Are You Talking At Your Audience or With Them?

The most remarkable conversationalist I ever met was so quiet and so plainly dressed that you could easily overlook her in a crowd. But the first time I attended a networking event with her, I marvelled at how brilliantly she sparkled in conversation.

Diane and I were both doctoral students at the time. I was studying English literature, and Diane was doing a comparative literature degree in English, French, and German. Given the scope of her studies, I already knew Diane was academically brilliant. But until we attended our first conference reception together, I had no idea about her superpowers in the conversation department.

I watched in awe as Diane engaged strangers with her calm smile and instantly put them at ease. Within seconds, they were leaning in and chatting with her as if they’d known her their whole life.

Diane didn’t practice any gimmicky networking techniques. She simply practiced the art of being present. When she spoke with you, you felt as if you were the only person on the planet, and you left the exchange feeling you were the smartest, most original creature alive.

I think of Diane whenever I’m in a dialogue that’s really a monologue. In a dialogue, two people participate equally in the conversation; they talk with each other. In a monologue, however, one person dominates the conversation, talking at the other person.

Holding forth in a monologue is the opposite of being present in the moment, and it produces the opposite effect. Whereas talking with someone draws them toward you, talking at them drives them away.

Sadly, I see a lot of talking at among researchers and innovators, and it subtly alienates potential collaborators, eroding trust rather than nurturing it.

Have You Found Yourself in These Non-Conversations?

You probably recognize the situation from your own experience. It starts with a friendly, “Let me tell you a bit about myself” or “Let me share some background on our organization.” And then, 10 or 20 minutes later, you’re still listening to the speaker give what is essentially an informal presentation. All that’s missing is the slides.

If you pay attention, you’ll notice versions of this non-conversation happening in various contexts. How many of these scenarios feel familiar?

• A meeting between a researcher and a potential industry partner turns into a one-sided pitch, not a discussion.
• A kick-off meeting with all the stakeholders of a large project, which is supposed to be a team-building activity, turns into a History of the Project presentation by the lead stakeholder.
• A webinar billed as including a Q&A session runs overtime, so there’s no time for participants to ask questions.
• An information package for patients promises to “answer all your questions about starting dialysis” but reads like a health encyclopaedia on kidney disease, with no FAQs.
• A public engagement session designed to “connect researchers with the community” features six short presentations by academics describing their research, leaving little time for networking.
• A lunch meeting with a prospective client, intended to deepen an existing relationship, turns into an infomercial from the local account manager.

In each of these situations, the person oversharing information probably has good intentions, but they’re speaking at the audience rather than with them. They’ve fallen into the common trap of thinking they’ll get buy-in by doing two things: 

1. explaining technical “facts” to the nth degree and
2. controlling the conversation.

Less Control, Better Results

When you emphasize information over human connection, the outcomes will always be disappointing.

People won’t likely push back in obvious ways, especially here in Canada, where politeness is a virtue. But neither will they cooperate with your agenda.

For example, the potential partner will sit through the long pitch and nod with a blank look on their face; they just won’t sign on to any deal. The project team will suffer patiently through the project leader’s lecture; they just won’t bring a lot of energy to the rest of the meeting.

To get people excited about your ideas, practice less volubility and more vulnerability.

Rather than trying to control the conversation, think of it as a kind of dance. Instead of rigidly steering your interaction, watch your partner for cues and respond accordingly.

Take a lesson from Diane, who showed me what genuine, trust-building conversations look like. You’ll know you’re on the right track if:

• You’re asking questions rather than simply offering opinions.
• You’re listening as much or more than you’re speaking.
• Your conversation partner takes notes or asks you to repeat something you’ve said.
• Your conversation partner asks tough questions.
• The conversation takes you in a direction you didn’t expect to go.

Yes, giving up the control of a monologue makes conversation less predictable, and that can be nerve-wracking. However, making space for dialogue also makes positive results more certain. Genuine conversations turn into journeys of mutual discovery, fostering curiosity, trust, and collaboration.

As a communication coach, I help experts stop overexplaining and start building relationships grounded in trust. Curious about how coaching could help you move your innovative ideas forward? DM me to arrange a free consult.