The Presenter You Think You Are, And The One Your Audience Sees

Our presentation-style quiz is simple and quick: just read through six short pages and select the words that genuinely resonate with your presenting style. No need for writing or deep thinking. In just a few minutes, you’ll discover four percentages showing how much of a Commander, Analyst, Motivator, or Facilitator you are. It’s a fun way to learn more about yourself!

The question is more important than many realise. It probes how you view yourself, and if you answer truthfully, that’s what you’ll see reflected.

What it cannot tell you is how anyone else sees you. Your audience has never had access to your intentions. They only ever meet your behaviour, and they form a view of you within the first couple of minutes. That view shapes whether they trust you, listen, and act on what you say.

There is a simple way to find out what that view is, and almost nobody does it.

Before I come to it, there are three things I would rather say plainly than leave you to wonder about.

Three honest admissions about a quiz like this

There are not four styles of presenting

There are as many styles as there are people, and probably a good deal more than that, because none of us presents in quite the same way to a room of strangers as we do to a team we have worked with for years. Any model that sorts human beings into four boxes is a simplification, and the exercise is faintly crass if taken too seriously.

Please do not take it too seriously. The four styles are not a truth about you. They are a vocabulary, and the value of a vocabulary is that it lets you begin a conversation you could not otherwise have. Self-awareness is a long and complicated business, and most people never begin it because they have no idea where to start and no words for what they are looking at. Four rough categories give you a place to stand as you ask better questions.

This is not an invitation to become somebody else

There is a fair challenge to a quiz like this, and it runs something like this. If mindful presenting is about authenticity, why hand people a set of styles and suggest they borrow from the ones they scored low on? Is that not an elaborate way of telling people to stop being themselves?

It would be if adapting how you come across were the same as changing who you are. It is not, and you already know that from ordinary life. You speak differently to a close friend than to a room of two hundred people, and again to someone who has just received bad news. Nobody would call you a fraud for any of it. You are the same person in all three cases, making sensible choices about what those particular people need from you.

That is the whole of it. Your voice, your values and the things you care about do not move. What changes is the way you get them across, and having more than one way to do that allows you to reach people who do not think or hear things the way you do. Nothing in this exercise asks you to abandon your natural style. It asks you to notice it, understand what it does to a room, and hold it a little more mindfully.

This is not psychometric profiling

I want to be more emphatic about this than a footnote allows. Our quiz has no norm group, no published reliability testing, no peer review, and no validation of any kind. It has never claimed to have any of those things, and it should not be used as though it does. It is not a diagnosis, it is not a hiring tool, and it is not evidence about anybody.

Held as a measurement, the quiz will mislead you. Held as a mirror, it will show you something you have almost certainly never seen written down: a clear statement of how you see yourself as a presenter. That is the starting point for everything that follows, and there is no way to get to it without first asking yourself the question.

Give the quiz to somebody else and ask them to answer it about you

The words are the same. The instruction changes by one syllable. Instead of ticking the words that describe you, they tick the words that describe you as they experience you when you speak.

You then have two sets of percentages sitting side by side. One shows how you see yourself. The other shows how you land. Anyone who has been through a 360-degree feedback process in a corporate setting will recognise its shape and remember that the value was never in the flattering parts.

This is a more revealing exercise than it sounds, because it removes the two things that usually stop feedback being honest. Nobody has to compose a sentence about you, which is where most people soften, and nobody has to decide what is worth mentioning, because the words have already decided that for them. All they have to do is tick.

Shift one: take your own result at face value first

Before you ask anyone else, be clear about what your own result is and is not.

It is an honest account of how you see yourself, assuming you answered it honestly. That is worth having on its own. Most people have never articulated how they see themselves as a presenter, and putting a number on it makes the rest of this exercise possible. Without your own baseline, there is nothing to compare anything to.

What it is not is evidence about your behaviour. You are the one person in the room who never experiences your presentation. Everyone else watches it. You are inside it, running the machinery, and your sense of how it went is assembled from fragments.

Before: “I scored highest as a Facilitator, so I am a warm and inclusive presenter.”

After: “I scored highest as a Facilitator. That is how I see myself. I have no idea yet whether the people in the room would tick the same words.”

Shift two: choose the right people, and ask them properly

Three or four people is plenty. What matters is who they are and how you ask.

Choose people who have watched you present more than once, because a single occasion tells them about that day rather than about you. Mix them up if you can. Someone senior to you, someone who works alongside you, and someone who has sat in your audience without any stake in your success will each notice different things. If you only ask people who like you, you will get a result that looks a great deal like your own.

How you ask determines what you get back. The request that works sounds something like this.

Before: “Could you give me some feedback on my presenting? Anything you think would help.”

After: “I have taken a presentation style quiz, and I would like to compare how I see myself with how I actually come across. Would you take the same quiz and answer it about me rather than about yourself? It only takes a couple of minutes, and you can send me just the four percentages.”

The second version asks for something specific, bounded and easy to do. It also gives people permission to be accurate rather than kind, because they are ticking words rather than delivering a verdict.

This is the part people find hardest, and it has nothing to do with how long you have worked with someone. A colleague can sit through a dozen of your presentations and never once tell you how you come across, because there is rarely a natural moment to say it. Nobody interrupts a debrief about the quarterly numbers to mention that you seemed rushed, or that you were warmer than they expected. The information exists in the room. It simply has nowhere to go.

Closing that gap is a large part of what we do in our presentation skills training.

Shift three: read the gaps, not the labels

When the results come back, most people go straight to one question. Did they pick the same top style as me? It is the natural thing to look at, and it gives you a yes or a no and very little else.

The useful information is in the individual numbers, and specifically in how far apart yours and theirs are on each of the four. You might both have put Motivator at the top and still be twenty points apart on it. You might agree on three styles and differ sharply on the fourth. Those are the places where something is happening that you cannot see from where you stand.

Rather than deciding in advance what a particular gap means, ask three questions of it.

– Where did they score me higher than I scored myself? These are the qualities you underestimate in yourself, and they are frequently the ones you should be leaning on more.

– Where did they score me lower? This is where your intention is not reaching the room. You may believe you are being inclusive, and be experienced as brisk.

– Where do the three of them disagree with each other? That is worth more attention than any single gap, because it suggests you come across differently to different audiences, and that variation is entirely invisible to you.

One warning. It is very easy to look at a gap and conclude that everyone else is wrong. That reaction is understandable, and it wastes the entire exercise. Their percentages are not a judgement on your character. They are a description of what reached them, which is the only thing your audience ever gets.

Shift four: pay attention to the lowest number in both columns

Most people read the highest percentage and stop there. The number that will cost you is the low one, because it marks the room you are least equipped for and the failure you are most likely to blame on the audience.

A presenter with a low Analyst score walks into a room of engineers, finance directors or clinicians, brings warmth and story to people who wanted evidence first, and leaves believing the audience was cold. A presenter with a low Motivator score puts a genuinely strong case to a room that needed to care before it could think, and concludes the audience was not serious. One with a low Facilitator score announces a change to people who needed to be heard before they could accept it, and decides they are resistant.

Notice what all three of those presenters have in common. Each of them walked out of the room with an explanation, and in each case the explanation was about the audience rather than about themselves. That is what a blind spot does. It does not feel like a gap in your range; it feels like a fact about the people in front of you.

This is where a second opinion earns its keep.

If you scored yourself low on a style and the people you asked scored you low on the same one, that is no longer a suspicion you can talk yourself out of. It is the one part of your result you can be reasonably confident about, because two different vantage points arrived at it independently.

Be ready for it to feel wrong. When you deliberately use a style you score low on, it does not feel like growth; it feels like pretending to be somebody else, and the instinct is to abandon it and go back to what you know. That instinct is worth resisting for a while. Discomfort at this stage tells you the behaviour is unfamiliar, which is precisely what you would expect from something you have rarely done. It says nothing about whether it works on the audience, and the audience is the only place you will find that out.

Before, from a strong Motivator: “I have to tell you, when I first saw these numbers, I could not stop thinking about what they mean for us, and I really think this changes everything about how we work.”

After, borrowing from the Analyst: “There are three numbers on this page. Take a moment with the one in the middle column. When you have had a look, I will tell you why I think it matters more than the other two.”

Before, from a strong Analyst: “As you can see from this chart, the year-on-year variance across all six regions shows a consistent pattern, allowing for the adjustment in the third quarter.”

After, borrowing from the Motivator: “One region did something last year that none of the others managed. I want to show you what they did, because I think we can do it everywhere.”

Shift five: decide what the room needs before you decide what to say

The last shift turns all of this into a skill rather than an interesting afternoon. Before you plan your content, decide what this particular room needs from you.

A room in the middle of a difficult change needs to feel heard before it will accept direction. A room that has already agreed and simply needs a decision does not want to be consulted again. A sceptical technical audience needs the evidence first and will accept the story afterwards, once you have earned it. A room that has stopped believing anything will change needs conviction, and no quantity of data will substitute for it.

Your natural style remains your natural style, and there is a good reason it developed. What changes is that you stop arriving with one setting and hoping the room happens to want it.

This is the work we do in our public speaking courses. It is usually the point at which people stop asking how to present well in general, and start asking how to present well to the particular people they are about to face.

Before you start

It is worth being straightforward about what a four-style model is, because it is not a validated psychometric instrument, nor is it a diagnosis. It is a mirror. Used alone, it shows you one view. Used with other people, it shows you two: the second is the view your audience has been carrying around all along without ever mentioning it.

If you have not taken it, or you took it a long time ago, you can find the style quiz here. Take it yourself first. Then send it to three or four people and find out what you have been getting away with, or missing out on.

The comparison is uncomfortable for about ten minutes. It is useful for the rest of your career.

If you would like help making sense of what comes back, our one-to-one public speaking coaching gives you a confidential space to work through it honestly and to build the range the rooms you stand in now are asking for.

If this has been useful, please share it with someone who might recognise themselves in it. Better still, send them the quiz and ask them to answer it about you.

Maurice De Castro is the founder of Mindful Presenter, a London based public speaking and presentation skills coaching company. A former main board director, he is the creator of The Presenter’s Operating System™ and works with professionals and leaders who want to communicate with clarity, presence and genuine connection.

Image Courtesy of Canva.com