Author: Jack Shaw

I recently published a blog on 5 Ways to Make Your Training Conferences Rock! But we all know that large training conferences aren’t always the most effective training platform. In fact, if we have to have a training conference at all, the smaller conference or meeting (sounds less formal) is the best face-to-face way to go. It costs less and is more effective.

Big organizations are learning smaller is better. In fact, extremely large organizations–even those on an international and national scale–are finding that going to a smaller scale vastly improves results. Even gigantic organizations like the Federal government are taking advantage of regional conferences to maximize the training efforts on the smaller scale, with the result being more focused training on trainees who can also contribute to the discussion in a way that larger conferences can’t.

Most of us will agree that the larger the training conference, there is more potential for problems, but there is also a greater opportunity to train or inform large groups of people. Whether it is the most effective training is debatable. The economic cost for sending people to this venue is high and the expected attendee numbers decrease dramatically as that cost becomes an issue. Not only that, but hotels want room guarantees, and if contracted rooms aren’t filled, the organization is on the hook for those costs.

I’m only going to focus on physical presence-required training conferences or meetings, not teleseminars or webinars–even though I have seen national conferences that incorporate those into their programs.

Still, we have to train them all, but we can do it.

As an example, the Federal government has an enormous number of personnel on its payroll, including many outside contractors who have to be trained as well. Managing the Federal government takes a lot of compartmentalization, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. We have to break down the government programs into workable units and often, in the United States anyway, those units are still so big as to incorporate large numbers of personnel and more compartments. So, again, how to train them all…

There is no national training program for everyone that I know of–no Department of Training, but individual departments like Health and Human Services and Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Homeland Security, etc., that have department-wide training programs; then there are divisions within the departments like the Administration for Children, and then there are programs under the various administrations under other departments, and some of those units are still quite large. And, that’s just on the national level.

To reach down to the states (actually some 54 jurisdictions and the tribes) in my case where the client-based work is generally implemented–with the next lower level, the county, being the place where there is government face-to-face with the general public. To manage and oversee all this, there must also be a “workable” solution in an environment where the federal government doesn’t exactly tell the state what to do but offers training and technical assistance so the states can produce the nationally-desired results. What exactly is “workable” organizationally is determined by a government table of allowances, the Administration, the Department or whoever does those things.

In training, it doesn’t really matter who decides the organizational structure. You have to deal with the situation that management has determined.

I worked in the National Training Center for my program. The biggest challenge for us–even a few levels down–was the volume of training assessments–determining what training was needed at our level and each level below us, and how best to meet those needs. The usual things a training manager, training developer, or trainer look for. Then, there has to be a budget to support either traveling to various venues to develop the training, provide the training, training the trainers, or some other way to meet the need, often through web-based training, CDs or DVDs, teleconference, teleseminars (if you agency can afford it), etc.

With the cost restraints of today, training is slashed quickest at the highest levels. Most training is needed at the lowest levels. To see the results, and not pay the high price, we can assist with training at the lower levels where it does the most good rather than doing it ourselves.

Moving one level down to a region changes that focus and the training dynamics tremendously. Let’s define a region as an area where personnel have similar needs and work in rather close proximity but away from central office. Not only are the regions closer to the folks who need the training, the smaller size makes a huge difference on targeting the audience, focusing the training on exactly what it needs to hear, provides the best possible interaction save one-on-one, and flexibility to make truly the customer’s training and not a showplace.

In addition, area hotels may not be willing to reduce room costs as much for a larger conference (but they may not have the room to accommodate that size of an event) but it still may be easier to get a good deal from a really nice hotel, including a conference room. There are other benefits besides price.

What is the optimum size? It has been my experience that anything over 200 begins to be impersonal and tries to do it all, which may be fine for generalists, but may be overwhelming for more specialized attendees. So, less is better. Often these large-size conferences are targeted at maximizing attendance–therefore reaching the most people so the training that benefits all; that’s the theory and the plan. However, a large group naturally forms cliques, which doesn’t allow much opportunity for cross sharing between states and sufficient networking unless there is ample time offered for those “side meetings” and socializing. In these larger venues, there is so much to be done to fulfill everyone’s needs, the most important training and networking needs have a diminished return.

Try focusing smaller. Say 40 or 50 attendees. States can only afford to send a few people anyway. Our topics are very focused, our speakers well-known for their expertise and ability to provide that expertise, our interaction constant. Being in the same region means the states are familiar with the similarities and differences in their programs, but it is a way to catch up.

Offer the states a chance to share what’s new and cutting edge for them. Break times can always be longer if we need them. If something happens and we need to be flexible with the schedule of training, it is easily managed. A change of format? No problem. We’re pretty informal if we have to be. We form a team, a class, creating a bond that will last.

Instead of one massive training conference year, think several smaller ones, hosted by regional offices throughout the country and other parts of the world where you have people stationed. Where a region may be too small or not have the potential to pull in enough attendee/trainees, collaborate with neighboring region and try to have it in a location close and accessible to both regions.

Not only is this a good way to train, this gives regions recognition for the work they do and a valuable connection to the home office. They can even bring in central office or home office subject matter experts to train when needed, adding the recognition that every level of the operation is important.

Expectations, either for my organization or the states involved, are usually exceeded. If anything, the dialogue keeps going until the next meeting.

We could have a larger meeting or conference, but we couldn’t offer more incentive than we do now to entice more to come. Accidentally or on purpose we have hit the optimum payback. States are seeing the value here and send only the ones who will benefit, and who can contribute.

In some ways, the trainer’s job is easier in that it is more facilitating training, getting the participants to train each other and extend that beyond the meeting. Training is still 50 percent motivation and 50 percent information (my stats, my perception). The opportunity to learn from others present is paramount, whether it be for trainers or for trainees.

Sounds like a good deal for all.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

What seems a good idea to me may be debated. I have no lock on perceptiveness or intuition. My opinions are my own and not representative of The Free Management Library. I hold myself accountable. To prove that, here’s my website can see for yourself how my mind works (good luck there–I have a bio) and where you can find other opinions on various subjects from training and development to communication and theatre under the category of What I Say. Yes, theatre. I also write performance reviews. I’m interested in people and want to know if we give them what they need. Please feel free to comment here, or my website, or send me an e-mail. For a look at the human side of training from my Cave Man perspective, please check out my book, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development. Happy training.

Jason Novosel, Novo Horizons Management Training, our guest blogger gave me a quote this morning: “You’ve got to get up every morning with determination if you’re going to go to bed with satisfaction.” (George Horace Lorimer).

I thought this would be a good day to look south to my Australian colleague for his answers on training and development.

Jason has over a decade of experience in education, training and assessment. His experience also includes over 5 years in management within both private and state schools in Queensland, Australia and 3 years in intensive interaction with the business community to provide facilities and services linked to education. He also has a background in legal services and has delivered specialist education and training in Legal Services, including document preparation, court registry procedure, contract law and civil law (litigation, documentation and procedure). Leadership and management training are his fields of expertise. He has a background in high level sport and upholds the importance of team building, which sport generates.

Here’s Jason:

“As a person who enjoys watching and participating in a wide variety of sports, I was watching Federer play a match in the 2011 French Tennis Open. He was doing quite well against his opponent. The ‘FedExpress’ is always being challenged by Nadal and Djokovic for supremacy, but I still really enjoy his style of play – so smooth and classic. The commentators were commenting on exactly the same thing and one mentioned Federer’s training regime. It was to the effect of “Federer must be doing something right with his training and preparation. “He doesn’t seem to suffer a great deal from injury like other players….”. Think about how this statement relates to your organisation. When competing, do you think a champion like Federer would willingly participate in any activity or training that does not benefit his own game? What kinds of “injuries” could your organisation suffer if it did not offer proper and relevant training opportunities to employees?

“Any sports champion will attest to training being a must when it comes to success. When a player prepares correctly they are less likely to suffer injury and defeat. Match practice is one important aspect for sure, but if an athlete doesn’t train effectively to sharpen skills (both physical and mental) they are not as successful. Natural talent only takes an athlete so far. Of course, upsets can always occur. We cannot predict those, but by being prepared beforehand the tennis player can minimise the effect of upsets.

“The same practice is true for your role as a manager offering training to employees – or for employees seeking out their own training opportunities. Quite some time should be dedicated to discussing the training needs of team members. In order for an organisation to offer effective training and professional development for their employees that organisation must know what skills and talent already exist there.

“Relevant training and professional development opportunities are vital ingredients for building successful teams and competent individuals within those teams. Organisations and individuals who do not engage in active, relevant training are just not as effective. Here’s why training and professional development are important:

1. Both build confidence – They often affirms the practices that already exist within a team. This builds a person’s confidence and facilitates trust in their own abilities. Trust and confidence within a team and for a team’s leader are cornerstones to building an effective unit. Confident and competent staff are better able to handle challenges and actively seek responsibility.
2. Both introduce new knowledge – It is necessary for innovation and continuous improvement that a team is exposed to new ways of doing things. This allows for more effective problem-solving and can eliminate the danger of boredom and the feeling of falling into the rut of daily routine.
3. Both are investments in the organisation’s future – Retention rates of staff are raised with investment in training and professional development. Staff feel they are a valued asset of the organisation and understand the global significance of their roles within the organisation. Productivity tends to increase and the reputation of the organisation benefits in the wider market.
4. Both tend to be contagious – Once a group has attended an entertaining and engaging conference, seminar or internal training session, the enthusiasm tends to spread to other departments as colleagues discuss and recommend what they have been exposed to.
5. Both can take a wide variety of forms – Different people respond to different stimulus and have different ways of learning. Training and professional development can be accessed through many avenues, providing the choice necessary to best suit the organisation’s objectives in providing these opportunities. Sometimes the most simple and inexpensive team meeting, if handled in the correct way, can yield unexpected results!

“In the current economic climate of decline and gradual recovery many governments are dedicating funds to assist with the training and professional development of the workforce – especially in industries where there is a skills shortage.

“In my own state in Australia the government is offering $50 million each year to Skills Queensland, an industry-led statutory authority, and grants of up to $2 million.

“There are also rich veins to be tapped in the mining sector – both in skilled labour and professional positions. Recruitment firms are actively targeting jobs including project management, logistics and supervisory roles.

“The advice of these agencies to those wishing to make a shift to a different industry is to do some research into the skills needed and then get some training.

“Whether you represent an organisation or are an individual learner: explore the possibilities in training and professional development, support initiatives, listen to the needs of team members, link training and professional development to your team’s/organisation’s goals and objectives…and it’ll be GAME, SET, MATCH!”

Jason has the right idea and makes some good points. (These are my comments below.)

Many times that talent is right under our noses and we fail to see it. Some employees will seek out training opportunities–especially if they know what’s good for them, but generally management has to give them the nudge. A positive nudge works best. Better than “you’ll lose your job if you don’t do the training.” I don’t know about business folk “Down Under,” but Americans are notoriously for thinking “what’s in it for me?” If there is an incentive for the training, they are more likely to take it. If it won’t make a difference, then they may not bother?

Business management should know that training makes an employee more efficient if he or she uses that training. That much is obvious, but mostly it seems until human resources or the union rep tells them, management would rather not be bothered. What this usually means is that the training gets the “required” emphasis. Training sends out a letter, saying an employee must have a training plan (mandatory by such and such time) and if they want training reimbursed they must fill out all the necessary paperwork.

Oh, and you better know what you want or need because no one is going to help you there. Meaning no one is going to tell you what you need to further or enhance your career. Ironically, everyone seems too busy to take care of its most important resource–its people, and its best resource: trained people.

Employees have a tough choice, but the Office helps them in a negative way by mandating training, and not really supporting the effort. Training that is forced upon employees is not usually well-regarded. Employees know that training takes them away from the work they are expected to do on any given day. If they don’t get that work done, their present job is in jeopardy (especially in this economy)–let alone their efficiency is affected.

Should someone get credit for training on his or her evaluation. It has the potential to improve performance–especially if it is new information. Promoting the idea of training as a part of an evaluation says management is paying attention and giving credit where it is due.

We pay more for the qualifications a person brings to the job so why not here, where we are adding to the qualifications? As an employee, I’m too busy doing my job to worry about what the company doesn’t seem too worried about. So it doesn’t work. Few take the time to do a thorough job on the training–if they can get away with not doing it, they will.

Training is a must, but it’s not always obvious in the business scheme. It’s like a battery that doesn’t have enough juice to start the car. If the car starts, you don’t know you need a new battery. If the business seems to be working, everything is fine–until you have a problem. People not showing up for work, a lot of sick calls, jobs not getting done, sloppy work, lost customers, etc., then you start thinking I need help. Training is the first place management looks. Unfortunately, as you know, sometimes the problems have progressed too far for training to be the solution, and, of course, not all problems that occur can be resolved by training. But sometimes training can prevent problems by maintaining a high performing, highly motivated workforce.

I happen to think a proactive approach with the people who work for you is always better. It was probably the one thing I liked about the military; in spite of what you see in the movies, my leaders always looked after us–and that made us more willing to follow them.

Management consultants say it is morale. Morale experts say proper looking after your people, making them feel wanted, needed and useful makes them happy and efficient workers. Gee, if I had only thought of that sooner. A little sarcasm…

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

For more information on management training and professional development in Jason’s Australia, check out his website. Look for him on Facebook and Twitter: @Novohorizons.

I, too, have a website where you can find items I have written. For more information on my peculiar take on training, check out my best selling The Cave Man Guide To Training and Development, and for a look at a world that truly needs a reality check, see my novel about the near future, Harry’s Reality! Meanwhile, Happy Training.

This is both a training and a communication topic. A single question this time, but with a big impact and controversy. The question had to come up sooner or later–one that I was afraid I’d have to answer as a trainer and a speaker. Why Toastmasters, a great international organization that helps people learn public speaking and leadership skills, is not the place to learn how to conduct presentations or training for your business. Before we begin, this is not a piece promoting or disrespecting the work of Toastmasters. It is a discussion of the pros and cons.

Why this fits the training and communication category should be obvious. What is interesting is that as soon as this question was asked on LinkedIn, there was a storm of somewhat heated replies in both directions. For Toastmaster advocates, it may seem insulting to those who began learning with or are still with toastmasters today. For others who feel the organization, even with all of its more than 260,000 members is not the place to learn all there is about public speaking, that are many other options. While I agree with the latter that Toastmasters is not the place to learn it all, there is no place to learn it all. And there’s always more to an opinion.

As trainers or speakers, the basics are the basics, only the approach and focus are different. Anyone or any organization that claims to have the best way to learn public speaking should know better. There are obviously many good programs out there, and some may not even resemble each other and are equally effective. Competition drives innovation and new ways of looking at things so let’s not knock the debate. The debate gets messy with some seeking to win the upper hand where there should be no winners. The debate’s result will ultimately help others.

It doesn’t matter where the basics come from. The best learning is always self-motivated and not propelled by others. There are no easy answers. There are good, better and maybe even best answers–but some may be more up to a specific task than others.

Toastmasters is a great hobby and a place to find help if you need the basics. It’s also a great support group and social group. It doesn’t work for everyone–especially those introverts, who don’t get energy being around others socially.

Toastmasters is a place where a speakers or wannabe speakers can find like-minded individuals, learn about public speaking at their own pace, rub elbows with others, and thrive on their own time. It is social; so you have to appreciate that part of it. There are contests; so you have like competing or at least watching. Without competing though, you might lose the “training and practice” you need to develop a naturalness of delivery–essential in good communication. Within such an organization, the competitions are fine for getting that adrenaline rush, but is it a sufficiently different environment to turn speaking practice into experience. Public speaking, presenting or training is not a competition. The object is dynamic communication. Practice helps, but experience rules in the end.

I have judged speaking contests at Toastmasters, but that was before a rule I was just told about. Apparently now, even though I am an accomplished professional speaker and communicator as well as an educator in speech, that I wouldn’t be given that honor now unless I was a certified Toastmaster judge myself. There is something wrong here. Did I mention my graduate degree is in performance criticism, which means I also know how to talk with people about performance? I’m not a meanie just because I have “critic” attached to my occupation. “Critic” does not translate to attacker. That doesn’t mean I look only at negatives. Another blog maybe, but I won’t trash the Toastmaster organization; it encourages good communication skills–even if the group itself can’t always deliver them–because that depends on the group’s make-up itself.

I’m sure there are certificates and trophies for the best speakers and the best Toastmaster groups. I’m sure the groups have had a hand in helping many people become confident speakers and leaders in their communities; however, each group is only as good as its membership, which can vary greatly in experience and general education.

Toastmaster organizations are all over and are various sizes. Some, like a big city organization, will have a more sophisticated membership in terms of experience than one in a small town. That group may already have experienced speakers at many levels of expertise. One-size does not fit all.

Speakers and trainers compare the relatively inexpensive Toastmaster experience of paying thousands and not getting anything out of seminars or individuals claiming to have the ten things to make us great speakers. What about coaches? It seems these days, anyone who can make a buck speaking, thinks they can coach. They know what works for them. Maybe they do conduct classes in public speaking, or teleseminars as I talked about in my last post. Public Speaking 101 or something else. There is nothing wrong with PS 101 either; it depends on who is teaching it. Who inspires you? Who motivates you? They might be a Toastmaster, or not.

Public speaking and all the basics are available all over. Learn it wherever you learn it, practice it, observe what works, and ask questions. I didn’t learn all that I know about speaking in speech class. There was every other class I was in and every experience I had relating to the subject. There was every speaker or trainer I learned from and was impressed with. There were teachers. There were colleagues. There were Presidents. All role models–not professional speakers or coaches.

Any psychologists or sociologists at Toastmasters? Teachers? Trainers? Maybe. They all know something about communication. Education itself is about communication. You have to know about your world–what makes it tick–what makes people tick in order to communicate effectively.

What I learned about communicating I learned because I wanted to, not because someone told me how to do it. I learned what not to do as well by watching others. Toastmasters are doing a form of mentoring–mentoring speakers.

There are good groups out there, good coaches, too; but I’m sorry, being a Toastmaster does not impress me–anymore than being a community theatre actor means you know the business of acting–even if you are a great actor. Nor does a professional actor immediately tell me that person can teach me all I need to know. That can be said of professional speakers, too. All groups are simply not created equal, but all can serve to help us be better communicators if we pay attention to the differences. Someone said that Toastmasters struck them as an organization for public speaking “amateurs,” while an organization like the National Speakers Association concerned itself with “professionals.” It is a valid analogy. I agree, to a point.

Because someone is a “professional” anything doesn’t mean he or she has the ability to transfer that knowledge and skill set to someone else. That’s why it’s important to interview a trainer or speaker and find out what they are about and see them in action if you can. A National Speakers Association member meets the standard for membership if they have been paid to speak and pay their dues–not if they are the the best. The best speakers and teachers may do it for free and never seek membership. In the same way, certification is only as good as the person who came out of the training. The certificate only indicates they completed a course of study.

A good trainer, coach or teacher can help someone learn by teaching them ways to learn and observe on just about any subject. They don’t have to be a subject-matter expert always. It’s helpful, but maybe just as helpful to learn it yourself by researching and asking key questions.

If we join the Rotary, the Masons, the Elks or any other social service organization, we can capitalize on the benefits of public speaking and leadership. Toastmasters is a little more specific in that it does focus on public speaking and leadership. I haven’t seen any claims that teaches the art of communication because I don’t think it goes that far. It stays with the basics and leaves the psychological, sociological and communication theory to others, opting instead for practical application. If I am a professional coach, speaker or trainer, I need to know more than practical application. I need to know what’s behind it so I can help my clients see the world as I do and connect.

I am a performance critic and I have to say the definition that most people think of makes a strong point for my case–that what a critic does or critique does is often thought of in simplistic terms in the eye of the beholder–especially if they have a certificate, a prestigious membership or are a member of an International organization called Toastmasters. In the eye of a critic it’s not so simple.

In my world, anyone can do an evaluation based on a set of criteria. The critique is more involved, more analytically and more helpful because it is presented the way a professional critic presents it. If we can put so many layers on or take layers off of a definition, why not a subject like public speaking, to make it anything we can sell appear valid. The idea should not be to come up with what to do or what not to do to be “the speaker you want to be,” but how can we help speakers arrive at that solution from within.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

Sometimes opinion can be harsh, but I try not to be mean. I have my pet peeves, too. I also believe everyone has a right to one–even if they disagree with me. Feed free to comment on this post. Be professional. Contact me on my website, which has a few more opportunities to lob grenades or compliments at me on various topics. I won’t fight you; I may argue a bit–try to make a point–but please make yours, and I’ll see it gets heard, too. For a look at the human side of training from my Cave Man perspective, please check out my book, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development. Happy training.

Webinars are often used in the business training environment, but it is a newer version of that webinar idea with a host that is taking over when it comes to online/teleconferencing training: the teleseminar, which can be used to provide information, training, or promote or sell products to group of people interested in a particular topic. Teleseminars are similar to traditional seminars, in content and purpose, but they are given over a teleconference or bridge-line rather than at a specific location. The audience members can be a few or a thousand; it is a way to reach a lot of people at the same time, thereby saving training dollars in terms of travel and logistics.

The teleseminar can have a facilitator instead of a host, but may have both. The big difference between the two is the perception that the teleseminar is more personal–the next best thing to being there. At least, it’s being touted as such by its promoters. While I’m not so sure I agree that the concept is the best form of training, I would grant that in some cases it is the best we can do in this current economic environment. It will have to do–at least for awhile.

Because it strives to be the personal approach reaching many people, the teleseminar must also provide the best direct contact with human beings–so, the better the technology, the better the “contact.” So we have a concern now with presenters who use this training platform are expected to be more dynamic and more personable than the typical webinar leader–especially since the topic is of great interest to the audience or they wouldn’t have signed on.

Now, we have to train those who train online how to do it effectively. That’s not surprising since I and others teach acting to those who choose to act in front of a camera for a film or commercial; it is a different kind of acting from stage acting–or public speaking, or presenting.

One aspect remains the same across the board in acting, speaking, and training in that it all begins with the fear most of us have of speaking in front of others. If there are no “others” in front of us as may be the case in of a teleseminar, we’ll find those faces behind the camera thousands of miles away.

Kim Clausen, Founder and President at Confident Teleseminar Leader and Ready2Go Marketing Solutions, posted a question on LinkedIn–a variation of the overcoming stage fright question we have seen many times–only in this case she’s talking about overcoming stage fright doing teleseminars. She makes some very good points that I’m going to mention here.

I agree, for the most part, but with some clarifications with this complex, personal and emotional topic. Clausen recommends four ways to overcome stage fright, or teleseminar fright…”

1. Get comfortable with the content.
2. Be aware of how you view your audience.
3. My 3Ps – PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE – Practice both the content and the delivery – nothing beats practice.
4. Become familiar with the technology – Fear of how to handle the technology or what to do if things go wrong is what scares people the most.

My answers are almost the same, too, but as you might expect, there’s more to talk about. In fact, she’ll be saying more about the topic in her latest teleseminar.

In my experience, trainers generally want more specifics to hand out; hence, the dialogue on LinkedIn. It never hurts to have more and get the advice of colleagues. It has been my experience and I’m sure other trainers and communicators will agree that the trainees or the audience wants less–less to remember. The audience wants it really basic, and sometimes, that isn’t enough as in this case.

Anywhere colleagues can get together and share ideas is a good thing. I am most grateful to LinkedIn and this forum for having the opportunity to share ideas and express my opinion on various training and in this case, a communication topic, as well.

If there were specific techniques that we could all certify as having worked, we wouldn’t have the jobs we do. People are individuals who react differently to different stimuli. To some people, being with others is relaxing, to others it is not. To some people knowing their subject really well gives them confidence and courage; to others it won’t make a difference, but knowing their audience will.

Helping people relax, letting them know the audience is rooting for you, that the whole exercise won’t change the world but we might as well enjoy it–are all things that help.

When I started acting I had stage fright like everyone else and in some cases even now I may get it after 30 years of “practice” because something is different in the mix. Maybe I’m not as prepared–maybe family or a critic is coming–maybe the boss.

We try to control for all that. We practice and gain experience. We meditate. We find our comfort zone.

The first time I used a microphone I was nervous–the first time I was in front of a camera I was nervous. It’s all stage fright. I may still get nervous depending on the environment but I try to channel it, accept that I may be uncomfortable and do the best I can. If I accept the environment as my own, if I accept I am the reason people are there–then I’ll be okay. But that’s just me, isn’t it?

Are there a set of details you can hand out to make others feel less uncomfortable? Only those people who will accept your details as gospel. What if I am a feelings person and not a details person? What can you tell me about my feelings? Can you define them for me?

Relating to your audience is key, says Ms. Clausen. And she’s right. But let’s give allow a speaker to be nervous if that is who he or she is. A word won’t change that. It might help, but it won’t fix it. When he or she doesn’t feel nervous they won’t be. Teach them to be themselves. Teach them not how not to be nervous or fearful, but how to use that nervous energy. Never ever let them say, “I’m nervous;” that will only affirm to them how they feel. Let’s not assume we can talk anyone out of how he or she feels.

We can give them the tools to be effective speakers. With those tools brings confidence and courage to push forward. With each win, more confidence and more courage.

I had a speech class moan a little and say, “Oh, you want us to be like you, and that’s not fair.” I didn’t want them to be a speaker like me; I wanted them to be a speaker like them. Who they are defines the speech they give or the presentation they make. We can make the process easier and hopefully make the act less stressful in the reality.

Ironically, if the presenter can keep focused on what the audience needs or wants to know and keeps trying to deal with that, the fears won’t have a lot of time to manifest. Feeling inadequate to deliver the goods to the audience is generally our true worst fear–unless we have a complex based on what people think of us in general.

Owning the moment and the stage is key to alleviating public speaking and networking fears. Practice means doing it the same way each time. Practice, practice, practice does not make a person less fearful; it makes them automatons. Experience is different. Different audiences. My mantra is know your audience, know your subject and know yourself. You’ll lessen those fears and maybe one day eliminate them. Some people never get over the butterflies but use them. Find the energy, the excitement, the thrill in them. I get butterflies on a roller coaster, don’t you? If I got rid of that feeling, riding a roller coaster might not be fun anymore.

People are complex creatures yet we like the simple answers; we like short lists. We want the black and white answers–the “fuzzy” being too “iffy.” Some people always look for the numbers and there are not concrete numbers for any topic we might cover. This one in particular is full of variations and approaches to help. You may have four points; I may have three–someone else, ten and we’re all as correct as any thinking human can be. As long as our audience believes what we are saying is a relative truth–as good as we can make it–they’ll listen. We are trying to help and to those trying to help us we are most gracious.

The toughest part of teleseminars, Clausen says, is being comfortable with the technology. I’m assuming we aren’t talking about an old-fashioned teleconference (which we still do by the way) a speakerphone, but a teleseminar, complete with video, music and presenters–images and presentations. While some challenges reside with the viewers staying tuned in or its their loss, the pressure is on the host/presenter to keep things moving and keep the audience involved–and tuned in.

Still, being comfortable with the teleseminar platform means you are prepared–even if something goes wrong with the technology–or anything for that matter. Decide ahead of time a number of what ifs and decide on Plan Bs to deal with them. Even what to say. Don’t plan to fail (never say fail either–Gremlins happen), but if you must, do it with dignity. Armed with only our dignity, we can still feel okay and go on to the next project. Actually you should never consider it failure; but rather Murphy’s law, sh** happens, etc. That’s life.

I have to tell you I am never thrilled with teleseminars either as a participant because I have to see someone who, unless he or she is very charismatic, is not connecting to me personally. As a presenter, unless I have an audience in front of me to focus on, it’s hard to focus on my camera audience, too, but a little less so with some kind of physical audience; that helps me as a presenter to be audience-focused. In radio, my first job often left me alone at the station. To have the feeling of another presence to talk to (and many DJs do this on the night shift) I put up a mirror to see a person–even if it was only me, it seemed to help. Talking to ourselves does help. Don’t most of us practice with a mirror or use headphones to hear ourselves talk? It’s also reaffirming that we are an entitled presence to speak.

It seems what is happening to me is not fear so much as uncertainty of the outcome. Maybe you can focus that is the real “fear” or “stage fright”–uncertainty.

Teleseminars have an artificiality about them because of the medium. Maybe that artificiality will go away with realistic 3-D or holographic images. I don’t think we really want that. I wrote a novel about what happens when people stop talking face-to-face and it isn’t pretty. We lose touch with our humanity, depending on machines to make us more than we are. We let the machines run the show, and we don’t really want that. At any rate, teleseminars have a place and it’s up to all of us who do them to make human contact while on the other side of the machine.

Remember, we aren’t talking to a machine but a whole person, with a set of ideas, agendas and need for our knowledge. Know that audience. Know your subject and tell them what they need and want to hear. And, know yourself so you can make it interesting and lively, and no one will want to fall asleep, look at his or her watch, check their smart phone or take notes unless you want them to, and they want to, too.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

As always, I like to remind readers, the views expressed are mine alone, but I am not the only person with an opinion so please comment here, or on my website, where as you may have guessed, I open my mouth on other subjects like communication and theatre. Email me, if you like. Better yet offer me a job, an interview, or a smile. Give me an idea to write about. Be a guest blogger. Check the site at the top of the page. Meanwhile, I hope I’ve given you something to think about. For a look at the human side of training from my Cave Man perspective, please check out my book, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development. Happy training.