Powerpoint Poisoning- Killing Creativity

I read an interesting article* about ‘what kills meetings’ – why meetings became unproductive and boring.   One of the symptoms was ‘lack of engagement’; people either took no part, or became hostile to the process.

It turned out that the main factor was the use of Powerpoint presentations.  This is because they imposed too much structure.  They provided a ‘fait accomplis’, in which people were either not required to participate, or had not been given a chance to contribute.  The people were either indifferent or energised for the wrong reasons.

This is not dissimilar to what can happen when people are supposed to be creative, they don’t want to sound foolish – they are used to coming up with sensible, logical ideas, not ridiculous ones and they dismiss the process and do not engage.

What particularly interested me was that one of the ways for overcoming this was the use of questions.  Questions energise.  People cannot resist reacting to a question (it is the reason why quiz shows have been so popular since the beginning of television).  When somebody asks a question in a meeting, people are being asked to contribute – it engages people and the meeting becomes more interactive.

Think about it, in a presentation, all you are required to do is listen, you want people to think and the best way to make people think is to question.

 But, as the article notes, this can be a source of uncertainty – you never quite know where it will take you.

Powerpoint presentations are great if you want to explain something, but should play no part in complex problem solving.  If you have a problem to solve, then one of the ground rules should be
- no Powerpoint presentations.

http://blogs.hbr.org/bregman/2011/04/the-1-killer-of-meetings-and-w.html

The Parent's Dilemma - Intractable Problems

Difficult problems do not always require a creative solution.  Some problems are seemingly intractable and all the solutions on offer are undesirable.

The parent’s dilemma can be described as follows.

Their child wants something that may not be in their best interest, what does the parent do?

a.    Give them what they want, knowing that it could be harmful in the long term,
b.    Deny the child’s request, knowing they will be upset and unhappy.

This is a classic situation that many parents will be familiar with, and typifies many problems -  how to choose between two unacceptable solutions.  (I recognise that some parents will have no problem resolving this problem either way, but hopefully we can see the principle).

Rene Descartes advised that when dealing with problems, ‘to examine every part of the problem in the smallest detail’.  If we apply this dictum to this problem, we find that each option combines three factors, an emotional outcome, an act and an immediate link between them.  The key to dealing with the problem is to separate the link between the two. 

For example, we could link an undesirable factor with a counterbalancing factor.  So, we could grant the child’s wish on condition that it is dependant on something that is in the child’s interest.  This will probably generate a few moans, but no outrage and the good deed will offset the harm - and assuage the parent’s guilt.

This may sound like a flippant example, but the principle is sound.  By examining every element of the problem and breaking the assumed link between factors, it is possible to bring about an acceptable solution to a difficult problem.