Voting for Speakers Who Did Not Meeting the Timing Requirement in Toastmasters Meeting

In a recent Toastmasters Club Meeting, 2 project speakers spoken more than the time allocated for their presentation. As a result, they were not eligible to be voted as the best speaker. The Toastmaster referred this to the club President. Without a thought, the President quickly replied that, to let the two speakers to be eligible to be voted.

Later, the General Evaluator highlighted that, once the speaker exceed the time allocated, he or she should not be eligible to be voted as the best speaker.

I agreed with the General Evaluator.

I attended number of Toastmasters Meeting which some speakers spoke more than the time allocated. One project evaluator even at the start of the evaluation, instructed that his evaluation would take 5 minutes instead of the 2~3 minutes. And most of such incident, the Toastmaster of the Day/Evening turned to the Club President for further instructions. Most of the incidents, the President would allow these speakers to be voted as the best speaker.

One school of thought was that, we have to create an encouraging environment in a Toastmasters Club meeting for members to learn presentation skills. Disqualifying those who exceed the allocated time would discourage them from doing future projects, table topics or evaluation.

I agreed on the part on creating an encouraging learning environment. We also have to be careful on what are we encouraging.

There is a timing allocation for each segment in the club meeting for reasons. One reason is to ensure that the meeting will end on time. But making speakers who exceeded the time allocation ineligible to be voted is a method to encourage members to speak within the time allocation.

I strongly believe that each club should stand by the timing allocation. This will also project a professional image for the club.

The General Evaluator in this case performed the duty to remind the member. I hope that the club will remember the General Evaluator’s reminders.

Leave a Reply