Do4es an evaluation have to identify a flaw?

[John Sleigh]

I had an experience recently which calls into question the
conventional Toastmasters wisdom that every evaluation must include
recommendations.

A member giving her second speech achieved all of the outcomes set
out
in the evaluator’s guide. I would have ticked most as 5s. In between
the traditional find something positive and leave on a positive note,
she was told by the evaluator that her passion for her subject was
not
evident. Regrettably, he did not make suggestions on how this could
be
carried out. He identified a lack – but did not suggest how to fill
the gaps.

I was sitting next to her, and I feel that all she would have heard
was the negative comment.

My own opinion was that her passion led to the choice of speech
topic,
but clearly to the evaluator the comment was true. Evidence of her
passion was supported by the research she had done and the personal
examples she gave. Perhaps it was reduced by reading the speech (it
was her second assignment, remember).

My concern was though she had met all of the criteria in the
evaluator’s guide, the focus of the evaluation was on an (unstated)
ingredient in the final two CC assignments – persuade and inspire.

I am not saying that the speech could not have been better. In a
private conversation, where I encouraged her not to be discouraged, I
suggested a couple of techniques she could use to overcome the
reading
problem. In fact those suggestions were also aligned with later
assignments.

My concern was that, had I not intervened, we would have lost this
member.
She did everything that the assignment called for, and did it well,
yet felt demotivated by the evaluation.

Equally, the evaluator gave an evaluation that would have passed
without comment had I not become involved.

How do you deal with someone who has exceeded all of the stated
criteria in an early speech, but who will gain by continuing in the
program? How would you have handled it if it was in your club?

John Sleigh

[Ra_]

This is an interesting point.
My view is that everyone's opinion is valid and that if you attend a
speech which is great and meets all objectives, you most likely had
parts you preferred over others. It can be valuable to a speaker to
know which parts your enjoyed least even if they all rocked!

The methods I use and teach - I'll just go ahead and be detailed here:

CRI times =
3 C's -
NO CRITICISM
NO COMDEMNING
NO COMPLAINING

Review
Reward
Recommend - this seems to be the key - Recommend something the speaker
could do that, in your opinion, would have led you to a different
reactions

use the 3 I phrases:
I SAW
I HEARD
I FELT

One can always sincerely indicate that the speaker could try something
a bit differently and the evaluator can explain how they felt and how
they might/would likely feel differently f the speaker had done
something .... a different way.

[p c]

The answer is no.

One thing that gets on my nerves is an evaluation that criticizes a
speaker who achieved his/her objectives. I think this can happen because
the the evaluator
1. Didn't read or understand the project objectives,
2. Does not "understand" the purpose of the evaluation, or
3. Does not know yet how to provide a helpful evaluation.

With that said, I feel it is desirable for an evaluator to provide
suggestions that go beyond the project's objectives. When he/she does
that, he/she preface the suggestion that it is beyond the scope of the
project and it is provided for the purpose of improvement.

..PC