By Dr Denise Meyerson, Director of Management Consultancy International

I have attended a few conferences lately and have been appalled at the level of presentations. This is a personal plea not to fall into that category of dry, boring presentations that literally send people off to sleep!

You have the knowledge and you have the subject matter expertise — now it is up to you to convey it in a way that engages, interests and motivates your audience. Following are some tips on how to do this.

1. Get a toolkit together

Spend some money on a mobile device that changes slides. This prevents you from being glued to the lectern or from running up and down the stage to move a slide forward. Have your own whiteboard pens on hand and not some dried up, useless ones left over from other presenters.

2. Microphones

At a large conference, ensure that you have a lapel microphone. You do not want to look like a half-eaten person hidden behind a lectern. Whoever invented the lectern did not know much about connecting with an audience. Get that lectern moved right out of the way.

3. Work on your slides

Yes, there is such a thing as “Death by PowerPoint”. Develop PowerPoint slides for the 21st Century. We are all ultimately visual learners and so need visual stimulation. We recall pictures and want to be entertained as though we are watching television.

We do not want so many words on a slide that we have to screw our eyes up to read it. Rather, hand out these precious and important words in a document. Look up the book “slide:ology” on the internet and follow these principles.

4. Get feedback on your presentation skills

Specifically ask for feedback from people you trust and listen to what they have to say. Have yourself video-taped and do some self-assessment. It all sounds basic, but wow, what a difference it makes. Out with the monotonous voice and in with variation in pace and tone.

Introduce movement — if you are stuck like concrete to the same spot, the audience loses interest fast.

And please … please do not turn around and read your slides from the screen. Adjust your computer to “presenter view” and read from the laptop if you need to.

5. Chunk your information

We do not absorb with real understanding for more than 20 minutes. Accept that fact of life. If you pour information down our throats for longer, it will not be heard.

Information needs to be delivered in short bites and every 20 minutes (at least), the pace and the level of activity needs to change. There is nothing wrong with saying to the audience, “I am giving you one minute to turn to the person next to you and discuss …”. It breaks up the session and people can then re-focus on your key messages.

6. Never, ever apologise for nervousness

So, you have never presented before to a large group? Well, no-one cares. Get over it and practise in front of the bathroom mirror until you feel confident.

Ask people for feedback and visualise yourself in the situation for days beforehand. Breathe deeply from the chest and have some water. Then, if you have something to say, stand up and say it!

7. Don’t hide before the presentation begins

Walk the room if possible. Meet and greet people as they come in to the room or during the tea break. It reduces the nerves and sets the scene for a positive presentation. It also gives you an opportunity to find out what people want to know more about and why they are there.

If you think no-one will ask questions at the end, plant a few questions by asking participants to ask about certain points.

At the end, mingle if possible to receive feedback!

This article was written by Dr Denise Meyerson and originally published in Management Consultancy International’s Edge eNewsletter 64

By Anna Modrak, Clayton Utz Competition Group*

All corporations and organisations in Australia should be paying attention to the David Jones sexual harassment case, because, if it succeeds, there will be a new, and quicker, path for making claims of sexual harassment.

The claims being made by Kristy Fraser-Kirk are based on alleged breaches of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA) — that is, as “misleading or deceptive” conduct.

While it is too early to make any comment on the strength or merits of her allegations, they do have broader implications for other organisations. In particular they could affect the way that your organisation expresses its policies on inappropriate or unsafe or illegal behaviour in the workplace, and presents them to your employees.

What is at the heart of the claim in the DJs case?

The claims allege that misleading or deceptive representations were made in Kristy Fraser-Kirk’s initial employment interview about the work culture and employment conditions that she could expect if she accepted an offer to work at David Jones. Written policies and other statements were allegedly made in that interview or at that time that:

• David Jones and its Board Management were committed to “providing a safe and healthy workplace”

• David Jones “did not tolerate harassment, discrimination or bullying in the workplace”, and

• David Jones was committed to the values and behaviours described in its “Code of Ethics and Conduct”.

Why is this innovative?

The usual path to the Federal Court for claims of breaches of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 is via the Australian Human Rights Commission, which attempts to conciliate the matter. Only if conciliation doesn’t resolve the matter can a complainant apply to the Federal Court.

By pleading her case as a TPA claim, Fraser-Kirk has circumvented the procedure outlined above, thereby bringing her case to court more quickly than if she had taken the usual path for sexual harassment claims.

She hasn’t, however, excluded completely the possibility of bringing traditional claims; she has indicated in her TPA claim that she will also pursue a claim in the Australian Human Rights Commission (which could then be joined to her TPA proceedings), and reserved the right to claim adverse action was taken against her in breach of the General Protections provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009.

Policies concerned with harassment or illegal behaviour — a representation? Of what?

The TPA case alleges that for David Jones to make these statements and distribute these policies was “misleading or deceptive” conduct in trade or commerce or in conjunction with the offer of employment, because of the subsequent alleged conduct.

In effect, Fraser-Kirk’s claim is based on the idea that these policies and procedures are to be understood by employees and others as a statement or representation — in effect a guarantee — that such conduct will not occur and not be tolerated within the organisation, and not merely as aspirational statements.

But don’t the representations need to be made “in trade or commerce”?

There are conflicting views as to whether representations made in the course of negotiations with a prospective employee are “in trade or commerce”.

However, Fraser-Kirk has also alleged breaches of s 53B of the TPA which says that a corporation shall not, in relation to employment that is or may be offered by the corporation, engage in conduct that is liable to mislead persons seeking the employment as to the availability, nature, terms or conditions of, or any other matter relating to, the employment. Section 53B may be relevant to the extent it relates to allegations about the conditions of Fraser-Kirk’s proposed employment at David Jones.

Failure to correct the media — can silence be misleading?

It is alleged that during a press conference, David Jones, through members of the Board of Directors, made representations to the effect that the incident involving Fraser-Kirk had been a single event and that David Jones had previously had no reason to question the conduct of McInnes.

Fraser-Kirk is claiming that not only were these representations misleading and deceptive, the Board of Directors’ failure to correct them (and subsequent misleading representations made by the media) was also misleading and deceptive.

Silence or a “failure to correct” may amount to a breach of the TPA if, in all of the circumstances constituted by the acts, omissions, statements or silence, there has been conduct likely to mislead or deceive. However, there must be either a duty to disclose relevant facts, or the circumstances are such that a reasonable expectation exists that a relevant fact would be disclosed if it existed.

This claim is highly novel as there is no precedent for the proposition that it is reasonable to expect a corporation to correct all misleading or deceptive statements made about it or its employees in the media.

So what does this mean for employers?

Although this method of claiming damages for sexual harassment is innovative, and thus untried, it should be taken seriously.

First, instead of taking the slow road through the Australian Human Rights Commission, complainants would be able to speed up things by going via the TPA simultaneously in the Federal Court.

Secondly, this raises a question for any corporation or organisation which has put in place compliance and other policies designed to prevent inappropriate or unsafe or illegal behaviour in the workplace.

Are these policies and procedures to be understood by employees and others as a statement or representation — in effect a guarantee — that such conduct will not occur and not be tolerated within the organisation? Or are they aspirational statements only?

If Ms Fraser-Kirk succeeds, all organisations would need to review their policies and how they are presented to employees and prospective employees.

For the time being all employers should, as always, be careful what they say and take sexual harassment prevention and compliance seriously.

*This article is reproduced with permission from Clayton Utz: www.claytonutz.com.

Clayton Utz communications are intended to provide commentary and general information. They should not be relied upon as legal advice. Formal legal advice should be sought in particular transactions or on matters of interest arising from this bulletin. Persons listed may not be admitted in all states or territories