Experienced women executives ferociously debated the idea of "formal" versus "informal" speakers. The outcome was that only a "formal" speaker was appropriate for their organization.
Their definition of "formal and appropriate" is that the speaker writes a script, stands behind a lectern, delivers it carefully, and expects the audience to listen without participating in any way. They decided that executive women in an audience do not want to write things down on a handout, put their hands in the air to answer to any questions or deviate from the speaking model they see all around them.
It's too bad these women haven't paid any attention to what their audiences crave. With the findings of rigorous, peer-reviewed brain scientists proving that human beings (as in audiences) are hard-wired to respond to variety, stimulation and action, there is no longer a place for these strict speaking rules. Not one executive who insists upon speaking this way has ever been able to tell me why it works for the audience. Their only justification is "that's way it's always done." If that rationale made any sense, we would still be riding horses and living without electricity.
Certainly these women with 20-30 years of business experience didn't get to their executive positions by only doing what everyone else did. They had to be innovative, creative and groundbreaking in some ways, whether in their skills, their networking and marketing or their leadership skills. It astounds me that they don't see innovative and interactive speaking as part of that same path. Or are they so insecure about their success that they now cling to all traditional methods because it is safer?
I'd love to hear from executives and professionals about why you resist dynamic speaking that breaks out of the old mold and works with what we now know about how the human brain works. And how are you going to reach the younger generations who've adopted interactivity, speed and variety without hesitation?
Post your thoughts through our comment link.
Comments