The presenter who is not prepared to receive and answer
the audience's questions should seriously consider why he/she is making a personal appearance!

Sending a manuscript would have been sufficient.

If we prepared in the old way and then opened the floor to spontaneous, interrupting questions, we'd never get finished! But what if we prepared and spoke in a different way, in a way that encouraged questions! What most presenters do is to speak most of the time themselves and save a little time at the end for questions and discussion.

This doesn't mean that the speaker only gets 5 or 10 percent of the time and the audience the remainder. No, the presenter gives a quick summary and then uses the discussion to provide detail and clarification, preferably in a dialogue with the audience.

But this demands an entirely different type of preparation.

Some cultures tolerate interruptions while others support letting people talk until they have finished. Which is better? Personally, I'm not convinced, that feigning interest and allowing someone to tell me something boring or that I already know, is better or more polite than interrupting.

The French seldom allow each other to complete their sentences.
When they have understood the content they interrupt.
And the speaker expects to be interrupted!

Answer questions right away! Questions can never be put off. Remember, when someone interrupts with a question, it means that they've thought of something more interesting than what you are saying. Take advantage of the situation! Questions help the speaker – they are not a hindrance. Assuming that you know what you are talking about. Most knowledgeable speakers are better at answering questions than giving speeches.

Lots of speakers, teachers and presenters may say that they welcome questions, – but many don't mean what they say. As soon as someone asks a question, they give the standard response:

- I'll be getting to that in just a minute. Let me just explain this first ...
- In order to answer that question, I'll first have to ...
- Let me start from the beginning ...

If you've understood the One-Channel Hypothesis, you'll realize how poor these responses are!

You may get your audience to stop asking questions, but will you get them to stop thinking about their question? Hardly. And if the question was at all reasonable for others in the group, they will then be thinking along the same lines – just who is your audience, anyway?

It will be easier for the listener to think of spontaneous questions. If a listener has to wait until the period for questions, then she or he is forced to put the question in a context, which demands an articulately phrased question, a certain amount of courage and knowledge about the subject. And people has to worry about the possibility that the speaker has already answered their question while they were trying to formulate and remember it.

- Can you ask about ... (you say to the person sitting next to you)
- You can ask yourself.
- No, you're better at this, I don't dare.

We need a model that can withstand questions. If the person asking questions has seen the big picture, the questions asked will have a context. Questions won't live a life of their own. Questions will help rather than hinder and will make it easier to provide more and greater detail.

I usually call that model the Headline Technique (or in short, Headlining). Read about it here and now!

______

Back to my Home Page

---

Copyright © Bengt Hemlin 2002