Feedback in speech club isn't praise. It's a list of things to change in the next speech — and a deadline for checking it.
The speech is evaluated by two layers at once. The assigned evaluator knows about the speech in advance, knows the chosen training goal, and after the speech, speaks for 2–3 minutes in front of the entire club. In addition, the entire audience writes notes — the speaker takes away 10 to 20 notes from 10 to 20 people with feedback.
Here are six real-life cases:
1. Body language: when the evaluator is watching only one thing
Speech
Pathways project Effective Body Language. Goal: convey content with your body, not with words.
The speaker chose a story from a meeting with a former colleague that didn’t go as he expected. The entire speech is a sequence of nonverbal signals that he gradually recognized during that meeting: the length of the welcome hug, the choice of a table at the very back, the dessert she invited him to eat from, the repeated touches of forearms, the tilt of the head when asked a question. The speaker didn’t comment on them—he replayed them. With each new section of the story, he moved to a different part of the stage and let it resonate there.
He incorporated a prop—a spoon—into his speech, and several times gestured at the scene instead of describing it. The punchline came at the end: he thought he was going for a regular coffee, and instead he found himself standing in the middle of someone else's nonverbal communication.
The evaluator decided in advance that he would only observe gestures. Nothing else.
Feedback
He appreciated specific moments, not impressions: hair, clothes, a glass, a hug, sitting on the couch. „"There were a lot of examples of body language that nicely complemented what you were saying."” About the prop: „"Spoon — TOP. Also the way you showed that you were having ice cream."”
Three reservations against this. The stroking of the belly and the loud laughter seemed unnatural. The superfluous gestures — „"But you used them less emotionally than last time, so that's progress."” And rocking: „"You have a relatively large amount of swaying there. For me, this is associated with the speaker not knowing, or being stressed, or just trying to move somehow and not knowing exactly how."”
Then came the sentence that distinguishes an assessment from an opinion:
„"Next time, try to explicitly focus on keeping your hands close to your body unless you're accompanying your words. You'll only make the necessary gestures. Then we can compare and analyze."”
Not „gesture less.” A rule to keep in mind during a speech, and a deadline to check.
2. Motivational speech, not inspiring: a speech that had to be rewritten from scratch
Speech
The goal: to inspire the audience. The first version was structured as a motivational speech about courage — in the first person, with a triad about the three types of power, a quote, questions for the audience, and a challenge at the end: not tomorrow, but today. During it, the speaker moved around the stage and worked with contrasts and emotion.
Feedback on the first version
The performance was good. „"Energetic start, hook had power."” Contrasts, working with emotion, natural gestures. One note: „"My best speech."”
And then the intervention that canceled the entire speech:
„"This was a motivational speech, not an inspirational one."”
To do this: „There was no personal story.” Another reviewer from the other side: „"You were a bit of a preacher, not a visionary."” Third: „"I disconnected somewhere halfway through, I was missing something dramatic that would draw me in."”
A good performance in a bad genre. You wouldn't know that from "it was good".
Speech — revised version
The speaker scrapped the draft and wrote a new speech. This time about one specific email. He wrote a guest article for an organization, people liked it, and they invited him to speak with them at a conference — in a foreign language he wasn’t confident in. He wrote the response three times and deleted it three times. Finally, he declined.
The rest of the speech is about what came next. A few days of nothing, then in the evening the thought that he had just decided not to grow. The excuses he made for it. And then recognizing the same pattern elsewhere: an alarm clock that wouldn't wake him up; an hour of scrolling; an offer to lead a project at work that he turned down, saying he didn't have the time—and he did. The speaker called it a series of little votes about who he wanted to be. Conclusion: he's looking for that next conference, and this time he's answering.
Feedback
„"A personal story, a lesson, all very inspiring."” One evaluator singled out a specific phrase from the speech as its strongest point: „"nice name — a small vote about yourself."”
For improvement: slang („konfera”, „kafko”), pauses „"partially good, sometimes lacking"”, eyes a few times upwards. And two details that show exactly how the audience is looking: „"You use your right hand as a gesture, but your left hand is still and doesn't move."” And to the sentence about closing the laptop: „He slammed down his laptop, closed his email — more forcefully.” If you have physical action in the text, play it.
There was no lack of praise between the versions. There was a different kind of praise, for a different type of expression.
3. Communication styles: the same speech received both „super gestures” and „exaggerated gestures”
Speech
Pathways project Know Your Speech Style. Objective: to name one's own communication style and how it manifests itself towards others.
The speaker opened with a question to the audience — which of the four styles they think suits him — and let them guess. Then he introduced himself: a direct type with an overlap into the analytical. He gets straight to the point, doesn't like sauces, is results-oriented, but also impatient.
The second half of the speech was about consequences. At work, plus: he says clearly what he wants and can back it up with numbers. At work, minus: he analyzes too deeply, loses patience when things drag on, and has a harder time communicating with people for whom small talk is important. Personally, minus: he sometimes gets to the point too much and is sometimes harsh in his evaluations.
The conclusion was about adaptation — what he had to change relative to each of the other three types. The speech had clear anchors: introduction and conclusion in the center of the stage, his own style on the left, impacts on the right.
Feedback
Award-winning structure, clear pauses, anchors on stage, audience engagement with questions. One reviewer: „"Authentic. I believed every word you said."” Another note: „"It was felt that you took care of the preparation. And that the project gave you something."”
The reservations were aimed at clarity. „Too professional for me” — from a person outside the field. „"What is the supporting and initiating style? A brief description would help me get my bearings."” The speaker defined two of the four types he mentioned. In addition, there were Anglicisms, for which one evaluator explicitly stated that he was „"it was a waste as an evaluator"”, and the word cotton "ahem".
The same speech received both "super gestures" and "exaggerated gestures" from two different people. It's not useless. It's information that the gestures were on edge.
4. Stand-up about burpees: two evaluators, same speech, opposite verdict
Speech
Goal: to base the entire speech on humor. Topic: 30-day challenge to do 150 burpees a day.
The speaker practiced right on stage. Between sets, he would throw out catchphrases — about his knees, about the Slovak healthcare system, about a neighbor who needs to know he's still alive. The first version was built chronologically after weeks of the challenge and glued separate stories together: burpees during a Zoom call with the camera on, a watch asking whether to call an ambulance, a neighbor convinced that the speaker was remodeling the bathroom, and a voice during training that the speaker thought was God — and it was the neighbor at eleven o'clock at night. Conclusion: a wish to be buried in a plank position.
Feedback on the first version
Even those who didn't like the performance acknowledged its originality. Physicality, energy, coordinated outfit. One member was „"speechless — she's never experienced this before."”
The reservations were unanimous. Too many burpees — form overshadowed content. „"A lot of stories that weren't connected in any way."” Anglicisms. Not all jokes hit home.
And one piece of advice about the craft: „"Stand-up is special because you don't know which joke will hit the mark. Take the jokes that worked and replace the ones that didn't."”
Speech — revised version
The speaker cut the number of burpees from twenty to six and broke up the chronology. Instead of weeks, he set up two thematic blocks—one on mental strength, the other on neighbors—and shuffled the stories so that they graduated to a single punchline in each block. He threw out jokes that didn’t work the first time. He added a prop and a physical conclusion: a final burpee, after which he lay on the ground.
Feedback
First evaluator: „"The burpees added some spice this time, there were only 6 of them."” He appreciated the dramatic pauses and vocal variability. And then: „"I didn't find it funny at all."”
Second evaluator, same speech: „"A much better speech than last time. It was also a bit funny, with those knees at the end."” Another note: „"Great jokes."”
The speaker didn't get a verdict. He got the information that humor doesn't work across the board — and one tool they both agreed on: „"The blocks were incomprehensible. Use stage anchors — present one topic from one side of the stage, another from the other side."”
5. Lecture about your own project: best content, most reservations about form
Speech
The speaker previously conducted the Pathways project Managing Projects Successfully — for half a year he led volunteers across several clubs on a joint PR assignment. This speech was a lecture about that project for the club. The goal: to pass on to others six things he learned while leading the team.
First: Start with a vision, not tasks. The speaker came to the first meeting with a ready-made list of steps and deadlines and was met with a cold reception. It only worked when he first described a picture of what it would look like and asked what they would add to it.
Second: in a volunteer organization, the leader has no formal authority — no one has to do anything. Third: each team member is different, one needs a few sentences and a screenshot, another needs to go through it step by step. Fourth: work with what you have and let people do what they are good at. Fifth: you don't win people over with expertise, but with attention — they started following him when he himself started noticing what they knew. Sixth and the strongest: he regrets most that he didn't involve them in the project earlier, because he didn't see how much they knew for a long time.
The speech was accompanied by a presentation as a visual aid.
Feedback
„Content, info — really valuable.” A: „Not a bombastic strategy, but a clear goal.” The confession from the speech that resonated the most was — „"I underestimated them"” — and self-reflection at the end.
The comments were almost exclusively aimed at form. Failure to keep to time. Many anglicisms and poor clarity. Too many details. „"You didn't communicate how you evaluated the project as successful."” And a specific tool against verbal fluff: „Start a sentence with a strong word — a verb or a noun.”
The speech with the best content received the most criticism for its form. Even valuable content cannot save a speech that is poorly delivered.
6. Networking: three points on which the evaluation focused
Speech
Pathways project Making Connections Through Networking. Objective: a story with a point about networking.
The speaker opened with what he took away from the marketing conference: the first user of his software, one new contact, a blow to his ego, and a ride in the wrong taxi. None of that was on the agenda.
Then the day passed in parts. The program was weak — useful for a beginner, nothing new for him. He met an old acquaintance: three seconds, hug, move on, zero value delivered. He met a former trainer who turned him down. He approached a woman at the coffee machine who immediately told him she was engaged. Two failures in two minutes.
And then, on the way to get water, he started talking to a man standing alone at a table. He mentioned that he was building his own software and was looking for his first testers. Within fifteen minutes, he had a user and a contact for another one. He didn't ask for it and he didn't prepare for this person in any way.
The conclusion was constructed as a callback to the opening statement: the conference promised something different, the value was there — just not on stage.
Feedback
The evaluator narrowed the entire evaluation down to three things.
Pauses. „"That list of what you took away — you didn't pause, and I didn't have time to absorb and think about it until the end of the speech."”
Voice. „"Monotonous, one level. An opportunity to work with the voice is, for example, greetings or situations with multiple people."”
Direct speech. „"Direct speech is part of the story. You had a lot of people in the story, that's a mega opportunity. You used almost nothing. Direct speech — because the listener starts to imagine it."”
From the notes: appreciated own experience, working with silence, three clear plot points, great start. To improve, trampling, jerky movements and „"slowing down, enjoying it on stage — it felt stressful."”
Notice the contradiction. The evaluator wrote that the pauses were missing. One note wrote that they were too long. Both are true—the pauses were in the wrong places.
What repeats itself across eight months
| Reminder | Number of speeches |
|---|---|
| Word cotton ("ahm") | 4 of 6 |
| Monotone voice | 4 of 6 |
| Anglicisms | 3 of 6 |
| Restless legs, weak stage anchors | 3 of 6 |
The same comment after six months does not mean that nothing has changed. The wording has changed: from „nervous walking” to „rocking” to „trampling”. It is the same problem in three stages, as it diminishes.
Feedback doesn't get repeated because the speaker ignores it. It gets repeated because some things take years to get fixed.
What does constructive feedback look like?
From those six cases, one can draw what distinguishes a usable assessment from a polite one.
- It is executable. Not „gesture less”, but „if your hands don't accompany your words, keep them close to your body”. The difference is that the latter can be done in two weeks.
- It names the genre, not just the performance. „"This was a motivational speech, not an inspirational one," more than twenty comments on the technique changed the speech.
- He can bear contradiction. Ten people in the room, ten views. The speaker's job is to find a pattern, not to obey everyone.
- It has a sequel. „"Then we can compare it, reanalyze it."” In two weeks. At the next speech.
That last one is the whole difference between a course and a club. The course will tell you what you're doing wrong. The club will check in with you in two weeks.