Umiejętności komunikacji ustnej

Język angielski w zastosowaniu zawodowym

Author
Affiliation

Ben Stanley

Wydział Nauk Społecznych, Uniwersytet SWPS

Published

May 9, 2026

How today works

After the break, you will be split into six groups. Each group is given one of the six pre-built decks of slides shown in the main slide deck (Scenarios 1–6). Your task is to deliver a five-minute presentation of that deck to the rest of the class, in English.

The slides are already designed for you. They include three data visualisations, an active-titled framing, and a recommendation slide. Your work is the talk — which words you use, how you describe each chart, who in the group speaks when, and what call to action you close on.

You have twenty minutes to prepare. Each group then presents for five minutes, followed by one minute of class feedback. Six groups × six minutes = thirty-six minutes; the rest is preparation and transition.

Preparation checklist (the twenty minutes)

In your group, work through the following, in order. You will not use this exact sequence in your talk — it is a preparation aid.

  1. Read the deck end to end. Make sure every member of the group can describe what every chart shows. If anyone is unsure, ask the group, not the lecturer.
  2. Decide your headline. What is the one sentence you want the audience to walk away with? Write it down. This becomes your opening.
  3. Decide your call to action. What do you want the audience (the board, the CFO, the investors, whoever the brief names) to do? Write it down. This becomes your closing.
  4. Divide the slides. Each group member should speak at least once. With four to five members, aim for one or two slides per speaker. Decide who speaks when, and who hands off to whom.
  5. Choose your verbs. For each of the three data visualisations, pick the verbs and adverbs that match the strength of the claim: rose modestly, surged, plateaued, dropped sharply, doubled. Write them in the margin of the slide notes. Don’t write whole sentences; just the building blocks.
  6. Plan your transitions. Between speakers and between slides, agree the signposts: “Building on this, my colleague will show…“, “The picture changes when we look at…”, “Stepping back, the broader pattern is…“. Hand-offs are where five-minute presentations break.
  7. Pre-empt one objection. What is the most likely pushback from the audience? Decide who addresses it and how.
  8. Time it. If you can, run through the talk once. Five minutes is shorter than it sounds.

What I’ll be listening for

Each presentation is graded informally on the following. (No marks; just feedback.)

Criterion What it means
Headline The first sentence states the conclusion, not a warm-up
Active framing Each chart is introduced with a frame, not by reading the title
Trend verbs (+ L2 adverbials) Verbs and adverbs calibrated to the strength of the claim
First conditional (L1) Used in the call to action: “If we approve this, we will…“
Modal verbs (L3) Used to soften comparisons and calibrate uncertainty: should, may, could
Reported speech (L4) Used to cite forecasts, prior studies or earlier decisions cleanly
Signposting Speaker-to-speaker and slide-to-slide transitions are explicit
Hedging Where appropriate: “the data suggests”, “consistent with”, “with one caveat”
Call to action Specific, time-bound, addressed to a named decision-maker
Pace and voice Audible, measured, varied pitch; not rushing, not apologetic

Phrase bank: the language of presenting data

Use these as anchors during preparation. Pick three or four for your talk; don’t try to use all of them.

Introducing a chart

  • “This chart answers the question of whether…“
  • “What you’re looking at is X plotted against Y…“
  • “This shows the last [period] of…“
  • “The line we expected to see is the dotted one. The actual data is the solid one.”

Quantifying

  • rose by 12% (the change) vs rose to 27% (the new level)
  • doubled, three times higher, an order of magnitude larger
  • roughly, around, just over, a little under
  • exactly, precisely, to the nearest percentage point

Comparing

  • Side-by-side: “X outperformed Y on every metric.”
  • Ranking: “X ranks first; Y ranks last, although we should note one caveat…“
  • Outlier: “One region stands out: ____ at , well above the cluster around .”
  • Exception: “With the exception of ____, every quarter beat forecast.”

Drawing a conclusion

  • Strong: “The data shows clearly that…“
  • Calibrated: “The data suggests that…“, “This is consistent with…”
  • Hedged: “The data is consistent with X, though we should note Y…“
  • Conditional (L1): “If this trend continues, we will…“

Acknowledging uncertainty (modal verbs, L3)

  • “X may lead Y, but the intervals overlap.”
  • “We should note the sample is small.”
  • “The trend may strengthen as more data comes in.”
  • “This could indicate a structural shift, though one quarter is a thin basis.”

Citing sources (reported speech, L4)

  • “The CFO stated that Q3 cash flow had improved — this chart confirms it.”
  • “The McKinsey study found that firms with structured promotion panels show 60% smaller pay gaps.”
  • “You noted that one quarter is a thin basis — chart 2 addresses that directly.”
  • “At the last meeting we agreed that investment above €10m would require a structural argument.”

Transitioning

  • “Building on this…“
  • “The picture changes when we look at…“
  • “This explains why…“
  • “Stepping back, the broader pattern is…“

Closing

  • “If we [action], we will [outcome]. I’d like [specific ask] by [date].”
  • “The decision required is [X]. Now — what questions do you have?“

Scenario briefs

Each group is assigned one of the six scenarios. The brief gives you the company, the audience, the setting, the decision being sought (this is the recommendation you must argue for), the three data visualisations that already sit in the deck, and the language requirements for the talk.

The deck is bare on purpose: there are no active titles, no preset highlights, no recommendation slide. The slides give you the data. Your job is to decide how to present that data so that the recommendation is the obvious conclusion. That means choosing what to frame, what to call out, what to compare, and how to close.

The slides themselves are in the main lecture deck, in the corresponding “Scenario N” section.

Scenario 1 — NorthStar Electronics

  • Company. NorthStar Electronics, a Polish premium consumer-electronics retailer (22 stores in Poland).
  • Audience. The board of directors. The CFO is sceptical of international expansion; the CEO is in favour.
  • Setting. July 2026 board meeting. Five-minute opening slot; longer Q&A follows.
  • Decision sought (the argument you must make): approval to commit €18m of capital to a phased entry into Romania, beginning Q4 2026 (three flagship stores plus e-commerce; projected steady-state market share 8%; projected steady-state revenue €144m per year).

Your charts:

Language requirements (each must appear at least once during the five minutes):

  • Vocabulary from L1 (globalisation): market entry, market share, first-mover advantage, joint venture — pick three
  • Strong opening that leads with a number
  • At least one first conditional in the call to action
  • At least one sentence adverbial as a transition between speakers
  • At least one hedge acknowledging uncertainty (the CFO will probe)

One likely objection to pre-empt: “Why Romania and not Hungary, where we have closer cultural and supply-chain links?“ The data needed to answer this is in your three charts; decide which one carries the answer.

Scenario 2 — Meridian Bank

  • Company. Meridian Bank, a mid-sized Polish retail bank (84 branches, 2.1 million customers).
  • Audience. The executive committee. The Operations Director (you) is recommending the closures; the COO and Head of Retail are nervous about reputational risk.
  • Setting. December 2025 executive review.
  • Decision sought: approval to close 22 low-traffic branches by end of 2026, with redeployment of 80% of affected staff to digital and customer-service roles (projected annual saving PLN 38m; 95% of affected customers live within 25 km of a retained branch).

Your charts:

Language requirements:

  • Vocabulary from L2 (strategy): restructuring, cost leadership, KPI, stakeholders — pick three
  • Lead with the channel-shift finding
  • At least one modal verb (should, must, would) used to defend the recommendation
  • At least one sentence adverbial signposting the structure
  • A specific call to action naming the decision body and the date

One likely objection to pre-empt: “Closing branches signals retreat from communities.” Decide which chart and which verbal framing addresses this.

Scenario 3 — Lattica Consulting

  • Company. Lattica Consulting, a 380-employee Warsaw-based management consultancy.
  • Audience. The board (six partners). The Managing Partner sponsored the review; some partners are uncomfortable with the conclusions.
  • Setting. Quarterly board meeting, March 2025.
  • Decision sought: approval for a three-part intervention: structured promotion-review panels with diverse membership, a formal sponsorship programme for women at Manager level and above, and quarterly transparency reporting (cost ≈ PLN 1.8m over five years).

Your charts:

Language requirements:

  • Vocabulary from L3 (ethics): integrity, transparency, accountability, stakeholders — pick three
  • Diplomatic register throughout (the audience includes partners who may feel implicated)
  • At least one modal verb calibrating the strength of recommendation
  • At least one first conditional projecting outcome of the intervention
  • A hedged claim acknowledging modelling uncertainty

One likely objection to pre-empt: “This will create reverse bias against male candidates.” Decide how to address this without escalating.

Scenario 4 — Korbex Logistics

  • Company. Korbex Logistics, a mid-sized European logistics operator (≈ €170m annual revenue, 1,200 employees, 380 trucks).
  • Audience. The board’s investment committee. The committee previously rejected an €8m proposal as too cautious; the CFO wants strong justification for anything above €10m.
  • Setting. November 2024 investment committee meeting.
  • Decision sought: approval to commit €15m of capital to fleet expansion, funded from retained earnings, with a 24-month deployment schedule (modelled three-year ROI 31%; downside ROI at pessimistic fuel and wage assumptions still positive at 17%).

Your charts:

Language requirements:

  • Vocabulary from L4 (finance): ROI, working capital, cash flow, profit margin — pick three
  • Lead with the Q3 result, not with the ask
  • At least one first conditional projecting investment outcome
  • At least one sentence adverbial signposting between the results section and the investment case
  • A specific call to action with the decision body, date, and amount

One likely objection to pre-empt: “One strong quarter doesn’t justify a €15m commitment.” Decide which chart and verbal framing addresses this.

Scenario 5 — Praxis Health

  • Company. Praxis Health, a Polish healthtech startup; eighteen-person team; €1.1m current ARR; product launched six months ago.
  • Audience. A four-investor Series A panel. Two of the investors have followed the company since seed; two are new to the deal.
  • Setting. Pitch meeting, June 2025. Five-minute opening of a longer session.
  • Decision sought: €4m at €28m post-money, capital deployed on engineering (twelve to twenty engineers) and a four-person commercial team. Lead-investor confirmation requested by end of June.

Your charts:

Language requirements:

  • Vocabulary from L4 (innovation): time-to-market, product-market fit, scalability, USP — pick three
  • Strong opening leading with the user-growth result
  • At least one first conditional in the case for the raise
  • A calibrated claim about the NPS finding (avoid overclaiming on a six-month sample)
  • A specific ask addressed to the lead investor

One likely objection to pre-empt: “Six months is too short to prove product-market fit.” Decide where to acknowledge the limitation and where to push the signal that is there.

Scenario 6 — Tarsus Tech

  • Company. Tarsus Tech, a 600-employee Polish software company; engineering, customer success, and product teams across two offices.
  • Audience. The executive team — CEO, COO, CTO, CFO, Head of People (you). The CFO is concerned about productivity in distributed teams; the CTO is enthusiastic.
  • Setting. May 2025 executive review, after a 12-month pilot covering four teams (matched against four control teams).
  • Decision sought: approval of a company-wide rollout of flexible work from Q3 2025, with a six-month transition window per team (projected: 13-point attrition reduction ≈ PLN 6.4m saved annually; productivity neutral-to-positive).

Your charts:

Language requirements:

  • Vocabulary from L4 (people management): retention, engagement, attrition, performance review — pick three
  • Lead with the attrition finding
  • At least one first conditional projecting outcome of the rollout
  • At least one modal verb calibrating the productivity claim (self-reported vs measured)
  • A specific call to action with the decision body and rollout start date

One likely objection to pre-empt: “Self-reported productivity is unreliable.” Decide which chart answers this directly.