This recent debate is a hot button topic. Let me set the record straight, I am an Australian living in Tokyo, so I have no dog in this American presidential brawl. I am approaching this topic from the point of view of what we would do, if we were under attack in public, rather than to rule on the rights and wrongs of politicians’ strategies. Imagine it was you up on that stage getting hammered, what would you do? As a presenter, it is unlikely you will ever face a Trump when you are speaking to a business audience. A political debate is a different animal to the cultured world of business, as we urbane professionals give presentations on worthy commercial subjects. Nevertheless, we can come under attack when presenting and there will be no moderator there to try and rein in the provocateur. Biden and the moderator Wallace were clearly rattled by the constant interjections and disdain for the pre-agreed debate rulebook. In public presentations in business, there is no rulebook.
Heckling speakers has been around forever. The political world especially, has this from top to bottom. Watch the British parliament in action and there is the moderator, the Speaker, struggling to get the interjecting honourable members to shut up. In business, the heckling most often occurs at town hall meetings of the staff and shareholder gatherings. The employees or the shareholders have a beef with management and they are unrestrained about arguing with what is being said. They don’t have the floor when heckling, so they are limited to a few words or a short phrase. This was much the same as Trump’s tactics during the debate. They major in the short sharp barb that is very hard to parry.
If we are under fire when speaking, what should we do with these interjections, usually voiced with venom? This exchange has to be understood for what it is. This is not an intellectual engagement where the full issue can be argued at length and in depth. This is a vicious Iron Mike Tyson left hook to the jaw, aimed to disable, humiliate and provoke into error. In any audience, there will be a cross section of people listening to the verbal fisticuffs.
One group will not approve the tactics, because it is outside public decorum boundaries, but will sit there in silence not wishing to get involved. A smaller group enjoys blood sports and they have discovered that public speaking is a new category for them to enjoy, so they like the spectacle. There is another minority group in hot agreement with the heckler and will feel emboldened to get involved directly themselves or to just utter shouts of agreement with the heckler. This aggressive group will not be converted to agreement in a public forum by you, because your differences are often ideological, financial or procedural and can’t be breached very easily.
Actually, we don’t need to try and win the debate, because we can never win them over. What we have to do is preserve our dignity and appeal to the basic fairness of the silent majority. When people yell out during our talk, we have a few arrows at the ready in our quiver. We can invite them to debate with us at a different time and place, as we need to go deeper on the subject, well beyond the time constraints of this event’s schedule. We can ask them to agree to disagree. This is disarming because we are saying we don’t see any resolution of opinion here, so let’s accept that fact and move on. We can appeal to fair play and say we should be allowed to make our point and mention there will time at the end for questions, so ask them to please hold the interventions for the moment and let’s have the debate at the end of the proceedings.
When we feel our antagonist is trying to slam verbal shivs into us, we can hit back hard. We have to do this in a way though that doesn’t end up in a verbal brawl that diminishes everyone, like we witnessed with the presidential debate. We can say, “That sir (or madam) I believe is an outrageous untruth. Having said that, I respect your right to hold a different opinion to mine, so let’s take this debate off line and you and I can argue the case at the end, after the event is formally concluded. I look forward to it. For the moment, let’s continue with proceedings”. This approach dismisses the heckler’s point as untrue, but in a way which seems balanced and fair. Of course, the heckler and their entourage won’t be satisfied with that approach, but we are not trying to win them over. We are aiming to appear elegant, in control, considered and above the rough affray.
If they continue heckling, we just say, “Thank you. I accept your right to disagree with me and I have already stated that I am happy to debate with you at the end, so let’s leave it until then”. After which you just pick up where you left off and continue with your talk. If the heckling still continues, it now moves outside the bounds of acceptability and their argument and they themselves are both diminished. Either the silent majority will become less silent and tell the hecklers to be quiet and leave it until the end or the organisers will be forced to take action to shut down the mob. You don’t care, because the key objective is to emerge from this verbal punch up looking in control and professional. Name calling, arguing the point, counter heckling, telling people to shut up etc., means you are now in the blood and the mud wrestling with them. Once they drag you down to their level, you cannot get back up again. Your own credibility is compromised. Avoid this at all costs.
