It is very common to see panel discussions at business events. There is danger lurking in the shadows, though. The hosts invite a number of experts, usually around three to four, to interact with the MC. The idea is that a range of views will emerge and a richer resource of information will be provided this way, compared to the single speaker model. Sometimes, there will be a hybrid, where you might be asked to give a short burst on your subject and then join the rest of the panel for the discussion component.
The danger here is your personal and professional reputation is being put up for public evaluation. This is not just against an absolute standard, but also in a comparison with the other panel members. Some colleagues up on stage can be quite competitive, but you didn’t get the memo. Your insights may come across as paltry, when ranked against another panellist’s sterling efforts. Or you might struggle to give a meaningful reply to the MC’s questions and come across as a “fake” expert. The other end of the problem are those panellists who just talk way too much and lack self-awareness. Technical people can often be like this. They ramble on and on and the MC has to publicly reign them in. This is not a good look, so be succinct in your answers.
When we are asked to give a talk, hopefully we prepare well for the occasion, and we should rehearse what we are going to present. With a panel discussion it is a bit illusory, because it doesn’t seem to be a “presentation”, but in fact it is. It is certainly judged that way by the audience. They don’t say to themselves, “Oh, this is just a panel discussion, so I will suspend my usual cynicism, high expectations and unrealistic standards accordingly”. No, they are in full beast, critic mode, as per normal.
Thinking of the panel talk answers as your own personal mini-presentation is a good starting point. This will drive you to prepare properly. What does that mean, though? We should know what the MC is going to ask us in advance and prepare our answers ahead of time, so that we are not struggling to come up with a response on the spot. It is always good to check with the MC on the day, because things may have moved since they sent you the email on the questions they were planning to ask.
We also have to be on the ball with paying close attention to the comments of the other panellists. The MC may suddenly ask us to match our comment to their remarks. If we are concentrating only on what we will say next, we may miss the cue and look frazzled. As the discussion moves, we have to be ready to make an unprepared comment and so we should be mentally manufacturing possible answers to any questions which may arise. We need to be constantly adjusting to the flow of the conversation in real time.
Being able to sprout statistics, references, quotes on the subject really adds weight to our reputation as an expert in this area. Normally, if we have a slide deck in a presentation, then all of the data is there and we don’t have to remember any of it. On a panel, though, being able to quote the information from memory is very attractive and impressive to an audience. Opinions are cheap, but knowledge has to be gained and we need to demonstrate we have this subject firmly in our grasp.
Now having said that, it is not a bad thing to refer to some notes if the content is complex or challenging to recall. Don’t worry, the audience won’t rise as one and denounce you as a fraud for checking your notes or quoting from your notes. However, being able to unload the data unaided, elevates your level of credibility to a very great height. This is particularly useful if you are the only one of the panel who can pull off this magic trick.
I was chatting to a panellist before the action got underway and he was telling me about the public speaking training he had received at his legal firm, so I was expecting a good performance. Well, it was pretty average. Why? He ummed and ahhed his way through it and had negative vocal mannerisms such as saying “you know” way too often. That detracted from the believability of his comment content. What we say and how we say it matters.
The other big error was he ignored his audience. I could see he hadn’t been on too many panel discussions. The MC was seated at the end of the row of experts. Our panellist would receive a question from the MC and, while solely looking at the MC, deliver the response. Amateur mistake. He had an entire audience there to speak to, but he chose to ignore them. He could give a six second blast to the MC and then work his eye contact on individual members of the audience.
In one minute he could make six seconds of direct connection with ten people each in the crowd. Generally, our answer takes three to four minutes, so there is a possibility of strongly engaging 40 members of the crowd per answer. That is a totally different result to ignoring the audience and just answering the MC’s questions.
One other thing is posture. Women have this worked out, so they rarely ever make rookie mistakes. However, some male panellists slump in their chairs and look simply unprofessional. Guys, never kick your legs out like you were watching the sports on TV at home. You might think that wouldn’t happen, but you will see it. I recall an MC himself doing this during the discussion. I couldn’t believe it, but there he was, in full sight destroying his reputation.
Also, please spare us a ringside view of your hairy shins, because your socks are too short. When we are up on stage, we are elevated, so the eyeline of the audience is looking up at us and hence the brutal calf exposure no one needs to see. Sit up straight and tall, keep your knees together and remove all distractions from your message. Don’t forget to use gestures which include the audience in your answers.
Remove the risk and danger from being a panellist and instead turn the opportunity into a triumph of personal and professional brand building.
