This all began as a comment to my LinkedIn colleagues of actors, trainers, speakers and assorted other related professionals. Someone had asked the question: In your opinion what is the difference between an actor and a speaker? It actually stirred up quite the controversy. Actors, speakers and trainers come from many different backgrounds as you will learn over the course of–not just this early blog–but others to come.
At first I was offended because many of the comments addressing the acting question showed a real lack of knowledge of acting, and in general, communicating. And, some of these people actually get paid to speak or train.
Any professional actor with training will tell you this: acting is not just about pretending to be someone else. It is reacting. Acting is not just a scripted performance, but an interactive experience with the audience–the same we hope for in training or public speaking.
Speaking from a script only sounds easy, but it’s not. Try reading aloud for an extended period of time. Now, put on the pressure of people you don’t know–mostly eyes watching you read.
For an actor, who sight reads really well it may not be that much of a jump; actors are used to words coming out of their mouths and having an impact on an audience. Reading a script is how an actor auditions for a role, especially for commercials. Then, remember how complicated good communication really is–with eye contact, movement, gestures and subtle interactions with the audience.
As trainers and professional communicators (that includes actors), we know better than to memorize scripts when speaking, except for a part of them. See my blog on memorizing. As an actor who speaks, I can tell you doing a speech or training session without a script is the best way to go.
If you memorize a script, don’t forget to memorize a characterization of another person as well as the stage movement motivated by the lines of your character. It is, of course, more work to do a scripted speech or training session, naturally, without sounding mechanical. To do that requires more than conversation, more than knowledge of a topic. It requires audience analysis, and you have to make the script yours otherwise it will sound artificial.
It may seem like I’m going off topic, but it seems the combination of acting and public speaking principles actually make for a pretty good trainer. Actors are not only actors, and speakers not only speakers; I’d bet the best of both professions, are not singular in their thinking about what works and learn from all areas that gets the job done. Granted, not all that an actor knows or should know to be a good actor is applicable in all circumstances; the same can be said of a good trainer or a good speaker.
I may have mixed up my education, but each of those parts help with the whole. The English and theater departments appreciated that I could bring a psychological perspective to literature, drama, and performance. The psychology department loved that I could communicate behavior.
And, to that, I say to all of you: Bring all your knowledge and skills to bear on your performance–be it as a trainer or speaker or actor. It’s all good. All of my blogs, including my blogs on training and development are on my website. Don’t be surprised to find some on acting and directing and theatrical reviews as well. Check it out.
—
For more resources about training, see the Training library.
Great post! It is important to choose a business speaker who knows something about your organization. They should also have some level of organizational and business background and that they have actually achieved success in their field.
Lianne,
Let me say first, that I was talking at a very basic level of training and communication, but you bring up a valid point and probably my next post, or yours if you care to be a guest blogger. What you are talking about is credibility not speaking ability. I believe you are absolutely right–in most cases, but there are a growing number of consultants and trainers with experience in business, etc., that can’t communicate worth a darn. Probably because of the economy. Their business knowledge can come at a price if it doesn’t get through to the audience. It comes back to the age old, is it better to train a subject matter expert (SME) to speak effectively then to give a talented communicator, teacher, speaker the materials they need to train and inspire–something they may already know how to do? I am a big fan of duos-a facilitator and an SME. I train others, SMEs to do just as you say. A team can work really well–especially if they have time to plan. One member can even be an “insider.” BTW, I also have 30 years of applied experience in government so I’m not just a talking head.
Lianne,
I took a look at your response without taking a look at the link. The speaker you highlight is certainly a talented speaker as are many “very successful” business folk, but he is not selling his expertise as much as he is motivating an audience, selling inspiration and success. At least that is what his website says. It promotes him as a motivational speaker and guru for success. Great ideas in business don’t go anywhere if someone is unable to communicate the value of those ideas. I would argue that the ability to communicate is certainly critical to his success now. He has related stories to tell. No argument that he has a connection to his audience. There are so many levels of training and I think here I am dealing a more basic level. He is using his business success to prove to others if they apply his approach, they, too, will be successful. What do you suppose the success quotient is for the audience members? What is the acceptable return to him as a speaker? Inspirational stories do motivate us because they give us hope and make us feel good. I love motivational speakers because they have good ideas and give me something to think about, but they rarely have all the answers directly applicable to success of any one individual or company. We’re all different.