The Art of Introducing a Speaker

Co-authored by Barbara Tannenbaum

Let thy speech be better than silence, or be silent. – Dionysius of Halicarnassus

Students of persuasive speech learn a skill, a craft, and an art. Contents come and go; speaking effectively is an enduring asset to anyone relying on communication to make a living. This essay is a short introduction to the art of introducing a speaker.

In his Rhetoric, Aristotle (see 2021 for a recent edition) taught that speakers must take care to convey their ethos or have it conveyed by an introducer. Ethos refers to a speaker’s good qualities and qualifications, the characteristics that make an audience want to listen. Cialdini (2021) and other social psychologists have noted the relevance of true and perceived expertise. Reasonably, listeners are more inclined to be persuaded by an expert than what today’s students call “a random person.”

Effective speakers have mastered different types of speech, from a simple presentation of a concept or an idea to persuasive appeals designed to change an audience’s beliefs or behaviors to ceremonial speeches such as toasts, eulogies, or speeches of acknowledgment and gratitude as heard during award events.

Speeches given to introduce a speaker are hybrids. They are part of a ceremonial protocol, but they also must deliver content and put the audience in a receptive and generous frame of mind. A skillful introducer connects the topic to the speaker (ethos, expertise) and then the speaker to the audience. With these two linkages in place, the speaker can focus on connecting the topic to the audience to achieve persuasion.

A curious feature of effective speeches of introduction is that they are self-eliminating. The introducer’s task is to set the stage and then get out of the way. This is a thankless job – although most speakers will ritualistically thank the introducer for the kind words. Because of this whiff of superfluity, it is hard to motivate learners to invest the effort to master this fine and underrated art. “Why bother,” they might ask, “if no one else bothers?”

With this attitude, the stage for disaster is set. The introducer is poised to commit one or more of three grave errors. They might dismiss the exercise and give a lukewarm, vapid, or unkind presentation; they might end up talking about themselves; or they might preview the speaker’s topic to the point that there is little left to say. Either mistake is, to use Christopher Hitchens’s apt phrase, cringe-making.

If the first window into the world of good introductions is to consider – and avoid – tactics that make things go wrong, there is some positive advice to put learners on the right track. Most importantly, the introducer must research both the speaker and the topic. Yet, it would be fatal to read out to the audience a speaker’s bio, complete with appointments, awards, and accolades from the government of Uzbekistan.

A face-to-face meeting with the speaker can provide more engaging and vivid material than a search of records. Such a meeting may yield, for example, insights into the speaker’s mood and style. The speaker has the opportunity to tell the introducer what they want the audience to know and, more critically, what they prefer not to be said. A personal meeting is also an opportunity for the introducer and the speaker to reflect on common experiences or memories, material that can be woven into an introduction to make it personal and compelling.

A meeting is also an opportunity for the introducer to ensure they will pronounce the speaker’s name correctly, that is, the way the speaker prefers it. Choosing among options, including titles, pre- and suffixes, nicknames, and pronouns, is delicate. Hitting the right level of formality depends on the context and the speaker’s sensitivities. Bias easily creeps in. According to one report, men, but not women, are more likely to use first names when introducing professional women than men (Duma et al., 2019).

Bias Essential Reads

Research Shows Racism May Influence Infant Brain Development

Don't Regret Your Vote: Avoid the One-and-Done Bias

An effective introduction speech is brief, much like a good blog post. Again, an example of how things can go badly is illustrative. We (Barbara and Joachim, not “Barb” and “Joe”) recall a speech by a university president to introduce a Nobel Laureate. The president was known for his penchant to introduce speakers as his good friends. With the Nobel Laureate, he got so carried away that he foreshadowed many of his points of content. “As the president has already told you . . .” the speaker was then compelled to note repeatedly. The president had basked in reflected glory (Cialdini et al., 1976) and he had stolen the speaker's thunder and light. Some of us cringed.

Aside from using the tactics that constitute the skill of effective speaking, the introducer does well being specific and sincere, being positive and generous without fawning, and remembering that the decisive human connection is between the main speaker and the audience. Alas, the best remembered speeches of introduction are the bad ones. Why then should anyone agree to give such a speech? The answer is that it is great practice for the real thing.

A caveat may be observed. If you have perfected the art of introducing a speaker, you run the risk of making the speaker look bad. A bad impression left by the speaker may also reflect poorly on you, the introducer. Keeping it brief will mitigate this risk. The socially intelligent creature might detect an opportunity here. If you introduce someone whose arguments you find issue with, you may strive to deliver a most excellent introduction. The audience might then remember you instead of the halfwit you introduced.

Barbara Tannenbaum is a distinguished faculty member at Brown University who has taught courses on persuasive communication for many years.