Why You Should Go to Toastmasters
Updated: 3 days ago
Why You Should Go to Toastmasters: What a 100-year-old institution, a recent pitch in Berlin and the science of learning can teach us about becoming better communicators.
A few evenings ago, I went to a Toastmasters meeting in Berlin to pitch a project. I left with something more valuable than an opportunity to share my project. I left with feedback that made me reconsider how I had communicated an idea.
That experience reminded me of the benefits of Toastmasters, why I joined the organisation in the first place, and why I have remained involved for years.
It also raised a question worth examining: Why can two people spend the same amount of time in the same learning environment and emerge with very different capabilities?
The answer takes us beyond public speaking. It touches on psychology, deliberate practice, confidence, human behaviour and the difference between participating in an activity and developing genuine competence.
But first, let me take you back to my introduction to Toastmasters.
My First Encounter With Toastmasters
My first Toastmasters meeting was in Budapest, while I was studying for my MBA. I was a guest, had never attended a Toastmasters meeting before, and knew relatively little about the organisation.
During the meeting, I participated in Table Topics, the part of a Toastmasters meeting where participants respond to questions without preparing a speech beforehand. To my surprise, I was voted Best Table Topics Speaker that evening. It was an encouraging introduction.
Years later, after moving to Germany, I joined Toastmasters in 2016. When I delivered my first prepared speech, the Ice Breaker, something unusual happened. My evaluator gave me a lengthy and very positive evaluation. But one question from his feedback has stayed with me ever since.
“What are you doing in Toastmasters?”
I remember those words distinctly. From the rest of his evaluation, my understanding was that he considered my speaking ability already quite developed and was curious about what more I hoped to gain from Toastmasters.
It was a generous assessment, although I certainly did not consider myself a perfect speaker. The question, however, contained an assumption worth examining: if someone can already speak confidently, what more is there to learn? Quite a lot, as it turns out.
Communication is not one skill. It is a collection of capabilities involving thinking, listening, structuring ideas, interpreting audiences, expressing meaning, responding under pressure and building relationships. Being comfortable on stage is useful, but it is not the same as having mastered communication.
I stayed. Over the years, I served as a club president, an area director and a division director. I experienced Toastmasters not only as a member delivering speeches but also as someone responsible for helping other members, clubs and leaders develop.
I saw the organisation from the stage, from the audience and from behind the scenes. And what I discovered was that Toastmasters offers something much more valuable than an opportunity to practise public speaking.
It offers an environment in which people can develop.
A Hundred Years of Learning by Doing
On 22 October 1924, Ralph C. Smedley established the first permanent Toastmasters club in Santa Ana, California. His original idea was remarkably practical: people could become better communicators and leaders by meeting regularly, speaking, listening, evaluating and taking responsibility for organising their activities.
The educational philosophy was experiential. People would learn by doing.
More than a century later, that principle remains central to Toastmasters. Members prepare speeches, respond to unexpected questions, evaluate one another, manage meetings and assume leadership responsibilities. The organisation has expanded internationally, but the essential learning environment remains recognisable.
That longevity deserves attention. An organisation surviving for more than one hundred years does not prove that everything it does is perfect. Longevity alone is not scientific evidence of educational effectiveness. But it does invite us to ask why generations of people have continued to find value in the experience.
I believe part of the answer lies in several important principles of human learning.
Why Practice Matters More Than Attendance
Imagine two people joining the same Toastmasters club on the same evening. Both pay their membership fees, attend meetings regularly and remain members for three years. But their experiences are different.
The first person delivers speeches, volunteers for Table Topics, evaluates other speakers, accepts leadership roles and deliberately works on areas of weakness. The second person enjoys attending meetings, listens attentively and develops friendships but rarely takes speaking roles.
After three years, both have been Toastmasters members for exactly the same length of time. Should we expect them to have developed the same speaking capabilities?
Of course not.
This distinction is important because we frequently confuse exposure to a learning environment with the acquisition of a skill. We do it with gym memberships, language courses, professional qualifications and personal development programmes. We assume that because we have been around an activity for a long time, we must have improved considerably.
I see an interesting version of this whenever I go to the gym. Occasionally, I notice people sitting on exercise equipment, completely absorbed in their phones. Sometimes, by the time I have finished my classes, they are still sitting there, scrolling.
Now, I don't know what they are doing on their phones. They might be resting between sets, following a training programme or attending to something important. But the observation illustrates a useful distinction.
Being physically present in a gym is not the same as exercising, and exercising is not automatically the same as training effectively towards a particular goal.
A gym membership provides access to equipment, facilities and opportunities. It does not, by itself, produce physical fitness. The outcome depends on what happens after someone walks through the door.
I have experienced another side of this distinction myself.
For a period, I worked with a personal trainer on a series of physical exercises. At the end of each session, I felt wonderful. My body felt stretched, my movements seemed easier, and I often left feeling considerably better than when I arrived.
My trainer would give me exercises to practise during the week. And because I felt so good after our sessions, I would enthusiastically promise myself that I would do them. I genuinely meant it.
But something interesting kept happening. The next time I performed those exercises was often at my appointment with the trainer the following week.
The benefits were real. My intentions were sincere. Yet the behaviour I intended to repeat rarely happened without the structure of the appointment.
Psychologists describe this as part of the intention–behaviour gap: the difference between what people intend to do and what they actually do. Research on implementation intentions suggests that specifying when, where and how we will act can improve the likelihood of following through.
Looking back, my trainer was providing more than instruction. The appointment created a time, a place and an expectation that I would practise. Once I was on my own, the responsibility for creating those conditions became mine.
That experience has stayed with me because it reveals something important about learning. Understanding what would benefit us, enjoying the benefits when we experience them, and consistently doing what produces those benefits are three different things.
The same distinction applies to communication development. We can leave a Toastmasters meeting inspired by a wonderful speech, appreciate the feedback we have received and sincerely intend to practise before the next meeting. But unless we create the conditions for that practice to happen, our intentions may remain intentions.
Now, I don't know what they are doing on their phones. They might be resting between sets, following a training programme or attending to something important. But the observation illustrates a useful distinction.
Being physically present in a gym is not the same as exercising, and exercising is not automatically the same as training effectively towards a particular goal.
A gym membership provides access to equipment, facilities and opportunities. It does not, by itself, produce physical fitness. The outcome depends on what happens after someone walks through the door.
The same principle applies to Toastmasters.
Time spent in an environment is not the same as time spent developing a capability.
Psychologist K. Anders Ericsson and his colleagues explored the importance of deliberate practice in their influential 1993 research on expert performance. Their work distinguished purposeful activities designed to improve performance from simply repeating familiar activities.
Someone can perform the same task for years without systematically identifying and addressing weaknesses. Another person can improve substantially by practising specific aspects of performance, receiving useful feedback and adjusting their approach.
Later research has challenged some of the stronger claims made about how much practice alone explains expertise. Practice matters, but it is not the only influence on performance. Individual differences, opportunities, instruction and circumstances also contribute.
Nevertheless, the practical implication remains valuable. Improvement is more likely when practice has a purpose.
In Toastmasters, delivering another speech is an opportunity. But delivering a speech with a specific developmental objective, receiving feedback and applying that feedback to the next speech creates a more intentional learning process.
The meeting provides the opportunity. The member must participate in the learning.
Why Speaking Becomes Less Frightening
For many people, the greatest obstacle to public speaking is not a lack of ideas. It is fear.
The heart begins to race. Breathing changes. Muscles become tense. Thoughts that seemed clear during preparation suddenly become difficult to retrieve. Some people begin avoiding speaking opportunities altogether.
One useful way to understand how confidence develops is through the psychology of exposure.
When people repeatedly encounter manageable situations they fear, under appropriate conditions, they may gradually become better able to tolerate those situations. The important word is manageable.
Simply forcing someone into an overwhelming experience does not guarantee improvement. Effective exposure involves learning, context, expectations and opportunities to discover that feared outcomes may be less likely or less catastrophic than anticipated.
Toastmasters can offer conditions that support this kind of development.
A new member might begin by introducing themselves. Later, they may answer a Table Topics question, deliver a prepared speech, evaluate another member or lead an entire meeting. Each activity creates another opportunity to practise speaking in front of others.
Over time, the unfamiliar can become familiar.
This is related to principles used in exposure-based approaches to anxiety, although ordinary Toastmasters participation should not be confused with formal psychological treatment or systematic desensitisation.
The broader lesson is that confidence does not always have to precede action. Sometimes confidence develops because we act, discover what we can manage and gradually expand what we are willing to attempt.
Confidence Is Built Through Evidence
Psychologist Albert Bandura introduced the concept of self-efficacy, which concerns people's beliefs about their ability to perform particular actions successfully. One important source of self-efficacy is mastery experience.
When we attempt something difficult and succeed, we acquire evidence that we may be capable of doing it again.
Consider a new Toastmasters member who struggles to speak for two minutes. Their first speech may be uncomfortable. They may forget part of their message, speak too quickly or lose their train of thought. But they finish.
The next time, they prepare differently. They remember more. They manage their breathing. They begin to notice improvement. Eventually, a task that once seemed almost impossible becomes something they can undertake with reasonable confidence.
The individual has not merely received encouragement. They have accumulated evidence of capability.
Toastmasters also offers opportunities to observe others. Watching someone who once struggled become a confident speaker can change what we believe is possible for ourselves. Encouragement from fellow members may also help people attempt challenges they would otherwise avoid.
These experiences help explain why the social environment of Toastmasters can be so valuable. People are not developing in isolation. They are learning alongside others.
Value of a Community That Wants You to Improve
There is another reason I have remained involved in Toastmasters: the people.
Across clubs, cities and countries, I have met individuals whose experiences, generosity, intelligence and willingness to contribute have enriched my life. Some have become friends. Others have challenged my thinking, introduced me to new perspectives or demonstrated qualities I admire.
This is a dimension of Toastmasters that cannot be adequately captured by counting speeches or educational awards.
Human beings are social learners. We observe, imitate, compare, encourage, question and support one another. A well-functioning Toastmasters club provides opportunities for all these activities.
A member who delivers an imperfect speech may receive constructive feedback rather than ridicule. A member who hesitates to volunteer may find encouragement from someone who remembers experiencing the same fear.
A person who has never chaired a meeting may discover leadership capabilities through accepting a role. Not every club creates these conditions equally well, and members' experiences will differ. But the potential is significant.
A learning community can make difficult developmental work easier to sustain because the individual is no longer attempting it alone. And that brings me to something I believe deserves much more recognition.
The Extraordinary Work of Volunteers
Toastmasters is sustained at club and district level by people who volunteer their time, energy and expertise.
Think about what it takes to keep a club functioning. Meetings must be organised. Members need support. Roles must be assigned. Guests welcomed. Educational progress encouraged. Conflicts resolved. Finances managed. Leaders developed.
Someone must do these things, and much of that work happens outside the meeting itself. As a former club president, area director and division director, I have experienced some of those responsibilities firsthand. The work is not always glamorous.
Sometimes it involves following up with people who have not responded, finding volunteers at short notice, helping struggling clubs or dealing with organisational problems that the average meeting attendee never sees. Yet people continue to do it. Why?
There are undoubtedly different motivations. Some want leadership experience. Others enjoy contributing to a community. Some believe deeply in the organisation's educational mission. Whatever their individual reasons, their contribution is substantial.
Consider First Hanseatic Toastmasters in Hamburg, a club that has been part of my Toastmasters journey and is approaching an important anniversary. A club does not continue serving members over 25 years simply because someone once had a good idea.
Its continued existence requires successive generations of people willing to take responsibility. That is an achievement worth recognising. An institution may provide the framework, but people keep it alive.
When a Club Creates Something New
On 14 October 2026, I attended a special members-only meeting at Mercury Toastmasters in Berlin. The meeting had an interesting format: Pitch Your Project Night.
Rather than following only the usual meeting structure, members were given an opportunity to present projects they were working on. I particularly appreciated the initiative of the club's new president, Jasper Kehlert and the board in introducing this idea.
It demonstrated something important about a healthy learning community. Tradition and innovation need not be opposites. A club can respect the educational principles of Toastmasters while experimenting with new ways to help members practise.
Pitching a project is a particularly useful exercise because it introduces challenges that differ from delivering a prepared speech. The speaker must explain an idea, establish its relevance, communicate value and respond to questions.
The audience may be supportive, but its questions can still be demanding.
That evening, my project was Presentation School's Presentation License programme and the scholarship opportunity we were making available to professionals in Berlin.
I used the analogy of obtaining a German driving licence.
When I moved to Germany, I already knew how to drive. But I still needed to meet the requirements for a German licence. I went to a driving school, received instruction, completed the required learning and passed the assessment.
The analogy helped me explain an educational question.
What if professional presentation and communication capabilities could be developed through a similarly structured process involving instruction, practice, professional feedback and standardised assessment?
The audience responded positively to several aspects of the pitch. But the most interesting part came afterwards.
The Moment of Truth
During the questions, someone asked why a person already attending Toastmasters would need another presentation training programme. It was a reasonable question.
In responding, I referred to something another Toastmaster had told me: that they knew someone who had been in Toastmasters for thirteen years but still struggled to deliver a speech.
I wanted to make a distinction between belonging to a learning organisation and developing demonstrable competence. My argument was that membership alone cannot guarantee improvement. But that was not necessarily what everyone heard.
One person wrote in the feedback that my pitch risked communicating the idea that someone could attend Toastmasters for years and still not improve.
Another summarised the message they took away as: "Toastmasters attendance doesn't make me a good presenter."
Someone advised me to explain what Presentation School offered in addition to Toastmasters rather than appearing to diminish the organisation.
That feedback made me think.
I had not intended to criticise Toastmasters. I had served the organisation in multiple leadership roles. I remained a member. I valued its people, its educational philosophy and its contribution to my own development.
Yet some listeners had taken away a different message from the one I intended. Was their interpretation unreasonable? Not necessarily.
I had introduced a negative example about a Toastmasters member while explaining the value of another educational programme. The audience was entitled to consider the implications of that comparison.
And here was the irony.
I teach communication professionally. One of the central principles of my work is that communication cannot be assessed solely by what the speaker intended to say. We must also consider what the audience understood.
That evening, Toastmasters gave me an opportunity to apply that principle to myself.
What We Intend Is Not Always What Others Understand
Communication is not simply the transmission of words from one person to another. Listeners interpret what they hear through their experiences, knowledge, expectations and understanding of the situation.
Psychologist Herbert H. Clark's work on common ground helps explain why communication depends on more than the literal meaning of words. People rely on assumptions about what others know, believe and intend.
When those assumptions differ, the same statement can produce different interpretations.
At Mercury Toastmasters, I was thinking about learning design, participation and accountability. Some listeners were thinking about what my example implied concerning the effectiveness of Toastmasters. Both perspectives were understandable.
My mistake was not necessarily the principle I was trying to communicate. It was failing to sufficiently anticipate how the example might be interpreted in that setting. There is a lesson here for anyone who communicates professionally.
Being correct about a principle does not automatically mean we have communicated it effectively.
An explanation can be factually defensible yet poorly suited to its audience. And feedback can reveal something useful even when we disagree with the interpretation that produced it.
The most productive response is not always to explain why the audience was wrong. Sometimes it is to ask what we could have communicated differently.
Thirteen Years in Toastmasters: What Does It Really Tell Us?
Let us return to the example of the person who reportedly spent thirteen years in Toastmasters but struggled to deliver a speech. First, we should acknowledge what we do not know.
We do not know how often the person attended, which roles they undertook, what challenges they faced or what progress they may have made. We cannot responsibly diagnose their development from a secondhand account.
But the example raises a useful general question. Can someone remain in a learning environment for many years without developing a particular capability to a high standard?
Certainly. The same is true of almost any learning environment. A person can belong to a gym without becoming physically fit. Someone can own hundreds of books without developing a regular reading habit. An individual can attend language classes for years while avoiding the conversations that would help them become fluent.
The institution provides opportunities. Development depends on many additional factors, including participation, instructional quality, practice, feedback, motivation and individual circumstances.
This does not make the institution irrelevant. It means that the relationship between opportunity and outcome is not automatic. And there is another consideration. Not everyone joins Toastmasters for the same reason.
One person may want to become an outstanding public speaker. Another may want to become comfortable introducing themselves at meetings. Someone else may value the friendships, leadership experience or sense of belonging.
We should be careful not to judge every member against a goal they may never have chosen.
The appropriate question is not simply whether someone has become an exceptional speaker. It is whether the learning environment is helping them make progress towards the goals that matter to them.
What Toastmasters and Intensive Training Can Learn From Each Other
Toastmasters offers an ongoing learning community. Members can develop at different speeds, pursue different goals and participate in ways that reflect their circumstances. This flexibility is one of its strengths.
An intensive training programme operates under different conditions.
At Presentation School, for example, our advanced training is organised around a defined curriculum, small cohorts, repeated practice, individual feedback and assessment against specified capabilities.
Participants are expected to demonstrate what they have learned. The distinction is not that one approach works while the other does not. They address different educational needs.
A continuing community offers sustained opportunities for development, relationships and practice. A structured intensive creates a concentrated period in which specific learning outcomes receive focused attention.
Some people will benefit from one. Others may benefit from both. In fact, there is no contradiction in being an active Toastmasters member while also undertaking professional communication training.
A musician can participate in an orchestra and still take private lessons. An athlete can belong to a running club and still work with a coach.
The different environments can complement one another. What matters is understanding the developmental purpose of each.
How to Get More From Your Toastmasters Experience
If you are already a Toastmasters member, I would encourage you to approach your next few meetings as a deliberate learning experiment. Choose one capability you wa
nt to improve.
Perhaps you speak too quickly. Perhaps your explanations lack structure. Perhaps you struggle to answer unexpected questions or to make complex ideas understandable.
Identify the capability clearly enough that you can observe progress. Then create opportunities to practise it.
Ask an evaluator to pay particular attention to that area. Record a speech where appropriate. Review what happened. Make one adjustment and try again.
Do not measure your progress only by how many speeches you have delivered. Ask what you can now do that you previously found difficult.
And occasionally volunteer for a role that stretches you beyond what has become comfortable.
This is where Toastmasters can become especially valuable. It provides recurring opportunities to test your developing capabilities in front of real people. You do not have to wait for an important business presentation or a high-stakes professional event to discover what needs improvement.
You can practise before the stakes become high.
Why I Still Go to Toastmasters
I began this article with a question about why someone should go to Toastmasters.
After years of membership, leadership responsibilities, friendships, speeches, evaluations and learning experiences, my answer is broader than it would have been when I first walked into that meeting in Budapest.
Go because you want to develop your communication capabilities. Go because speaking in front of others becomes easier when you have opportunities to practise. Go because feedback can reveal things about your communication that you cannot easily see yourself.
Go because leadership is not learned only by reading books about leadership. Go because you will meet people whose experiences differ from your own. And go because being part of a community in which people are willing to contribute to one another's development is valuable in itself.But go with an important understanding. Membership provides opportunities for growth, but it does not guarantee improvement.
You still have to participate. You still have to practise. You still have to accept feedback, examine your assumptions and take responsibility for your development.
I went to Mercury Toastmasters that evening to explain what we were building at Presentation School. I received encouragement, thoughtful questions and some criticism.
The criticism was particularly valuable because it made me examine the difference between what I believed I had communicated and what some people actually understood.I had gone there to present an idea. I left with a better understanding of how that idea had been received. That alone made the evening worthwhile.
And perhaps that is the most convincing reason I can give you to join Toastmasters.
After all these years, after serving as a club president, area director and division director, and after building a professional education business dedicated to communication, I can still walk into a Toastmasters meeting and learn something about communicating better.
That is not a weakness of the institution. It is one of its greatest strengths.
Research and Further Reading
Toastmasters International. Our History and About Toastmasters. Official accounts of the organisation's origins, experiential learning philosophy and educational activities.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406.
Macnamara, B. N., & Maitra, M. (2019). The Role of Deliberate Practice in Expert Performance: Revisiting Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Römer (1993). Royal Society Open Science, 6, 190327.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge University Press.
Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention–Behavior Relations: A Conceptual and Empirical Review. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772143000003
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation Intentions: Strong Effects of Simple Plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493
Keep Your Flag Flying!
By Kunle Orankan | Founder, Presentation School
Comments