What are some ways that you can establish credibility with your audience? Credibility is a measure of how your audience perceives your knowledge, authority and believability on the subject or topic you are presenting. Knowledge is a key factor. You certainly don’t need to be an expert on your topic but you should spend quality time researching and developing deep knowledge on the subject. Providing supportive evidence such as statistics, visuals or personal stories are also helpful to establish credibility.Body language should display confidence, maintaining eye contact with the audience along with standing tall with head held high and good gesture help. Gestures should be natural and comfortable.
Varying the rate, pitch and volume of our voice is critical. Speaking monotonously makes it impossible for the listener to maintain any real interest in what is being said. Appearance is another important factor.Our style of dress and grooming do make a difference in how audiences respond to presentations. Dressing in a manner consistent with audience expectations and maintaining other norms in appearance can help to build credibility. Naturally, we dress our best for a Job interview or an important meeting; the same approach should be taken for delivering a speech. Why is that important In your speech? How the audience receives or Interprets your message will be largely based on your credibility.
Once the speaker has established credibility with his/her audience the audience will be more inclined to believe the speaker and trust what he/she Is saying as true. On the other hand, If credibility Is not established, the audience would probably dismiss the speaker’s Ideas as Just opinions resulting In an Ineffective speech. . “Presentation Tips for Public Speaking. ” A research gulled for students. CLC Online Counterrevolutionary, 2008. Web.
8 May 2012. <http://www. Archduchesses. Com/ tilts. HTML>.
Introduction In recent years the topic of privacy in work place has
In recent years the topic of privacy in work place has been hotly debated by both employees and management. There are multiple areas of impact such as the effectiveness of management operations and concerns of staff if their privacy rights are infringed upon. Privacy concerns in the modern work place may certainly restrict managerial initiatives, but on both sides of the debate, what are the issues or benefits? The purpose of this essay is to discuss areas of concern in electronic monitoring, romance in the workplace, employee drug testing, and employee honesty testing.
Often management justifies employee monitoring as part of their interest in workplace efficiency.
For example, when employees log on to the internet at work to trade stocks, contact friends or text-message, this is not considered productive use of company time and employers can also be open to lawsuits if employees act in unbefitting manner. An employee, who views inappropriate material on a workstation computer, might leave the company open to a charge of sexual harassment, especially if other workers observed the action and were offended by it. The employer must also continually ensure that staff do not disclose confidential information to competitors or make statements that publicly embarrass the company or management while they remain an employee. As per the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (1986), the courts have found that privacy rights apply to personal, but not business, information, and that employers have a remit to monitor job-related communication. They have further ruled that employers may monitor employee e-mail, messages, and texts. A recent currently evolving area of the law involves GPS position tracking. A woman in California worked as a regional sales representative and her employer had installed a phone app to track her movements as she drove around making sales calls. She felt insulted that her employer could track her entire daily movements, so she deleted the app and was fired. In another instance involving the practice of electronic monitoring, Intel Corporation chose not to check its employees’ e-mail routinely, feeling this would undermine trust. To balance employee privacy concerns with those of management is indeed a huge challenge. One approach is to screen employee communication explicitly only while a specific reason to is extant. Furthermore, experts recommend that employers should, in light of potential discrepancy and conflict of interest, openly state their monitoring policies; let employees know what is expected, and enforce any sanctions in a fair and evenhanded manner.
Romance in the Workplace
In recent years dating in the workplace has perhaps become more commonplace but at the same time office romance poses complications for employers. If relationships go bitter, as they are prone to, one of the parties may sue, claiming sexual harassment, or that they were coerced into the relationship. If a partner is in a position of power, he or she may be biased in their workplace evaluations. Consequentially, for many years, many businesses had a policy of forbidding relationships completely.
Today, however, companies are more likely to draw fine distinctions, permitting some office relationships, and not others. A survey by the Society for Human Resource Professionals found many companies had either a written or verbal policy on workplace romance. Almost all of these policies banned relationships within a direct chain of command and nearly half forbid romances between employees of significantly different rank. A small proportion of companies require their managers to sign a document, sometimes called a consensual relationship agreement, stipulating that an office relationship is welcome and voluntary as a safeguard against potential legal litigations if the persons involved later break up.
Employee Drug Testing
According to recent studies, not many employees abuse illegal or prescription drugs, but those who do can cause serious harm and are more likely than others to produce poor-quality work, have accidents and steal from employers. In extreme cases, some employees have run afoul of the law by selling drugs at work to support substance addiction. This substance and drug abuse costs U.S. industry and taxpayers billions and one method to hedge against these risks is via substance/drug screening and testing. Significant drug testing first began in the United States following passage of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, which required federal contractors to establish and maintain a workplace free of drugs. Companies and public agencies initiated drug testing to comply with government rules although during the past decade, use of drug tests has dropped and fewer samples have tested positive.
Drug testing by the industry is generally used on three different occasions. 1.) Pre-employment screening where all job applicants or selected applicants test before hiring, usually as part of a physical examination, often informing the applicant that there will be a drug screening. 2.)
During random testing of employees. This type of screening may occur at intermittently throughout the year. In many companies, workers in sensitive job categories, such as, operators of heavy machinery or supervisors are repeatedly eligible. 3.) Testing for cause, which is when an employee is considered impaired by drugs and unfit for work and is commonly used after an accident or observable change in behavior.
Even with mention of these three occasions, drug testing is controversial and businesses have an interest in not hiring, or getting rid of, people who abuse drugs but many job applicants who have never used drugs or illegal substances feel that testing is arbitrarily unnecessary and violates their privacy and right to due process. In general, proponents of testing emphasize the reduction in potential injury to other people and the cost to business and society of on-the-jobdrug use but opponents continue to challenge the benefits and emphasize its intrusions into privacy.
In times past, many employers used polygraph testing as a pre-employment screening procedure but in 1988, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act became law. This law severely limited polygraph testing and prohibited nearly 85 percent of all such tests previously administered in the United States. As a response to the federal ban on polygraphs, many corporations have switched to written psychological tests that seek to predict honesty on the job by asking questions designed to identify desirable or undesirable markings. The use of honesty tests, however, like polygraphs, is contentious. The American Psychological Association noted there is a huge potential for these tests to generate false positives, indicating the employee did steal from the company even though it is not true. Many critics also maintain that the tests intrude on a person’s privacy and intentionally discriminate against minorities.