Presentations: The American Way

During the summer break, I was given the opportunity to intern at Yale University’s Office of Sustainability. On the last week of my internship, I had to give a presentation on the research report which I had completed. Analysing my presentation as a speech event, a few components stood out to me. I would like to highlight these components and compare the fundamental differences between an office presentation in the U.S and in Singapore.

Genre:
Office Presentation

Topic:
Sustainable and economic practices at Yale University

Purpose:
For me to explain my research report

Setting:
Office conference room, with participants seated around a rectangular table facing the screen in front

Key:
Generally serious tone, with occasional jokes

Participants:
Myself, senior office staff and fellow interns

Form:
Spoken English, with the use of slides and tables

Act Sequence:
Me: Explanation of concept
Senior staff*: Views/Comments
Fellow interns*: Views/Comments
Me: Clarification
(Repeat Cycle)
*Interchangeable

Rules for Interaction:
Addressing senior staff by first name, interjecting comments, minimal digression

Norms of Interpretation:
A relatively small power distance in American organizations
A presentation is seen as an opportunity to discuss and exchange ideas mutually. It should not be a one-way traffic (i.e. presenter to staff)

The first difference I observed is the organization of participants during my presentation, or rather the absence of it. There was no specific seating arrangements, (unlike in Singapore and Asia where seat allocation is given high emphasis) the senior staff and interns sat wherever they felt was most comfortable. In fact, the assistant director was seated at a secluded corner of the table. It showed little or no hierarchal classification of the participants.

This very naturally led to a very different act sequence of the presentation. In most presentations in Singapore, a standard sequence will be: the explanation by presenter, followed by comments by senior staff at the end of the presentation, and finally comments by junior staff. What I noticed was the sharing of ideas halfway through my presentation, and it did not have to be a senior staff to break the flow; the fellow interns also interjected comments and questions whenever they felt there was a need to.

The difference in rules for interaction, underscores the cultural differences I experienced. Deemed as impolite in the Singapore context, I addressed my superiors by their first name during my internship stint. At the beginning, I found it very uncomfortable. I saw it as an offensive manner to address someone you respected. Within a few days however, I grew accustomed to it, knowing that my superiors would prefer being addressed by their first name. On top of that, interjecting comments (as mentioned) and some digression were some of the other unspoken rules which I had observed.

With hindsight, I am more able to understand those differences. A norm of interpretation I feel, is the small power distance in American Organisations. Members from the lower hierarchy, including myself, could give views and comments. Although decisions will ultimately be made by someone from the top, Americans are generally more open to ideas from each other. Another point to note is that, a presentation in the American context, acts more like a discussion forum for all. The presenter takes the role of a facilitator in the forum, and participants take turns to comment.