What I’d like to see in PowerPoint slide design in 2009

by Terry Gault

Laura Bergells from the Maniactive blog has written a provocative post on the current fashion in PowerPoint and called for a new direction in 2009.  Olivia Mitchell of Speaking about Presenting invited a number of bloggers to write a post on their own blogs on the theme “What I’d like to see in PowerPoint slide design in 2009".  My contribution follows:

Stephen Denning would not agree.

The post seems to posit that simple visuals need to be balanced by data and analysis in order to enhance the credibility of the speaker.  Data and analysis will be useful for a certain segment of the audience (engineers, geeks, scientists, left-brainers) and will enhance the credibility of the speaker.  Having researched data and having done analysis will enhance the confidence of the speaker which will be communicated through a thousand subtle non-verbal signals that the audience will subconsciously process.

However, data and analysis is far less critical than a compelling and well-constructed story.  In fact, data and analysis is not even necessary to sway an audience.

I offer as an example the case of Stephen Denning as put forth in his book, “The Springboard: How Storytelling Ignites Action in Knowledge-Era Organizations.”   Denning’s book describes how his life and career were transformed by the age-old art and practice of storytelling.

Denning was in charge of a Knowledge Management initiative at the World Bank in the spring of 1996.  He crafted a presentation with impeccable logic supporting his argument for knowledge management with well-crafted charts and metrics.  The result?  Audiences were lukewarm or even openly skeptical. The most common response was, “We’re a bank, right?”   He was making no headway at all.  He writes that the audiences were “eyeing the exits and looking for a way to escape.”

Then during a conversation over lunch, a colleague shared a story that became the centerpiece of his presentations.  Denning notices immediately that his audiences are getting it.  They understand the meaning and the value of sharing knowledge.  His presentation begins to click.

However, when Denning does not use the story, the conversation ends up in a tangle of debate.  His audiences question the feasibility of the idea.  When this happens, he tries telling the story but he finds it much “less effective in extinguishing a fire than in getting one started.” 

When he uses the story, he doesn’t get the same kinds of debate.  Instead, the audiences begin to search for ways to implement it within their organization. People ask him, “Why don’t we do it?  What’s the next step?”

During this period, he attends a conference delivered by an expert in knowledge management.  As he listened to the speaker expound on his elaborate flow charts, he found himself struggling to follow along, even though he was invested in understanding the material!  He says, “Here I am, already practicing the very process of knowledge sharing … and I am having difficulty following it.  Imagine what a newcomer must be feeling!”  At this point, Denning realizes that his audiences are having the same experience of his flow charts.  He is beginning to suspect that the analysis is part of the problem, not the solution.

Finally, Denning gets an opportunity to present his thinking to the top level management.  This may be the moment his project attains executive sponsorship.  The catch is that his time is very limited.  He does not have time to cover the analytics and charts as well as the story.  He decides instead to tell the story and just extrapolate from the story to his ideas about knowledge sharing.  That’s all he has time for. 

The results seem even more positive.  He notices that though there are people in the audience who have seen his charts in previous presentations but not a single one ever asks what happens to the chart.  It’s not just that no one misses it.  No one even remembers it.  It’s disappeared into a black hole of oblivion.

The presentation is easier to deliver. He doesn’t have to answer any questions about the boxes in the chart. It’s easier to listen to, simpler, more interesting, more easily understood … without the charts.

There is a deeper, more fundamental question than striking a balance between “Lotsa bullet points” and “Simple pictures”.

The key is that the story must reflect a fundamental truth that the audience buys into.  If it does not buy into it, data and analysis will NOT add any value whatsoever, and may actually muddy the waters.  I am not saying “Don’t do analysis” or “Don’t have data to support your case.”  You should do your homework and have those at the ready, if requested.  My experience is that audiences simply don’t need data and analysis to make a decision.  They are comparing your story to their own real-world experience.  If your story passes the basic “sniff test” (“Do I believe this story?”) audiences rarely care about your data and analysis.

photo credit: cogdogblog

 

Subscribe to the Speakfearlessly blog>>

Read more articles from The Henderson Group>>