Rhetoric is not neutral. It never has been.

Martin Luther King and Adolf Hitler. Two masters of rhetoric. Two completely different human beings.

Every speech, every presentation, every strategic message carries a moral charge, whether we acknowledge it or not.

When rhetoric is joined to ethics, it can persuade, inspire and motivate. It builds trust. It strengthens institutions. It moves people toward something worthy.

When rhetoric is devoid of ethics, the result is manipulation, exploitation and propaganda. And the consequences can be catastrophic.

The techniques may be identical. The difference is moral.

As professionals who lead, advise and influence, we have a responsibility to practise rhetoric as an ethical discipline, not merely a strategic one.

In an age of increasing noise, speed and polarization, character still matters. Values still matter.

When you are developing leaders, shaping narratives or speaking on behalf of your organization, it’s not just about being effective; it’s about doing the right thing.

Rhetoric is not neutral. The key variable is the presence — or absence — of ethics.

That’s the equation.

Last week in Warsaw, it was cold. Very cold.
The temperature frequently dipped below minus 20 degrees Celsius.

The cobblestones of the Old Town were covered in ice.
You couldn’t rush.
Every step demanded attention.

As I walked, I realized how much this applies to public speaking. When moving over slippery terrain, you have to walk with deliberation. When delivering a speech or presentation, you have to speak with deliberation.

Here’s a short video that I shot in the Old Town. (For subscribers reading this post via email, please click this link.)

When we hurry:
our words blur
our ideas collide
our audience struggles to follow

Cobblestones don’t allow speed.
And neither does a clear message.

Good speaking, like careful walking, is deliberate:
one step at a time
one idea at a time
one message at a time
pauses to allow the audience to think

When you speak too quickly, your audience struggles to keep their footing, just as I did on those icy streets. But when you slow down, when you speak with deliberation, you create space for meaning to land.

The cobblestones of the Old Town in Warsaw forced me to slow down.

The stage teaches the same lesson: speak with deliberation, and you — and your audience — will find your balance.

At the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, the world has grown accustomed to speeches that are loud, polished, and quickly forgotten.

This one was different.

On 20 January 2026, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered a speech that has garnered international attention and praise. It was a speech that came at a fraught time for the world.

The unpredictable wrecking ball that is Donald Trump’s administration is creating havoc around the world politically, economically, and socially. As a country that shares a 9,000-km border with the US, Canada is in a unique—and uniquely vulnerable—position. Being a proud Canadian, I feel it personally.

Yet in the face of these challenges, Carney did not try to dominate the room. He did not rely on slogans or bravado. Instead, he did something far more difficult: he named the reality, calmly and without illusion, and proposed a way forward.

This was not a speech about incremental change. It was a speech about rupture—moral, economic and geopolitical. And crucially, it was a speech that used language with precision and restraint to signal a break between an old world that no longer works and a future that has yet to be built.

In this post, I share my analysis of Carney’s speech: what worked well and what might have been improved. I focus on how he uses language, structure, and rhetorical choices to frame reality, build credibility, and persuade. And I explain why these choices matter for anyone who speaks about complex, high-stakes issues.

Watch the speech

A courageous speech, delivered with class

This was a courageous speech. Without naming him directly, it was clear that Carney took direct aim at Trump and his policies. He didn’t use hyperbole, and he didn’t use insults or ad hominem attacks. He simply laid out, step by step, why the old rules-based international system no longer works and what countries must do in response.

Some have said that the speech was less a courageous one and more one given out of the necessity to finally stand up to Trump. I don’t share this view.

It is clear from Trump’s speech at Davos the very next day that Carney’s speech had irked him. Given Trump’s tendency to be erratic and his taste for vengeance, it is impossible to know how he might respond. Indeed, just a few days after Carney’s speech, Trump posted this message on social media: “If Canada makes a deal with China, it will immediately be hit with a 100% Tariff against all Canadian goods and products coming into the U.S.A.”

So we now have the President of the United States threatening Canada—its greatest ally—for trying to find markets for its goods. It’s absurd. And with the Canada-US-Mexico free trade agreement due to be renegotiated this year, who knows what will happen. There is so much at stake.

Carney deserves credit for calling out the elephant in the room and for doing so in a dignified manner; a manner befitting the leader of a country. It is high time that the world stood up to Trump and stopped trying to appease him. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the events of the last 90 years will know that appeasement does not work. It only emboldens those who are more powerful.

At 14:04, Carney says that we have to name reality. We have to call the current international order what it is: “a system of intensifying great power rivalry where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as coercion.”

And at the end of the speech (16:45), he says, “The powerful have their power. But we have something too: the capacity to stop pretending, to name realities, to build our strength at home and to act together.”

Canada finds itself a David facing a dangerous Goliath. Carney’s speech was nothing if not courageous.

Connecting with the audience

Speakers who can demonstrate that they share something in common with the audience—values, experiences, hopes, dreams, concerns—have the ability to connect on a deeper level.

Business leaders often react to politicians’ speeches with emotion that ranges from skepticism to contempt. Indeed, at Davos, business leaders expressed significant suspicion and frustration toward politicians because of concerns over erratic policy, geopolitical instability, and a perceived retreat from a rules-based global order.

So, as a politician, Carney faced this challenge. However, he had a few things going in his favour.

First, he came to the stage already in possession of solid credentials to connect with a Davos audience. Not only is he the Prime Minister of Canada, but he has a track record that includes: 13 years at Goldman Sachs, 5 years as the Governor of the Bank of Canada, and 7 years as the Governor of the Bank of England.

Carney already had ethos when he stepped onto the stage. But he went further. He used a specific moment in his speech to connect with the audience on a practical level.

At 07:03, he addresses the room’s experience directly: “This room knows this is classic risk management. Risk management comes at a price, but that cost of strategic autonomy, of sovereignty, can also be shared. Collective investments in resilience are cheaper than everyone building their own fortresses. Shared standards reduce fragmentations. Complementarities are positive sum.”

The people in the audience have almost certainly had experience with risk management so Carney is meeting them on familiar ground with his words.

Whenever you can show the audience that you share something in common with them, it is always a net positive.

A powerful extended metaphor

At 01:50, Carney warns against the tendency for countries to accommodate and avoid trouble in order to buy safety, because it won’t. And so, he asks, “What are our options?”

His answer begins with reference to a 1978 essay by the then Czech dissident Václav Havel entitled, “The Power of the Powerless.” In it, Havel wrote about how under the communist system, a greengrocer would place a sign in his store window supporting the regime. He didn’t believe it; nobody believed it. But everyone put a sign up to avoid trouble and to signal compliance.

The power of the communist system came not from its truth, but from everyone’s willingness to behave as if it were true. And that was also the source of its fragility. Because when even one person stopped performing—when the greengrocer and other merchants removed their signs—the illusion would begin to crack.

Carney uses Havel’s story and the metaphor of the sign throughout his speech to persuade others to stop pretending that the old international order still works.

03:27 – “Friends, it is time for companies and countries to take their signs down.”

04:36 – “So we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals, and we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.”

13:47 – “Which brings me back to Havel. What does it mean for middle powers to live the truth?

14:20 – “When middle powers criticize economic intimidation from one direction but stay silent when it comes from another, we are keeping the sign in the window.”

16:15 – “We [Canada] are taking the sign out of the window. We know the old order is not coming back.”

People around the world are talking about taking the sign out of the window and it is something that will stick for a long time.

Having said that, there has been some criticism that the metaphor, as used by Carney, does not work. My good friend Antti Mustakallio—an expert speech writer and the founder of the Retoriikan kesäkoulu (Summer School of Rhetoric in Finland)—has written a thoughtful analysis of Carney’s speech which I encourage you to read here.

Antti rightly argues that whereas the communist system in Europe “was a repressive regime that systematically violated human rights, one in which people participated out of fear and, ultimately, under the threat of violence,” the rules-based international order was not that. Indeed, Carney admits, at 03:43, that Canada prospered under that system for decades.

Thus, Antti concludes that Carney committed an error because the metaphor “… equates a voluntary, agreement-based international order with a coercive system built on fear and violence. Used this way, the analogy suggests that commitment to the rules-based order was, in itself, an unethical performance rather than an attempt to restrain power.”

I have given this point a lot of thought, both because of my respect for Antti and because I want to be sure that my favourable impression of the metaphor is not skewed by me being a Canadian who, like most of my fellow Canadians, is deeply offended by the way in which Trump and his administration have acted toward us.

In the end, I believe that the metaphor works. It works because Carney isn’t comparing the post-WWII order to Soviet communism. He’s comparing the current moment—where middle powers feel compelled to perform deference to avoid retaliation—to Havel’s insight about complicity. The sign in the window isn’t about the old rules-based order; it’s about the pretence that it still exists. This conclusion is reinforced at several points in the speech.

At 04:24, Carney acknowledges the good that American hegemony has done in the past: public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes. But 25 seconds later (04:49), he says that “this bargain no longer works.” (Emphasis added.)

Then, just 18 seconds further (05:07), Carney says, “But more recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited. You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.” (Emphasis added.)

At 07:45, Carney says that Canada was amongst the first to hear the “wake-up call.” I think this is a clear reference to Trump’s imposition of tariffs on Canada and his constant statements about Canada becoming the 51st state. (Not going to happen.)

At 10:38, Carney says that Canada stands firmly with Greenland and Denmark and fully supports their unique right to determine Greenland’s future. At 11:22, he states Canada’s strong opposition to tariffs over Greenland. It is clear that he is talking about the current situation created by Trump.

Even Antti concedes in his post that the metaphor could be charitably viewed the way in which I have described it above.

Where I do agree with Antti is that Carney could have made the metaphor more powerful with just a little more precision. For example, at 04:36, when Carney speaks of putting the sign in the window, he could have said that we placed the sign in the window because we believed in the system as it used to exist. Although not perfect, it was a system that worked and that provided security and prosperity. Carney could then have said that the system is no longer working, and that it is now time to take the sign down.

Metaphors can make abstract ideas concrete and vivid, helping audiences grasp complex concepts instantly. They engage emotions, spark imagination and are memorable, turning analysis into storytelling that moves listeners to action. If you use a metaphor, just make sure that it is clear and precise.

Rhetorical devices

Rhetoric is the art of using language to communicate effectively and persuade. Aristotle wrote the classic book on the subject, On Rhetoric, in the 4th century BC. For centuries, the study of rhetoric—the ability to speak in public and to move audiences with logic, emotion and credibility—was an important component of many educational systems.

In his speech, Carney uses several rhetorical devices to great effect. In addition to the extended metaphor discussed above, below are four others.

Antithesis

Antithesis is the contrasting of two opposing ideas in a grammatically balanced or parallel structure. It clarifies complex thoughts by sharpening the contrast, making arguments more memorable and persuasive. Think Charles Dickens: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”

As Aristotle noted in his Rhetoric, this opposition aids understanding and retention by highlighting differences starkly, engaging the audience intellectually and emotionally.

Carney’s speech is a masterclass in the use of antithesis. It is by far the most important rhetorical device. He uses it to set out in stark terms the contrast between the way the international order was and the way it is now. And he uses it over and over again. Not just for show, but for impact (which is also an antithesis).

00:30 – (In French) “Today I will talk about the breakdown of the world order, the end of a pleasant fiction, and the beginning of a brutal reality …”

01:35 – “It seems that every day we’re reminded … that the strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must.”

04:55 – “We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.”

05:20 – “You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.”

06:07 – “When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself.”

07:00 – “They’ll buy insurance, increase options in order to rebuild sovereignty—sovereignty that was once grounded in rules but will increasingly be anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.”

08:46 – “We actively take on the world as it is, not wait around for a world we wish to be.”

12:42 – “Our view is the middle powers must act together because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.” (Also a powerful metaphor.)

13:13 – “This is not sovereignty. It’s the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.” (The second clause adds a layer of irony or paradox, underscoring how the act of pretending to be sovereign actually reinforces dependency.)

13:22 – “In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: compete with each other for favour, or combine to create a third path with impact.”

14:52 – “And diversification internationally is not just economic prudence; it’s a material foundation for honest foreign policy…”

16:08 – “We understand that this rupture calls for more than adaptation. It calls for honesty about the world as it is.”

Asyndeton

Asyndeton is the omission of conjunctions such as “and”, “or”, “for” and “but” from a series of related phrases or clauses. It adds speed and rhythm to the words, and it leaves an impression that the list is not complete. This creates emphasis and emotional intensity, leaving the audience with a sense of incompleteness that draws them in.

It is not the most common of rhetorical devices, but Carney uses it well a few times.

01:50 – “… there is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along, to accommodate, to avoid trouble, to hope that compliance will buy safety.”

05:10 – “But more recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.”

16:25 – “Nostalgia is not a strategy, but we believe that from the fracture we can build something bigger, better, stronger, more just.”

Chiasmus

Chiasmus is a rhetorical device where words, phrases, or grammatical structures in one clause are repeated in reverse order in the next clause. It forms an A-B-B-A or “criss-cross” pattern (named after the Greek letter chi (Χ, χ)).

Chiasmus creates symmetry and rhythm, making phrases instantly memorable and persuasive. It reinforces ideas through inversion, simplifies complex contrasts, and gives arguments a sense of completeness, engaging listeners emotionally and intellectually.

In the middle of Carney’s speech, he uses a powerful chiasmus about which I have written more in a previous post.

09:10 – “And we are no longer just relying on the strength of our values, but also the value of our strength.”

Tricolon

Tricolon is a rhetorical device using three parallel words, phrases, or clauses of increasing length or power, often for rhythmic emphasis. The rule of three taps into how our brains process information, boosting memorability and emotional punch in speeches.

Carney uses several tricolons in his speech, some of which are also asyndetons.

02:45 – “But he places the sign anyway to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along.”

03:50 – “We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability.”

06:00 – “A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself or defend itself has few options.”

06:15 – “A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile and less sustainable.”

08:44 – “So we’re engaging broadly, strategically, with open eyes.”

15:40 – “Canada is a pluralistic society that works. Our public square is loud, diverse and free.”

A call to action

Every speech should have an objective. What do you want the audience to do after you have finished speaking? If you don’t want them to do anything, you could save everyone a lot of time and just send an email. The most powerful speeches are the ones that have a call to action; that move the audience to something.

Carney begins his call to action at 13:50 by asking what all of this means for middle powers. He then gives his answer which, by my count, encompasses six things:

1. Name reality and admit what is going on
2. Act consistently and apply the same standards to allies and rivals
3. Create institutions and agreements that function as described
4. Reduce the leverage that enables coercion
5. Build strong domestic economies
6. Diversify internationally

One might argue that six things is a lot for an audience to absorb. Fair enough, but given the complexity of what is transpiring in international relations these days, I have no problem giving Carney a pass. There are many variables at play and there is no one thing that will address them.

Furthermore, by this point in the speech, Carney has established his credibility to make this call to action. At 09:20 of the speech, Carney sets out all of the things that his government has been doing and which address most of his call to action above. This includes:

When you are preparing for your next speech or presentation, spend some time thinking deeply about what you want your audience to do and why. And although Carney (appropriately) proposes six things for his audience to do, I recommend that you keep the call to action as simple as possible. Ideally, one thing.

What could have been improved

No speech, no matter how good, is perfect. There is always room for improvement, and Carney’s speech is no exception. Here are a few thoughts.

Poor opening words

Carney’s first words are procedural housekeeping: “Thank you very much, Larry. I’m going to start in French, and then I’ll switch back to English.”

If you want to begin by publicly thanking the person who introduced you, fine. It’s not the end of the world. What I typically do is thank the person, on stage, by shaking their hand and saying a few private words to them in front of the audience so that it is clear that I am thanking them.

But the second sentence should have been dropped. Instead, Carney should have asked the person who introduced him to tell the audience that the speech would begin in French and then switch to English.

You get one chance to make a good first impression, so make your first words count.

The extended metaphor of the greengrocer and the sign

I have discussed how the metaphor could have been tighter above.

Some convoluted language

There were moments when Carney’s language drifted into vague jargon.

For example, at 08:04: “We are calibrating our relationships so their depth reflects our values, and we’re prioritizing broad engagement to maximize our influence, given the fluidity of the world at the moment, the risks that this poses and the stakes for what comes next.”

At 41 words, it is a long sentence. The key insight—relationships based on values and pragmatic engagement—is buried under abstract process language: calibrating, prioritizing and maximizing. It is nothing like the simple, powerful language that Carney uses elsewhere in the speech.

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Carney could have chosen simpler language. For example, he might have said something like: “We will deepen our relationships with countries that share our values. But we also have to be pragmatic. So, we will also work, where possible, with countries other than our closest allies.”

Alternatively, Carney could have kept the complex language and then explain it. In fact, he does this very thing a bit later in the speech.

At 10:20, he says “We’re doing something else: to help solve global problems, we’re pursuing variable geometry.”

I had to look up the definition of “variable geometry”. (It is a design principle where components of a system, like as aircraft wings, adjust their shape or configuration in real-time to optimize performance under changing conditions.) In the context of Carney’s speech, it is very abstract. But Carney immediately explains what he means and gives a concrete example:

10:23 – “In other words, different coalitions for different issues based on common values and interests. So, on Ukraine, we’re a core member of the Coalition of the Willing and one of the largest per capita contributors to its defence and security.”

Never forget that we all suffer from the curse of knowledge. Just because you know what you are saying, it does not guarantee that the audience will understand. If you have to choose between clarity and eloquence, choose clarity every time.

An mistimed smile

The metaphor “… if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu” was brilliant. If you listen around 12:45, you will hear some people laughing. Carney pauses for a moment and smiles. I know it is hard not to smile when you get a laugh from the audience—the reaction is, understandably, often automatic and hard to control—but I wish that Carney had kept his serious demeanor.

If the metaphor is powerful, it is because it is accurate. Nobody wants to be “on the menu.” It would have been more powerful for Carney to maintain a serious look so that there was coherence between what he said, how he said it, and the way he looked while saying it.

One way in which Carney could have pre-empted the laugh would have been to deliver the line more forcefully and with even more gravitas. It’s an example of how the quality of your voice—volume, tone, pace, pauses—can affect the audience.

Carney’s smile certainly wasn’t fatal to his speech. But it’s a useful reminder that when you deliver powerful lines in your speeches and presentations, you want to make sure that you deliver them the right way. The words, tone and facial expressions should be congruent.

Conclusion

Mark Carney’s Davos speech is a rhetorical triumph that could mark a turning point in middle-power diplomacy. It calls out the rupture in the global order, using the extended metaphor of the greengrocer and the sign to expose performative illusions of sovereignty and mutual benefit.

Carney blends realism with moral clarity (“… we aim to be both principled and pragmatic”). His repeated use of antithesis drives home contrasts and builds urgency. The speech is structurally tight and calls middle powers to strategic autonomy and genuine coalitions without nostalgia or naivety.

Carney’s speech is worthy of study and I encourage you to spend some time with it. There is lots to learn.

And then, go take down whatever “signs” no longer belong in your window. Don’t let someone else tell you what to display.

As a Canadian, I am very proud of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech at Davos yesterday.

His talk deserves careful attention.

Not because it was loud.
Not because it was dramatic.
But because it was firm and precise.

At a moment when the international order is truly at an inflection point—and when the consequences of words are no longer abstract—Prime Minister Carney chose something far more effective: principles and pragmatism.

One sentence, in particular, stood out to me:

“We are no longer just relying on the strength of our values, but also on the value of our strength.”

That isn’t accidental phrasing.
It’s chiasmus: a rhetorical device that balances two clauses by reversing their key terms.

Why does this matter?

Because chiasmus forces an audience to hold two ideas at once.
It resists simplistic thinking.
It acknowledges tension rather than denying it.

Values matter.
Strength matters.
And in today’s world, pretending otherwise is no longer credible.

Great political speeches don’t just express positions.
They frame reality in a deliberate and disciplined way.
And they give us a reason not just to hope, but to work, for a better future.

In uncertain times, language like this doesn’t inflame.
It clarifies.
And right now, clarity is leadership.

Prime Minister Carney’s speech is a masterclass in how rhetorical devices such as chiasmus can signal seriousness, restraint and resolve. All at the same time.

I’ll be publishing a deeper analysis of the speech soon. It’s worth studying, especially for anyone who believes that words still matter in global leadership.

Photo credits: World Economic Forum / Ciaran McCrickard (Photo 1 and Photo 2)

Three questions that your audience will always have for you:

• What is this about?
• Why is this important?
• What happens—or needs to happen—next?

Most business presentations answer What?

Good ones also answer So what?

Great ones finish with Now what?

Your audience is asking all three … whether you address them or not.

2026 is here. A new year full of potential.

Here are 26 New Year’s resolutions to take your public speaking to a new level in 2026.

In no particular order:

1. I will prepare thoroughly.

2. I will have a clear message.

3. I will always ask myself: “Why should the audience care about my message?” If I cannot answer that question, I will find a new message. Or a new audience.

4. I will arrive early for my speaking engagements.

5. I will have a back-up plan in case the equipment doesn’t work.

6. I will have much less text on my slides.

7. I will give a presentation without slides.

8. I will use a prop in a presentation.

9. I will read one book on public speaking and presentation skills.

10. I will seek—and be open to—feedback on my performance.

11. I will join Toastmasters or another speaking association.

12. I will seek out speaking opportunities at work.

13. I will give a speech without notes.

14. I build stories into my presentations.

15. I will remember that being a little nervous before a speech is normal.

16. I will make eye contact with the audience.

17. I will pause more often when speaking and become comfortable with the silence.

18. I will not speak longer than my allotted time.

19. I will learn about logos, ethos, pathos and kairos, and how to use them in my presentations.

20. I will use a quote in presentation.

21. I will use humour, when appropriate.

22. I will be willing to be vulnerable on stage.

23. I will remember that my audience doesn’t expect me to be perfect; they expect me to be present.

24. I will remember that, as Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “All the great speakers were bad speakers at first.”

25. I will accept that the degree to which I improve is directly related to the consistency of my effort over time. I now understand that I am playing the long game.

26. I will enjoy the ride.

So there you go. Take your pick, or add your own.

Happy New Year and all the best for a health, happy and successful 2026!

This is a guest post by Stephen Welch, and the follow up to his post entitled Breaking the Pattern. You can read that post here. Stephen is an expert in communication, HR and professional change. Stephen is the Director and Co-founder of Archetypical Ltd, the company behind Corporate Snakes and Career Ladders, a new approach to learning through play. He is also a visiting lecturer at the University of London. You can find Stephen’s LinkedIn profile here.

———

Recently I wrote about “breaking the pattern and using inspiration from musicians. Today we’re going to talk about “making the pattern” using inspiration from magicians. Public speakers can learn a trick or two from magicians!

(Before I start, time to acknowledge a debt. Lots of this content was inspired by Nick Fitzherbert, author of Presentation Magic. He was a PR professional, a presentation skills coach and a member of the Magic Circle, the most famous society of magicians in the world.)

Let’s set the scene.

You are presenting to an audience. You have one simple goal: get information which is in your brain into the brains of the audience members. So that they feel, think, or do something differently. Your success as a presenter can only be measured according to your ability to change people’s minds, give them new information, or get them to act in a different way.

This post will not teach you any magic tricks … or will it? Either way, you will learn some of key principles of magic and how to apply them in your presentations. Just like magicians do.

We’re going to cover three key themes:

• Relevance
• Proximity
• Focus

Relevance

You want your audience to feel, think or do something differently. But why should they? Your job is to make your content relevant to them. What is the overlap between what you want to say and what they want to hear? Magicians know how to do this by bringing the audience “into” their act. You want to know what is going to happen. How is she going to saw the man in half?

As a presenter, you need to: define the key points for your audience (no more than three, please!); personalise your message (use the word you a lot); and give them a clear reason to listen. Many years ago, I was taught the WHY approach to crafting communication:

W – What this is about?

H – Hooks. Why should they listen? What’s in it for them?

Y – Your aim. The goal or purpose of the communication. 

Secret 1: I tried to make this relevant to you by giving you a clear reason to read at the beginning. The fact that you are still reading tells me that I’ve done my job.

Proximity

“The framework for any communication is determined by the expectations and perceptions you trigger.”  (Rule of Magic #1 from Nick’s book).

The classic trick here is to ask people to select a card, any card, from the standard playing card deck of 52. The moment you say “deck of cards” people make some assumptions: 52 cards, 4 suits, 13 cards in a suit, etc.  But let’s picture a magician. Go on, do it, take a moment to picture a magician …

The magician I have in mind, well, she has some knavery up her sleeve. Our knavess purchased 52 identical decks of cards and made up a new one with 51 knaves (also known as Jacks) of hearts, and the three of clubs (at the bottom of the deck to convince you it is real). That way, she automatically knows that you will pick the ‘right’ card. Of course there is always the opportunity of being unscrupulous, as this James Bond video demonstrates.

For presenters, this means exploring the liminal zone. You need to operate the edge of people’s experience. Start on familiar ground, then go on a journey together to explore new territories.  Communication can only register effectively when it builds on what the audience already knows (Rule of Magic #3). The liminal zone is where real learning happens. By starting on common territory for them you will get them in a positive frame of mind (saying, “yes, yes, yes” to each of your points – James Bond got Solitaire to agree with the power of the cards before his trick); then you can move them into unfamiliar territory.

Secret 2: I started you on familiar ground with the desk of cards analogy and then we drifted into 1970s James Bond and Tarot cards; which I bet you weren’t expecting. Also, was the magician you pictured male or female? I bet it was male, even thought I primed you in the first paragraph of the section on relevance above.

Focus

Our next key principle is the “single point of focus” concept (Rule of Magic #5).

Magicians are great at providing a single point of focus—drawing your eye to one place, and one place only.  This is so magicians can do some sleight of hand elsewhere! As presenters, we’re not going to do that, but we are going to make sure that your eyes (and therefore your brain) are focused on what we want you to focus on.

Here are three practical tips to achieve that:

• Decide in advance if you want your audience to be looking at you, or your slides. Then structure your presentation accordingly. Don’t let your slides compete for attention with you.
• If presenting at a table, make sure you sit with the screen behind you so that your audience can look at you and the screen at the same time. (And don’t look at the screen while you are presenting!)
• When using props, hold them up to your head, so that people can look at your talking face and the prop at the same time and don’t have to swivel back and forth.

A subset of this idea is the concept of linearity: by presenting things in a linear and logical order you will be more likely to get people to do what you need them to. This not only means no dead ends or side channels, but also controlling the flow of information so that your audience can’t skip ahead and get to the punchline early.

An easy way to wreck linearity is to put a slide up on the screen and then proceed to talk through it. An easy way to achieve linearity is to give your audience’s brains only one thing to deal with at a time. One key concept per slide, or use builds for your bullet points, or shut up and let the audience process your slides while you remain quiet. Otherwise, you risk parallel tracks: while you are talking about point 2, they are still thinking about and processing point 1. Or, they are reading point 3 while you are still talking about point 1.

Secret 3: Give your audience one thing to focus on at a time.

Other tricks up my sleeve

Of course, there is a lot more about creating magic in presentations. 

Three of my favourite “tricks” are as follows:

• When using a flipchart, make some tiny pencil notes in a corner to remind you of what to say. Your seamless talk will then seem like “magic”. 
• Props or mock-ups. These can be a very powerful way of surprising and delighting your audience. This works especially well if you can tailor the prop or mock-up to your audience; bringing it to life in a “magical” way and making it relevant to them. And of course, when holding the prop or distributing the mock-ups, be sure to provide your audience with a single point of focus.
• And finally, “the power of three”. This is a well-known rhetorical device and you will find it in almost every great speech, presentation, and sometimes even writing.

Finally, did you notice how I started with familiar ideas (deck of cards) and then moved you into surprises (a female magician)? Did you notice how I used contrast (“breaking the pattern … making the pattern”; “An easy way to wreck linearity … An easy way to achieve linearity…”; general concepts with practical ideas). And really, truly, finally, how many times did I user the power of three in this article?

Answer: 13. Did you find them all?

Photo courtesy Cleyton Ewerton on Unsplash

What do you do when everyone says your idea is impossible?

In 1947, Norwegian explorer Thor Heyerdahl had a theory that ancient peoples crossed the Pacific Ocean on primitive rafts. The scientific community dismissed him. “Impossible,” they said.

So Heyerdahl built the Kon-Tiki, a balsa wood raft held together with rope. And he sailed across the Pacific to prove them wrong.

The lesson Kon-Tiki holds for public speakers

Every time you step on stage to deliver a speech or presentation, you are launching your own Kon-Tiki.

Public speaking is never without risk. You may forget your words, face skepticism, or fall short of your own expectations. But if you never set sail, you’ll never make waves.

Your audience might doubt your message. They might think your idea won’t work. They might dismiss you before you even begin.

But here’s what Thor Heyerdahl understood: If you truly believe in your message, you have to be willing to take a risk share it.

This short video, filmed at the Kon-Tiki Museum in Oslo, explores what it means to speak with conviction so strong that you’re willing to face the unknown ocean of audience reaction.To make waves, you have to set sail.

What message do you believe in strongly enough to risk failure?

——

For those receiving this post by email, if the video above is not working, please click this link.

Sabyasachi Sengupta (Saby) is the 2025 World Champion of Public Speaking. He is also my friend. And I had the rare privilege of coaching him on his world championship speech.

Over the course of my career as a professional speaker, I have analyzed dozens of speeches, and you can read many of those analyses here.

In this post, I share an insider’s look into what went into building and delivering a world championship speech. It is detailed, and if you are considering entering a speech contest, I hope that you find something useful here.

The video of the speech is below. I encourage you to watch it and then read the analysis that follows.

Background to the speech

Choosing the speech for the Finals

When Saby learned that he had made it to the Semifinals, there were about two months before the event. During that time, we worked on his Semifinal speech, but we also had to come up with a speech for the Finals if he were to make it that far.

He ran a couple of ideas by me, and they were OK, but they weren’t anything special. He even shared a draft script for one of the options and, to be honest, it wasn’t that inspiring. I knew it, and Saby knew it.

Less than one month before the Finals, Saby was still struggling to come up with an idea for his final speech. We had a call, and during our discussion, he mentioned a speech that he had given 11 years ago at a conference in Lyon, France. As it turns out, I was at that conference and had even given him a few tips on that speech. (Sometimes life has a funny way of bringing us full circle!)

Saby said that it still resonated with him, and he sent me a draft of the script. The draft was rough and needed polishing, but when I read it, I immediately felt the difference. I could see the diamond in the rough that this speech was. I knew then that we had a solid foundation on which to build.

Your speech must resonate with you. It has to mean something deep down. Only when you really feel it can you give a speech that will hit the mark.

Humour

I’ve studied a number of speeches in the finals of the World Championship of Public Speaking. Often, they deal with serious subjects and serious events that have happened in the life of the speaker. There is nothing wrong with such speeches; they are important.

However, I have noticed that the speeches that tend to do well are ones that have more than the average amount of humour. Humour is uplifting. Humour is powerful.

The legendary John Cleese of Monty Python has said that if you can get the audience to laugh, you get them on your side. And if you get them on your side, they will be open to your ideas.

So, Saby and I made a conscious effort to add as much humour as possible. Yes, we needed to include serious moments. But we decided to lean heavily on the humour because we knew that it would be powerful.

In the end, by my count, Saby got 30 laughs and three applauses in the middle of his speech. That works out to a laugh every 15 seconds. That’s a lot!

Timing

During our practice sessions, we always timed Saby’s speech. Timing is critical because in a Toastmasters contest, the speaker can only speak for a maximum of 7:30. If you go even one second over time, you will be disqualified.

Saby consistently came in around 6:00 or 6:05 during our practice sessions. That was important because we knew that if he made it to the Finals, he would be speaking in front of 1,000 people. And when 1,000 people laugh, it takes time.

In the end, Saby finished his speech around 7:20, which means that more than a minute of time was taken up by the laughter!

When planning to deliver a contest speech, you have to allow sufficient time for laughter and other audience reactions.

Title

Although it’s not essential to have the final title while working on the speech, ultimately, you need to pick one. The title should do the speech justice. It should hint at what is to come without giving it away.

The working title of Saby’s speech was Dream Too Far. Neither of us was especially thrilled with it. I said that if he was going to stick with it, we needed to add the word “a” at the beginning and make it A Dream Too Far.

Then I started thinking about how we could work the word “nod” into the title. The Indian head nod is so important in the speech that having it in the title would be a great way to emphasize it even more.

And so, on our Google Drive document I wrote, “I was thinking about how we could build the word ‘nod’ into the title.” To stimulate our thinking, I asked Saby if he was familiar with the expression “give the nod” to something, or other similar idioms.

Ultimately, Saby came up with the title Just Nod. It was simple, elegant, and in just two words contained the essence of his message, which is to say, “Yes” (nod) to the opportunities that life gives us.

The Speech

00:20 – 0:27

Saby comes on the stage with lots of energy and a big smile. Your audience starts judging you the moment they see you, so you want to take the stage in a confident manner.

00:34 – 00:37

As mentioned above, in a Toastmasters contest speech, you have a maximum of 07:30. If you go even one second over that time, you will be disqualified. The timing starts with either your first word or your first gesture.

Here, I was nervous watching Saby because it seemed (to me) that he was hesitating. He looks down, then up, then down and finally moves. I had no idea whether the timer had already started timing. When I asked Saby afterwards, he said it was a nervous reaction and not being precisely sure when to start after being introduced.

The nerves are understandable. Mark Twain said that there are two kinds of speakers: the nervous and the liars! Still, for a contest speech, make sure you know exactly when and how you are going to start your speech. Every second counts.

00:38 – 00:48

We had originally planned to open with the part that comes later about growing up in India. But Saby wanted to add this part, and it was a great decision. First, it adds some physicality. Second, it sets up an unexpected line that in turn sets up the theme of his talk.

Saying, “I love you so, so much,” and bending down to give a kiss, would lead most people to think that the speaker is talking to a child or perhaps a family pet. But no, Saby is speaking to the stage, which gets his first laugh.

Notice also the 3-second pause before he tells the audience that he is addressing the stage. That takes real poise, especially in a pressure situation like the World Championships. But pauses are crucial in any speech or presentation that you give. Like Mark Twain also said, “The right word may be effective, but no word is ever as effective as a rightly timed pause.”

00:51 – 01:04

If you’re wondering, you should know what the stage does to us. This is that one safe space where we can be creative, weird, wacky, right?

The use of the word “you” brings the audience into the experience. Whenever a speaker says “you,” he or she is talking about the audience. And the audience is always interested in itself!

But then Saby changes pronouns and talks about what the stage does to us. And how it’s a safe space where “We can be creative, weird, wacky.” By switching from “you” to “we,” Saby subtly, but importantly, makes his talk a shared experience.

01:04

I wasn’t keen on the “right?” at the end of the sentence. I think that when speakers ask “Right?” at the end of a statement, it makes them sound unsure or as if they’re seeking validation. Not a deal-breaker, but something to keep in mind for your speeches and presentations.

01:04 – 01:10

Give me a little hoo hoo if you love the stage!

Asking the audience to give a little “hoo hoo” was guaranteed to get the desired response given that the audience was approximately 1,000 Toastmasters. I’m not sure that I would have done it, but Saby pulls it off very well and it works with his style.

It’s a good reminder that something that works for one speaker might not work for another speaker. If you’re going to do something like this, be sure that it is authentic for you.

01:10 – 01:20

Because when we are up here, nothing else in this world matters except the stage, our craft, and our audience.

This line is powerful for a few reasons.

First, it is a tricolon, one of several that we used in this speech, and a very powerful rhetorical device. I encourage you to learn about rhetorical devices and to try incorporating one or two in your next speech or presentation. Rhetorical devices can make your speeches come alive and pop with impact.

Second, notice the three powerful gestures Saby used to indicate stage, craft and audience. Excellent!

Third, note the subtle shift in the tone of Saby’s voice. He starts from high energy and enthusiasm, and when he ends, the energy is still high, but there is more gravitas to his voice.

When you have a speech that is filled with as much humour as Saby’s was, these moments of seriousness serve as an important counterweight. In the same way, when you have a serious speech, if you can inject good, meaningful moments of humor or levity, that is important for the same reason, albeit in the other direction.

Audiences love contrast, so build it into your speech.

01:20 – 01:33

But do we often take this performer energy into our day-to-day lives? Or do we think the world will judge us, label us, maybe even laugh at us?

Here we have two rhetorical questions to get the audience thinking about their own lives. Again, a great example of how you can make your speech relevant for the people in the audience.

And when Saby says, “… judge us, label us, maybe even laugh at us” that is a combination of two rhetorical devices: A tricolon and asyndeton (a list of things without using words like “and” or “or”).

01:20 – 01:24

Notice that Saby holds his hands in front of him for approximately four seconds. Many Toastmasters are critical of people holding their hands even for a few seconds. I disagree.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with holding your hands together for a few seconds. It can convey seriousness and sincerity. Saby looks thoughtful with this gesture.

Of course, you don’t want to hold your hands for too long, and you certainly don’t want to play with your fingers or rings, but there is nothing wrong with having your hands together for a few seconds at an appropriate moment.

General observation on eye contact

By this point, Saby has been speaking for one minute. Go back and watch that first minute again with the sound off and notice the eye contact that he has with the audience. Left, right, center, directly in front of him, and farther back.

During our practice sessions, we talked about the importance of making eye contact with everyone in the audience. When you speak in front of a large audience, here’s a tip … Imagine the audience in a 3×3 grid: left, middle, right; and front, centre, back.

When you speak, just move your gaze from one section to another. For example, left-front; right-centre; middle-front, left-back. When the audience is large, looking at one person in a section will give everyone around that person the feeling that you are looking at them.

Saby had excellent eye contact throughout the speech.

01:35 – 01:40

This is the standard address to the contest chair and the audience. I’m not a big fan of throwing in something like “my fellow performers,” or “to anyone who’s ever …,” but Saby wanted to do it, and it worked well.

What I particularly liked is that, at the end of the speech, he once again refers to the audience as fellow performers so there was a consistency to it.

01:40 – 01:45

Here we shift to Saby’s childhood. It was important for him to move on the stage to create a different location for when he was growing up in India. And he does so very nicely.

One thing to note … because Saby is talking about the past, it would have been slightly better for the audience had he moved in the other direction. Most of the world who reads from left to right and when reading we tend to put the past on the left and the future on the right.

However, when you are on stage, facing the audience, your left is their right, and your right is their left. So, you have to reverse things from your perspective. (Of course, if you are speaking to an audience in a language such as Arabic or Urdu that is written from right to left, then you do it the other way.)

01:45 – 01:55

… to be a doctor, an engineer or a disappointment

This line was in the script from the beginning. It was Saby’s idea, and the first time I heard it, I laughed because it’s such a good line. It’s an excellent example of how comedians use a tricolon and misdirection for great effect. It’s the same format as the standard “three people walk into a bar” joke. You get the audience going one way and then blindside them with the third element. We knew that “disappointment” would get a big laugh.

You might be interested to learn that the way the joke came out is not how we had rehearsed it. In his speech, Saby says it was his father who told him that, but in every practice, the opening line was “In India, I had three career options.” I actually think saying India is the funnier line, because soon after, as we will see, Saby impersonates his father speaking.

But Saby told me afterwards that he decided to make the change an hour before the contest. It sounded better, in his opinion, because then the story about his father would make even more sense. I don’t agree. I think starting from the general principle in India and then going the specifics of Saby’s father would have been better. But I respect his decision.

And, it was a gutsy decision to make the change so close to the contest. You can make last-minute changes before your speech but be 100% sure that you lock the change down in your mind.

01:55 – 02:08

Here Saby talks about disappointment having its own hierarchy. Initially, we were going to have multiple levels, but we both agreed that it was too much and not necessary. We had just finished the joke about the three career choices; there was no need to make things complicated. So, we just went with two: the lowest level and the Mount Everest of disappointment (an excellent metaphor).

Saby’s body language here was great, and it is great throughout the entire speech. He has a very natural theatrical presence on stage. It never feels forced or artificial, and for me, that is the crucial point.

Having good body language does not mean that you have to flop around on the stage like a sea lion at Marine World! I’m convinced that if Martin Luther King had been a Toastmaster, people would have told him, “Martin, you need to come out from behind the lectern and when you say, ‘I have a dream’ gesture dramatically to the stars.” Well … no.

Body language is important, but don’t force it because everyone will know. When you practice, by all means try different things, experiment, and get feedback. But ultimately, you have to do what feels right for you.

02:10

I wanted to be a Bollywood actor.

Brilliant positioning.

02:10 – 02:18

This is one of my favorite parts of the speech. It is a perfect example of how the speaker-coach relationship should work.

I gave Saby the idea to do the little Bollywood dance of changing the light bulb and petting the dog. A good friend of mine from Sri Lanka told me that line years ago when we were discussing Bollywood movies, and it has always stuck in my mind.

I told Saby to do it because it would get a laugh and, importantly, it would help people in the audience understand what he meant by Bollywood. Bollywood is well known, but never assume that your audience’s understanding of the subject is the same as yours.

Now, the line that I gave Saby during practice was, “Screw in the light bulb, pet the dog.” But Saby kept saying it as “Screw the bulb and pet the dog.” I had a good laugh but told him, “Look, you can’t say it that way! People are going to get the wrong idea!” And so, Saby came up with an alternative, “Fix the bulb, pat the dog.” It was an excellent decision. If you are having trouble with a word or a phrase, find an alternative.

The thing that makes me most proud about this gesture, however, actually happens later in the speech, at 06:46. We will get to it in due course.

02:18 – 02:30

In this section, Saby talks about his fear of telling his parents, which means that he is being vulnerable, which is always good.

The line when Saby impersonates his father — “Actor?!” Somebody is going to get a beating!” — is interesting.

When Saby speaks, you can hear his Indian accent. We all have accents no matter what language we speak. But when impersonating his father, Saby uses an even thicker Indian accent for added effect.

During practice, the initial wording was “Somebody’s going to get beat!” When I first heard it, I had to think for a few seconds about what he was saying at the very end. It wasn’t clear to me.

You never want to be in a situation where the audience is trying to decipher what you just said while you continue to speak. So, I recommended making the sentence a little bit longer and say, “Somebody is going to get a beating.”

Using two words at the end instead of one made it clearer. It’s a good example of how sometimes, the right decision is to add words instead of removing them. (I also think it sounded funnier!)

02:30 – 02:32

I was surprised to see Saby rubbing his cheek. It is not a good idea to rub your face if it is not related to what you are saying. I thought, “Maybe his cheek is itchy.”

I asked Saby about it afterwards. He said that he wanted to show that he was rubbing his cheek after getting slapped by his dad. I went back and watched that part again. At 02:27, Saby does portray his dad shaking his hand at him. But to me, it looks like a threat and not an actual slap. So, the connection was lost on me.

Had Saby wanted to show an actual slap, he should have made a clear right-to-left slapping gesture. That would have created a stronger connection to rubbing his left cheek. Saby told me, “I didn’t pull it off that well I guess.”

Hey, even a World Champion is human from time to time!

But it’s a good reminder that when it comes to gestures, what is clear in your mind will not necessarily be clear in the minds of the people in the audience. Make sure that your gestures leave no doubt.

02:32 – 02:40

The twists and turns of life bring Saby to Amsterdam, and so he quite rightly moves to a different location on the stage. He does it in a very theatrical way but again, it looks perfectly authentic.

In an early version of the draft, to expand a bit on Amsterdam, we tried, at my suggestion, adding the lines “a city full of canals, cannabis and creativity” to get another tricolon and an alliteration. The line was going to be, “One day I thought, ‘What if?’ Not ‘What if I tried cannabis but …”. However, Saby wasn’t comfortable with it. And I had to agree that it was more of a distraction and did not add anything of value.

If you are speaking, you have to be comfortable with what you are saying. If you are coaching, you can offer suggestions—and you should—but if the speaker is not comfortable with a suggestion, you have to let it go.

02:41 – 02:57

This section takes 16 seconds, but it is a critical transition to set up Saby pursuing his dream to be a performer.

Transitions in a speech are important. They tie the whole thing together and they make it easy for the audience to follow. I have seen otherwise excellent speeches not do well because the transitions were too short or too loose, and that made it a challenge for the audience to follow.

Transitions should take the time they need to take.

02:58 – 03:06

I wanted to be conservative, so I went for the role of Romeo.

Saby’s initial idea was to be enthusiastic, not conservative. He wanted to step forward and boldly announce that he wanted to play Romeo. I challenged him on this idea.

I said, “No, we want to use misdirection. Think about it. You’re trying to act for the first time, you’re in a foreign country, you’re nervous. If you say you were going to be conservative and imply that you were trying for a minor role, that is exactly what people will expect. But then we hit the audience with another misdirection when you tell them it was Romeo.”

Saby agreed and the line got a great laugh.

Misdirection is powerful technique in public speaking and we used it a few times in this speech. When done well, it makes a big impact.

03:07 – 03:22

Because there were 20 other actors—tall, chiseled jaws and enthusiastic. And there was me … enthusiastic.

In early drafts, Saby wanted to give himself three characteristics as well to keep things parallel. We tried it a few times but it didn’t feel right.

So, I suggested that instead of trying to force a parallel structure, we instead use silence to replace the first two characteristics and then repeat “enthusiastic” to show that his enthusiasm was the only thing he had. The result got a nice laugh.

Once you know how to use different rhetorical devices and structures, you can start breaking them to create a different effect.

03:23 – 03:32

As before, Saby takes on the persona of the director and uses direct dialogue to bring us into the room. That little “show time” move at the end was something that I had not seen before, but it was great. Yes, it is theatrical, but as I’ve said above, it fits Saby’s style perfectly. And he was at a theatre rehearsing for a theatrical play, so it was even more relevant!

03:33 – 04:08

This part where he does the rehearsal as Romeo was excellent. Interestingly, for most of our discussion and rehearsals, the lines were spoken and not sung. It was only as the conference was approaching that Saby sent me a message in which he said, among other things, “I’m going to sing those lines.”

I confess that my initial reaction was one of uncertainty, but I thought that to be fair, I had to hear it. When I heard it for the first time during practice, any misgivings that I previously had evaporated. Saby did it so well and it fit so nicely with the Bollywood theme. And that head nod got the first applause!

One interesting cultural point. Saby sings about the “River Ganga.” In the West, most people know the river by the name “Ganges. However, “Ganga” is the traditional name used in Hindi and other Indian languages. I asked Saby if he would be okay using “Ganges” so that people understood, but after trying it a few times, it just didn’t feel right to him. He grew up his whole life saying “Ganga.” I fully respected his decision to stick with what was culturally important to him. Sometimes there are things that are more important than the speech.

04:09 – 04:29

Here we have another important transition. It takes us from the 5 seconds of enthusiasm that Saby had after his audition to the realization that he would never be an actor. Watch these 20 seconds again and notice how the tone of his voice goes from enthusiasm down to disappointment; how his body language goes from open to closed. We worked on this change of emotion. Saby does it very well done and in a way that feels completely natural.

A minor staging point. In this section, the director is looking to his left when he speaks, whereas earlier he was looking to his right. If you are going to stage characters in your talk, it is always best to have them looking the same way when they speak so as not to confuse the audience.

04:29 – 04:36

Saby gets another laugh through misdirection by saying that after his acting failure, he did what anyone in Amsterdam would do—take up a job in finance. It would have been slightly better to have said “a corporate job in finance” and thus make a call back to the “least disappointing” corporate job at 02:00. But not a major issue.

04:37 – 04:48

Finance professionals are fun …

What’s great about this line is what Saby does at the end. He says nothing and just shakes his head while grimacing. He lets his gestures speak for themselves. It gets a nice laugh.

Sometimes you can (and should) let your body language speak for you.

04:49 – 5:02

Here, Saby does something which, in comedy, is always risky.

In the previous section, he poked fun at finance professionals and got a good laugh. He could have stopped there, but he goes back for another round of humour on the same point.

If it’s not as funny as the first round, it’s deflating and it looks like the speaker is trying to go to the same well one too many times. But here, Saby had a killer line: “They sleep with a spreadsheet on.” The first time he told me that line during one of our calls, I almost choked on my coffee! It’s brilliant.

That line doesn’t just get a laugh, it gets another applause, which is huge in the middle of a speech. My only concern was that all the clapping would run on too long and eat up valuable time!

05:03 – 05:10

Saby is now doing his best to try to fit into the corporate world. Another simple, but important, transition to again keep the audience with him.

Make sure your transitions are smooth and tight.

05:11 – 05:25

If you watch closely, you will see that Saby almost forgets this part but that he recovers nicely. It happens.

Now, the joke about comparing a boring town hall to the Toastmasters annual general meeting was my idea. I have been to those meetings, and while they are important, they can go on for hours. There’s a good chance that you have sat through a long meeting of some kind. No matter the subject, at the end of the day, we are all human and can only take so much.

I told Saby that this was an extremely edgy thing to do and that some people would not be amused. I would not hesitate to push the envelope like this, but I stressed that he had to be comfortable with it. He was all in and he nailed it!

Big risk, big reward. 

To soften the line somewhat, and to get an extra laugh, I recommended that that he immediately say that he wasn’t talking about the meeting that had just taken place the previous day but the ones from years ago.

My suggestion was to gesture to the audience, but Saby thought it would be funnier to gesture to the contest chair, and it worked out beautifully. And I love the slicing of the hand across the throat at the end!

05:26 – 05:52

Here we have everything come together with Saby applying his aspirations of being a Bollywood performer to his job in corporate finance. Remember that if you have different things happening in your speech, you have to find a way to make them all connect.

05:53 – 06:07

This line got messed up a little bit. It was supposed to be:

“People smiled, people laughed … This never happens in finance!”

It came out as:

“I saw my colleagues laugh for the first time. Agree. This never happens in finance.”

It does get a laugh, but a diminished one. These things happen. In the heat of the moment, you can trip up on your wording and you just move one.

One other thing to note, Saby had wanted to say that his colleagues nodded, and then do the Indian head nod. I was very much against this idea.

First, finance people from the Netherlands would not nod their heads that way. Second, it would have diluted the power of his Indian head nod, which he had already done to great effect and which he does again at the end. Saby understood and agreed.

When you have a good phrase or a good gesture, don’t overdo it.

06:08 – 06:20

Some nice dialogue between Saby and his boss. Notice how he changes position to represent each. The CEO line was nice. I knew that it would get a laugh, but it got a bigger laugh than I expected.

That’s the thing with humour—sometimes you might think you’ve got the funniest line and it just gets a chuckle, and other times you think you have a throwaway line and the audience bursts into laughter. You never know.

06:20 – 06:45

This is the “lightbulb moment” or, to use the rhetorical device, the anagnorisis: the moment (in a movie, novel, speech) when the main character makes an important discovery or realization, often about the true nature of their own circumstances.

Here Saby realizes that he can still pursue his dream and be a performer, just on a different stage. The line, “And that’s when it hit me…” is Saby’s anagnorisis, his moment of realization.

06:46 – 06:57

Here we come back to the wonderful gesture of changing the light bulb and petting the dog! As I said above (02:10 – 02:18), it was my suggestion to do this move when talking about Bollywood. Saby had the genius idea of bringing it back here.

The “clicker and projector” line had been in the text from the start, but adding the Bollywood dance and gestures to the line took it to another level. And it got the third applause of the speech.

And that’s what I love so much about this part. I gave Saby an idea and he took it. But he didn’t stop there; he used his own creativity to build upon it. It’s a fantastic example of great speaker-coach teamwork!

06:58 – 07:11

Here Saby begins his conclusion. He raises his voice and his energy level to encourage the audience to unleash their ideas and their energy.

07:12 – 07:26

Some days you’ll be trolled. Some days you’ll be rejected. Some days you’ll be made fun of. Trust me, some days you’ll light up a room. Some days you’ll make someone’s day. And who knows, someday you may even change someone’s life.

Here, Saby uses the rhetorical device of antithesis. Antithesis involves placing two contrasting ideas side by side using a balanced structure. Because the elements are side-by-side, because the structure is the same, it creates rhythm and emphasis.

All in all, it is a beautiful way of telling the audience that although it won’t always be easy, it will definitely be worth it. (And the end of the previous sentence, by the way, is also antithesis!)

If you are going to enter a speech contest, you want to make your language flourish. Rhetorical devices can help you do that. I encourage you once again to learn a few key devices and then work them into your speech. But not too many. Think of rhetorical devices like a fine curry or spice that you would add to a delicious Indian meal. You don’t dump the whole jar in; you add just the right amount to bring out the flavour.

07:27 – 07:43

Here we have the call to action. Saby exhorts people, wherever they are, whichever stage they want to be on, to put on the red suit or dress, step on the stage, smile … and just nod.

I think it would’ve been a bit stronger had he said, “… and just nod” and then do the nodding gesture. But by this stage, he had won the audience, and it didn’t matter.

Final Thoughts

If you step back and look at Saby’s speech objectively, his story not original. It is just another version of a story that has been told for centuries: Follow your dream. As the saying goes, “There are no new stories; there are only new ways of telling the old stories.”

And that’s what Saby did.

He told his story in his own way. He didn’t try to be anybody other than who he is. He didn’t worry about being perfect; he focused on being authentic. He didn’t make the speech just about himself; he made his story relevant for the audience. Ultimately, these things are the most important advice in this long post. Take them to heart and you will be great!

And Saby, my friend, it was a privilege to work with you on this speech. I wish you continued success with all your speeches to come.

When my friend, Sabyasachi (Saby) Sengupta stepped off stage as the 2025 Toastmasters World Champion of Public Speaking in Philadelphia, I couldn’t have been happier. But I also realized something: our two-month coaching journey had taught me as much as it taught him.

Through our written exchanges and live sessions together, I was reminded of some essential lessons about the coach–speaker relationship.

These lessons apply not only to world championship speeches, but to any situation where one person helps another prepare to speak.

Setting the Foundation

1. Don’t overwhelm

When I offered to help Saby, I sent him a text message that contained the following: “You will undoubtedly be inundated with offers from people to help you. I am happy to help in any way I can, but you need to avoid being overwhelmed with too much advice. So, no worries if you feel you already have enough support. You need to pace yourself. Best of luck whatever you decide.”

Speakers at this level are bombarded with feedback. Too much input can paralyze rather than help. Coaching starts with humility. You are there to serve, not to take over.

Takeaway: Offer help without adding pressure.

2. Start with their needs

The first question I asked was not, “Here’s what I think you should change.” It was, “What are you looking for from me?”

That one question framed the entire relationship. It made sure we were aligned from the beginning. Coaching is not about your ego or your agenda; it is about meeting the speaker where they are.

Takeaway: Begin by asking, not telling.

3. Focus on your unique value

I knew the areas where I could add the most value: speech structure, humour, rhetorical devices and phrasing. Those are my strengths.

Of course, we also touched on body language and voice and I did make suggestions, but those are areas where Saby is naturally stronger than me. So, I didn’t try to be the expert there. Instead, I complemented his abilities.

Takeaway: Focus on what you can do best.

Shaping the Speech

4. Know when to push, when to step back

There were times I made suggestions and Saby wasn’t comfortable with them. The suggestions weren’t wrong; they just weren’t for him. If the point wasn’t critical, I stepped back. You have to respect the speaker’s judgment.

But when I knew something would make a measurable difference—like a particular pause that would set up a laugh, or a particular way of wording a sentence—I pushed harder. We went over it until Saby felt it, and when it landed, he saw why it mattered.

Takeaway: Not every hill is worth dying on. Save your insistence for the moments that truly elevate the speech.

5. Respect the coaching village

Saby had another main coach, and he also received feedback from many people. At times, he must have been inundated with suggestions.

That required me to check my ego. I was one voice among many, not the voice. My role was to add value where I could, not to control the process.

Takeaway: Be a voice, not the voice.

Final Preparation

6. Lock the speech down

As the contest drew closer, my suggested changes became fewer and fewer. At some point, you have to stop tweaking and lock the speech down.

Endless revisions erode confidence. In those final days, my role was less about editing the speech and more about helping Saby be in the right frame of mind.

Takeaway: Stop revising; start rehearsing. Good coaching involves knowing when to switch from the former to the latter.

7. Value the “bad” rehearsals

Not every practice run went well. Sometimes Saby delivered a version that wasn’t very good.

But I always saw that as a positive. I told him, “Good! We’re getting the bad stuff out now!” Rehearsal is the place for mistakes. That’s how you sharpen a speech.

Takeaway: Sweat in practice so you don’t bleed in battle.

Overarching Principles

8. Give specific feedback

“Good job” or “That didn’t work” isn’t enough. Feedback only helps if it is precise.

So instead of saying, “Make it funnier,” I would point to a specific line and suggest a wordplay, a call-back, or a rhetorical twist. The more concrete the feedback, the faster the progress.

Takeaway: Give feedback that is clear, concrete and immediately actionable.

9. Provide emotional support

Preparing for the biggest stage in public speaking is not just technical; it is emotional. Doubts creep in. Nerves rise. Energy dips.

When we began our last coaching call (the day before the Final), the first thing I did was to have Saby close his eyes and we did the “box breathing” exercise to slow things down and get in the right headspace for the call.

One of the most important things a coach can do is provide perspective, calm, and encouragement. Sometimes, the right words are not about the speech, but about the speaker.

Takeaway: Coaching is as much about grounding the person as it is about refining the performance.

Conclusion

Coaching a speaker at this level is not about giving endless notes. It is about partnership, trust and clarity. It is about knowing when to speak, when to stay silent, and when to simply encourage.

Whether you are helping a colleague with their first presentation or working with a World Champion, these lessons apply.

In the end, the best coaches don’t put words in someone else’s mouth.

They create the conditions for the speaker’s own voice to shine.