I love this framework, but I learned a slightly different one from… Craig Ferguson? At a comedy show? Pretty sure…
The ordering I learned was:
- does this need to be said?
- does this need to be said by me?
- does this need to be said by me, now?
I find this construction particularly useful in the “lead/senior/principal/blame-sink” role, as I’m typically trying to get the team to come to a conclusion without my explicit direction. Once it gets to the “okay, this needs to be said by me, now” moment, I pull the trigger. Otherwise, I try to just nudge the team in the right direction, leaving folks feeling more ownership over their work.
This could almost be useful (I know it’s mostly j/k), but it really needs some multiplier or something for the size of the audience.
For example, if you’re speaking 1:n, the numbers should shoot way up as n approaches 1, and way down/zero out — particularly for some branches of the chart — as n approaches higher orders of magnitude (so using a log scale).
That is, you shouldn’t need to prepare a speech when you’re taking 1:1. And you likely shouldn’t be talking at all without preparation when speaking to, say, 100 or more (unless you’re not the speaker and you’re asking a question, for example).
> And you likely shouldn’t be talking at all without preparation when speaking to, say, 100 or more
I'm probably saying what you mean but preparation should mean (or include) practice. That is, if you're speaking to 100+ people, it better not be the first time anyone has heard your speech in its entirety. (source: once bombed a conference talk thinking I could "just wing it").
Sadly, there’s no “am I dominating the conversation?” multiplier. That’s the sort of thing I wild have lived to have in a hackerspace’s monthly meeting.
I am always fascinated that in US conversations Robert's rules of Order are assumed common knowledge (and in a way I envy that there's somewhat consensus that in a debate you use Robert's rules instead of reinventing the wheel each time people meet) but as not having ever been to the US it took some research to figure out what these rules actually are and if there are alternatives or how things governed by Robert's Rules are handled elsewhere (reinventing the wheel it seems)
The top of the flowchart needs more options - there's a whole opinion golf world of trying to distill a point into as few sentences/syllables as possible,or trying to find a punchy way of summarising.
If you can say all you need to say about something with a terse and pithy throwaway comment, then you've found the hidden non-zero safezone.
Several years ago I started just walking away from people when they ignored body language and conversational cues and wouldn't stop talking. As a result, there is now a cadre of people who both talk at great legnths and think I am rude. However, I used the extra time to get better at the things I do, so the extra bit of disparagement nets out.
Using Russell Brand as an example, how do you describe the pattern that causes the kind of infinite nested open loops that make a polite interruption impossible? I'm occasionally guilty of it myself, where when my ignorance stupefies people into silent awe, it can read as rapt interest, but I try to always start with the intent to ask a question. What's a good conversational interrupt signal to give?
What works sometimes is to raise your hand slightly and then:
A) as politely but forcefully as possible admit you don't care what they are talking about ("I am afraid you have lost me here") then either pivot the conversation or make an excuse to leave
or
B) repeat to them in brief what they have said and affirm that you are completely with them on their point and either add your point to it or pivot the conversation or make an excuse to leave
Mostly good guidelines, although I disagree with this one:
> Will you be reading a prepared, written copy of the speech?
I feel that when a speaker reads their speech word-for-word, especially if they are visibly reading, then it takes away from their ability to communicate. People like to make eye contact, and feel like a speaker is talking to them--when a speaker is reading, it has a distancing effect.
Better to write the speech out (either word-for-word or in bullet form), learn it deeply, and then say it without looking at the text. This lets you phrase things in a natural way in the moment, to make eye contact, to adjust the rhythms of speech to make the communication more effective.
Better still is to be attentive to, and sometimes explicitly solicit, feedback from your audience.
General rules like these are useful with enormous audiences, because they are so heterogeneous that you have to play to the average. But even in that case, your sense of the average should be getting continually updated, people samples will differ -- Chicago is different from Miami, grad students are different from management types, 2023 audiences are different from 2018 audiences, etc.
This reminds me of one of my favorite scenes from Halt and Catch Fire, when the marketing guru tells the sales engineer (in no uncertain terms) when to shut up:
- does this have to be said
- does this have to be said now
- does this have to be said by me