According to Wikipedia, PowerPoint was originally named “Presenter” and was designed for Macintosh computers by Dennis Austin and Thomas Rudkin, who worked for a company called Forethought, Inc. Microsoft purchased Forethought in 1987, renamed the program “PowerPoint” and officially launched it in May 1990 as part of its Office software suite. It has been both the crux and the bane of presentations ever since.
Peter Bregman, head of his own global management consulting firm (PeterBregman.com), was exasperated with the consistent lack of energy and focus in the room at offsites in which he participated. In a blog post for Harvard Business Review (hbr.org) in 2011, Bregman commented that people tune out to other people’s presentations because nothing is required of them, or they “poke holes because, if they don’t tune out, it’s the most interesting thing to do when someone is trying to prove there are no holes.”
Bregman recounts writing this in a journal following one of his presentations many years ago: “That was dreadful. Not only was I bored, everyone else was bored too. Disengaged. I’m terrible at facilitating these kinds of meetings. But they’re so important. I’ve got to get better at it. I need to find a better way.”
He says he has experimented with alternative presentation methods with varying degrees of success. “Over time, I identified a single factor that makes the biggest difference between a great meeting and a poor one: PowerPoint. The best meetings don’t go near it,” Bregman states.
“PowerPoint presentations inevitably end up as monologues. They focus on answers, and everyone faces the screen,” he says. “Meetings should be conversations. They should focus on questions, not answers, and people should face each other. I know it sounds crazy, but I’ve found that even the hum of the projector discourages dialogue.”
There is, of course, a lot more that goes into a successful meeting, Bregman concedes. But following the “no PowerPoint rule” has the greatest impact because it keeps the energy where it should be: solving problems together.
It’s not the tool, it’s the person using it
Bregman’s HBR rage against PowerPoint triggered a number of responses in defense of the presentation tool.
“There’s a lot to be said for encouraging a more conversa-tional, discursive style of meeting [but] I feel a bit sorry for poor old PowerPoint. It’s not his fault that everyone abuses him and makes him say dull stuff. I’m sure it was designed as a visual tool,” one poster states.
Another poster was more adamant while defending PowerPoint:
“I work for a firm that employs over 6,000 globally. Saying that the solution to having more dynamic meetings is not using PowerPoint is, frankly, simple-minded, unrealistic and ignorant…The products that are developed for businessmen in suits to sell primarily involve massive amounts of calculations, analysis and graphic designs, all of which are discussed in meetings with other engineers/technicians/manufacturers. These presentations simply cannot be delivered with handouts or merely discussion. PowerPoint is a powerful tool used for such meetings, whereby all members can actively participate in the observance of the topic being discussed. If I, or anyone in my team, tried to use a flipchart (as Mr. Bregman recommends) to draw conclusions on a product to be developed or a process to be improved, the person would have zero credibility when trying to make a firm conclusion using such a method.”
Another commenter said he went in search of what PowerPoint’s creators felt about the evolution and use of their invention. “I found some comments from Bob Gaskins and Dennis Austin in a [June 2007] Wall Street Journal article. ‘People often make very bad use of PowerPoint’ was Gaskin’s comment. He said it was envisaged as a quick summary of something longer and better thought out.”
And the debate continues.
