But you are not "superior" to the speaker. Judging usually implies superiority.
Your more extensive knowledge or greater experience do not make you a superior person, but rather a more useful source of feedback.
You have failed if you do not help the speaker to find ways to help himself. Your function is not to change the speaker's behaviour, but to provide him with information, on the basis of which he may consider changes himself.
Every listener in the audience is reacting personally to the speaker - so the evaluator and speaker should both realize that others are likely to have different impressions.
As an evaluator you should first of all understand yourself, and your own particular biases, and acknowledge that it is your personal view which you are formulating in your evaluation and not an absolute truth.
Personalize your statements whenever you can, describing your reactions, like "it seemed to me ...", "From my point of view", "My impression was ...", "I felt that ...".
Don't tell the speaker what he did, but what you perceived. Avoid phrases such as "you did ...", "you were ...", "you implied ..." - they are arrogant. And don't tell him what to do "You have to ...", "you should ...". He must decide that for himself.
And don't try to interpret or assume what others may have thought: "we felt ...". You are likely to be wrong! If it is important, the evaluator or the speaker can ask the audience for alternative views.
As part of a leter dialog, you can verify your reactions and observations with the speaker and with other listeners. Check whether your own suggestions are accepted as valid or useful by the others.
Avoid impersonal and passive statements "People are ...", "One must ...", "They say ...", "It's usually true ...", "A good speaker would ...". These are often a way of avoiding responsibility, and you must stand by what you say.
These rules help the speaker to listen to what you say as an evaluator, without having to judge whether you are right or wrong and getting into an antagonistic mood.
If your reaction was negative, say so - but only if you can make it constructive. If your reaction was positive, say so - but be sincere. Don't give positive feedback that is not honest, it is easy to spot. Describe what values you are using to measure the speaker against.
Use objective guidelines - for example an evaluation guide.
When you make suggestions, phrase them subjectively:
The reinforcement of positive statements builds motivation and confidence - which is necessary for a long-term committment to the skill-building of members of Toastmasters.
Negative criticism is usually rejected. Alone, it is useless - it has to be balanced either with positive statements or with constructive recommendations. You are evaluating behaviour in a stressful situation, you are not evaluating a person.
And finally, try to use positive forms "maybe you could ..." is much better than "if you could avoid ...". Don't use "Don't"!
If necessary, delay your report until the emotional atmosphere clears, and begin by setting yourself and the speaker away from the topic, as uninvolved observers. In particular, motivational speeches need this disinvolvement.
Avoid giving feedback on things over which the speaker has no control. If the speaker cannot do anything about something which you feel is wrong, there is no point in feedback on it. Understand what he expects as feedback, and build on that.
Your guiding rule here is that you must present an evaluation in a way that it could be accepted and lead to positive change. Constructive change grows out of mutual understanding.
Speaking and evaluating are complementary. Failure to communicate involves both the speaker and the listeners - both are involved, for better or for the worse. Both speaker and evaluator benefit from their dialogue.
If you use this material, please attribute to the author. Graham Tritt