Toastmasters Podcast #006: Interview with Carol Dean Schreiner, DTM

Good advise.  I particularly appreciated

---  Reading speech objectives before the speech.

     - Leave the actual introduction and title for the Toastmaster

--- General evaluator should focus on other roles and aspects of a meeting, not the speeched.

quote comment

I am a chartered member & Past Prez (2003-2005, 2008-2009), KL Advanced TM Club (1982). I must say that we have been on the right track as far as the evaluations go - we practice 'open evaluation' - lead evaluatior (3 mins) 3-4 other members (4 mins) & the speaker is allowed to 'defend' (1 min)...

Personally I agree with Carol Dean Schreiner, DTM's advice, (& practice) that the GE must ensure the speaker gets the best evaluation as possible; if some vital/omportant points were overlooked by the evaluatior, the GE should mention to complete the evaluation (this is not to be seen as evaluating the evaluator).

I am particularly grateful for Carol Dean Schreiner, DTM's remarks on how the speakers should learn to accept evaluations w/o taking it too personally.

If I may be allowed to add here, that in this part of the world (Malaysia), its still practised, to adjourn after the meeting to the nearby tea-stalls/coffee-shops for socializing as well as getting the "real & thorough evaluation"  which for lack of time (3 mins) isn't delivered at meetings. I believe the speakers accept more easily over a cup of tea/coffee...

I am sure members of my 3 clubs (Bangsar-8773, KL Adv-1982 & Telekom-8052) will benefit immensely from the talk by Carol Dean Schreiner, DTM...

Thank you for the privilege of listening and benefiting...

quote comment

Hi Carol,

I sat in the first row during your speech at the International Convention recently. I learned a lot then, and I learned a lot now on the Podcast. This couldn't have come at a better time. I am assigned to be the General Evaluator at my next club meeting. The tips you shared are invaluable and I'll keep them in mind when I'm evaluating the meeting and the evaluators, not the speeches themselves!

Jeni Dang Lu

quote comment

Carol,

Thanks for the information on evaluations. As VPE for my club, I am preparing to give the evaluation module in a few weeks. Some of your comments in the Toastmaster magazine gave me a desire to improve the way I give evaluations as well as to encourage other members to strive for higher quality evaluations.

quote comment

Having first joined Toastmasters in 1975 it is great to enjoy the increasing benefits of the advances in technology, over the years.

Really enjoying the Podcasts. Thanks

quote comment

I love and will use the statement, "If you're green, you grow; if you're ripe, you rotten." As a seasoned member in a young club, it's often a waste of time to have an evaluator because the newer members are usually in awe of longevity. Hopefully, using this statement will encourage all evaluators to think critically when evaluating.

quote comment

The actual quote was first said by (at least attributed to) Ray Kroc, founder of McDonald's - 

quote comment

I am just learning about the Toastmasters Podcast and think it is wonderful.

I appreciate Ms. Schreiner's discussion on evaluations. However, there is one comment that I question. It is her evaluation of the speaker using blue humor. My only concern is that I frequently hear our veteran members telling new members and new clubs what is "appropriate and not appropriate" topics for Toastmasters. Yet according to Toastmasters International there are no guidelines from headquarters regarding restrictions on what can be discussed in Toastmasters. I refer to an article on www.toastmasters.org titled YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT THAT!

I do believe that an evaluation should cover insensitivities, general assumptions of beliefs (i.e. a speaker assuming everyone in the audience has the same religious beliefs as hers.), and disrespectfulness. But this should be covered as suggestions for improvements, not as rules of Toastmasters. 

quote comment

In evaluating, I found removing the "you" in any evaluation is best.

When the evaluation reflexs how the speech directly effected me, the use of "I" is most crittical, if I disagree with the content, the message or how it came across.

The purpose of any speech is to reach the listeners, to engage the listeners. When this is accomplished the speech is successfull.

When I first joined toastmasters I was preaching, demanding the listeners to believe what I said. I truly made it rough and tough on the listeners who were there to learn to speak in public. I am sure I drove off many a potential member and gave a very wrong impression of the purpose of toastmasters.

I was enthusiatic, became a sargent at arms and went to every meeting. I didn't know how really bad my style of speaking was for the club.

The executive committee decided I was too much and asked me to leave. I just was not welcome.

I am very fortunate to discover Dr Glasser's book, Psychiatry can Hazardous to your Mental Health. With the information in that book I am working on social skills. I have been excepted in another club, I am waiting sometimes for the other shoe to drop, it does effect my speaking ability, but that to will pass.

I do recommend "get a mentor, and listen." I chose not to use one for my first 10 speeches, because I knew it all. The preacher in me led me down the road into oblivion.

My last speech, I tried to be intentionally funny. It was horrable, disrespectful and not approprate for any toastmasters meeting. Without a mentor it will happen eventually even to the best toastmaster.

I never learned from evaluations with "you" in them, my excuse was they didn't want to understand me, and discovered it is very hard to see outside my own bias.

Effective evaluation is an accurate expression of "how I the listener was effected" in terms of using "I" only.

quote comment