Verbal, Written, and Followup Evaluations

As a speech evaluator, you have the chance to give the speaker three different evaluations. Each has its place but trying tomake do with just one evaluation can be a recipie for disaster.

The most common evaluation is the 2 to 3 minute verbal evaluation. Verbal evaluations may be the most signifcant of the three because you can'tbe sure the speaker will pay attention to the other two. Other members and guests also hear this. Although you may have many things to comment on, I suggest you focus your verbal evaluation on the single most mportant thing you can share with the speaker. This provides a clea message to the speaker while avoiding two traps an evaluator might stumble into.

Some evaluators try to offer two or more points to grow on. While I understand the desire to shre as much as possible with both the speaker and the audience, there isn't enough time in the verbal evaluation to cover more than one point. If a fully prepared seven minute speech can effectively address only one point, why do you think a hastily pepared evaluation can do better? Put as many points as you want in the written evaluation or a followup discssion.

Another common error is to verbalize the notes you took during the speech. My main complaing with this plan is that the speaker will get the written notes anyway. I saw one evaluator literally walk down the evaluation list. "I gave you a 3 for this, a two for that ..., etc." Neiher the speaker nor the audience learns anything useful with this kind of evaluation.

While your verbal evaluation needs to clearly focus on a single poin togrow on, the written evalation can and should give as mych deail as possible. Unless the verbal evaluaion is recorded, he written version is the only one the speaker can look back on hee days later. Be encouraging, but specific. We tell speakers to write their speeches but not read them. The same holds true for evaluations.

Finally, you can offer more thoughts verbally after the meeting. The advantage of these evaluations is the combination of depth and clarity. Unfortunately, these evaluations are rarely done because schedules are so packed. At its best, this becomes a conversation between speaker and evaluator where the speech can be analyzed in detail.

I think the General Evaluator should use this as part of the general evaluation. Did the evaluator pick a point to grow on (good) , offer too many points to grow on (bad) or none at all (worse)? Help the evaluator give the information in the best context available.