing. It requires less preparation to lecture well than to engage in a conversation poorly. I have to OWN my topic to have a conversation whereas I can get away with only knowing the pertinent facts if I am up on stage and you are forced to listen.
I think the long term solution would be to use a little of each and use the right tool for the right job. There are times and places where the only way it is going to work is to get up on stage and lecture. But maybe there is another way to go about this.
I like what you said about allowing people to feel clever. What if it was lecture followed by planned facilitated conversation by members of your team. People will get to interact with the material (although not necessarily you), and you get the opportunity to present in a way that can reach the whole audience at once.
How about everyone seated at round tables with a table host? Presenter speaks from stage, conversation and community happen at the table, and then maybe a Q & A with the presenter with more thought out questions that came from the community time.
Still struggling with this myself, but there's my thoughts. Keep up the good thinking.
Jay Moonah
· 2 years ago
I thought it was funny that your "presentation" picture was from the "Let's Make Something" session, which resembled an ordinary presentation for all of about 30 seconds before it became as much of a conversation as any that happened at Slate, at least IMHO.
It's funny, I was just going back and forth with Penn on doing better presenting music at PodCamps and like events. Music and other kinds of "artists" performance (for lack of a better term) create different challenges. So too would, I'd posit, things like traditional style lectures where certain material does indeed need to be covered.
At the post-grad level I've studied what is sometimes called "adult education" (or "androgogy" if you want to get slightly snooty, personally I'd rather not go there) which is essentially looking at ways to be more participatory in teaching models. One of the things you realize if you keep an open mind to all forms of learning is that participatory models definitely have their place, but so do more traditional didactic (or "pedagogical", but again I'm not really going there) models.
I'm all about the wisdom of crowds and engaging the audience, but there are times when the person on the stage actually DOES know more than the people listening, and the rest of us really should shut up and listen. I think it's important to remember that, too.
Michael Sommermeyer
· 2 years ago
I'm often asked to script out extensive presentations for leaders in the organization and invariably the speaker will want the PowerPoint slides and the other technical tools. Also invariably the speaker will have no clue how to use these tools and will eventually give up on them after a few minutes of awkward silence. What happens next? They begin to engage the audience in a conversation and a dialogue begins. They start answering questions and building upon them until they have the group brainstorming and thinking of other ways to forward the idea or project.
When I make presentations I like to just start by asking a question, usually pointed at one or two people I've met prior to the event. This gives me a chance to feel out the crowd and see what they want to know.
I truly dislike presenters who push their agenda at the expense of the crowd. Those presenters who say "that's a good question, and we'll get to the answer." I want the answer now! That approach also stifles the exchange and eventually you see folks getting up to leave. I always feel sorry for the presenter, because they have certainly spent much time preparing, but you have to feel for the audience too who wanted to be engaged and were left wondering why they registered to attend.
Whitney
· 2 years ago
I sort of wish we could ban powerpoint slides, or minimize the reliance on them. What would happen if we banned projectors from a conference, and your slides just become notes to use for your talk? I'd even be all for calling sessions "show & tell" or "sharing time" if it didn't sound so pre-school.
I think pictures that form analogies and illustrate points can be more helpful than a list of stuff you expect people to copy down. Sure, at Podcamps there are websites and info everyone wants, and you need to give them that as well, but I hate the "too scripted" approach- it's the difference between show notes and reading a script aloud- the notes keep you on point, and keep the tone much more conversational.
All Comments
Slightly different, but made me think of the BBC's programme In Our Time - which is a managed conversation (instead of a presentation/documentary) about incredibly in-depth things for 45 minutes each week. It's one of the BBC's most popular podcasts. You should check it out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/
I have given tons of presentations and the most successful I've done are when the audience feels as if they are a part of it (like you say, it's a conversation). But no matter whether I am pointing at a rectangle or sitting in the middle of a group, I am always prepared.
Just because someone wants to perform a "managed conversation" doesn't mean they can just get up and ramble. It is the facilitator's responsibility to keep the conversation flowing and to ensure that people are going to walk away with the knowledge and information they came for. Otherwise the presenter may waste their audience's money and time.
Turns out it was the best thing we could have done. We were constantly turning around to make eye contact with different sections of the audience. It made for a lot of movement, which helped focus attention. The theater was small enough that microphones weren't needed and it was easy to get participation from the group.
We got the venue at the last minute, so we were not able to reserve equipment to run a PowerPoint presentation. Again, worked out to be for the best. John Moore, our speaker, wrote out his main points on index cards and handed them out to 10 people before the program began. Instead of a slide, each point was announced by someone in the audience. (You can see a low-res video clip on John's blog: http://tinyurl.com/35jvqw.)
Lesson learned: ditch the technology and engage the audience. It made for a much more memorable event.
BUT... very hard to pull off. And the biggest obstacle is me getting over myself. I am much more comfortable lecturing. It requires less preparation to lecture well than to engage in a conversation poorly. I have to OWN my topic to have a conversation whereas I can get away with only knowing the pertinent facts if I am up on stage and you are forced to listen.
I think the long term solution would be to use a little of each and use the right tool for the right job. There are times and places where the only way it is going to work is to get up on stage and lecture. But maybe there is another way to go about this.
I like what you said about allowing people to feel clever. What if it was lecture followed by planned facilitated conversation by members of your team. People will get to interact with the material (although not necessarily you), and you get the opportunity to present in a way that can reach the whole audience at once.
How about everyone seated at round tables with a table host? Presenter speaks from stage, conversation and community happen at the table, and then maybe a Q & A with the presenter with more thought out questions that came from the community time.
Still struggling with this myself, but there's my thoughts. Keep up the good thinking.
It's funny, I was just going back and forth with Penn on doing better presenting music at PodCamps and like events. Music and other kinds of "artists" performance (for lack of a better term) create different challenges. So too would, I'd posit, things like traditional style lectures where certain material does indeed need to be covered.
At the post-grad level I've studied what is sometimes called "adult education" (or "androgogy" if you want to get slightly snooty, personally I'd rather not go there) which is essentially looking at ways to be more participatory in teaching models. One of the things you realize if you keep an open mind to all forms of learning is that participatory models definitely have their place, but so do more traditional didactic (or "pedagogical", but again I'm not really going there) models.
I'm all about the wisdom of crowds and engaging the audience, but there are times when the person on the stage actually DOES know more than the people listening, and the rest of us really should shut up and listen. I think it's important to remember that, too.
When I make presentations I like to just start by asking a question, usually pointed at one or two people I've met prior to the event. This gives me a chance to feel out the crowd and see what they want to know.
I truly dislike presenters who push their agenda at the expense of the crowd. Those presenters who say "that's a good question, and we'll get to the answer." I want the answer now! That approach also stifles the exchange and eventually you see folks getting up to leave. I always feel sorry for the presenter, because they have certainly spent much time preparing, but you have to feel for the audience too who wanted to be engaged and were left wondering why they registered to attend.
I think pictures that form analogies and illustrate points can be more helpful than a list of stuff you expect people to copy down. Sure, at Podcamps there are websites and info everyone wants, and you need to give them that as well, but I hate the "too scripted" approach- it's the difference between show notes and reading a script aloud- the notes keep you on point, and keep the tone much more conversational.
http://cardsahoy.wordpress.com/2007/05/04/all-t...
or
http://tinyurl.com/3bsxjv