Posts

Why interaction matters: rethink every presentation If your slides could speak for themselves, they’d probably be asking for a raise. That’s the blunt truth: slides are tools, not a replacement for conversation. Too many presentations still masquerade as monologues—PowerPoint as a comfort blanket for poor structure and weak engagement. In a world where attention is contested, interaction is no longer optional; it’s the difference between being remembered and being background noise. I’ve been in boardrooms from Parramatta to Perth and have run workshops for teams in Melbourne CBD that thought “audience participation” meant applause at the end. The organisations that do interaction well are the ones that get results: better adoption of ideas, fewer post-meeting emails asking the same question, and real behavioural change. And yes, this runs counter to the belief—common among time-pressed execs—that the fastest route is to lecture for an hour and tick the box. It rarely is. Why interaction matters now more than ever There’s a simple physiological case for this. Attention is finite and fickle; Microsoft’s research famously found average human attention spans have dropped to around 8 seconds. That stat has been debated, but the underlying point stands: people aren’t wired to sit still and absorb long streams of information anymore. They need engagement—moments that force cognitive effort. Interaction also democratises the room. Instead of the presenter imposing a single narrative, the audience contributes, refines, and helps test assumptions. That can be messy. It can also be brilliant. When done well, interaction turns a one-way broadcast into a laboratory for ideas. Your attendees leave not only informed but invested. What interaction actually looks like (not the token Q&A) Let’s be clear: interaction isn’t tossing one question at the end and hoping someone speaks up. That’s a ritual that comforts the speaker more than it helps the audience. Meaningful interaction is baked into the architecture of the presentation. It might include: - Short, focused polls mid-section to see which pain point is real for this group. - A think-pair-share exercise where two people debate a proposition for three minutes and report back. - Live problem-solving: present a knotty case and invite three small groups to suggest solutions—then compare. - Strategic silence. Ask a question and wait. Count to ten. It’s uncomfortable, but that’s when people think. - Anonymous question channels for remote or shy participants; they’ll often shout the question worth answering. Two small rules I swear by: (1) prepare prompts—don’t rely on spontaneous genius from a room that’s already halfway through a day of meetings; (2) keep interactions short and purposeful. People tolerate—and reward—brevity. Open questions vs closed questions: use both, wisely Open-ended questions are the engine of insight. “What’s the biggest barrier you face with X?” invites nuance and surfaces assumptions. Closed questions, on the other hand, are diagnostic. “Do you currently use system A or B?” gets you a binary you can act upon. A neat trick I use in executive briefings: alternate. Start with a closed question to quickly map the room, then pivot to an open one that explores why the answers cluster the way they do. That shape keeps momentum and prevents the conversation from spiralling into unhelpful tangents. Polls and surveys: don’t overcomplicate them Polling tech is handy—cheap, immediate, and it breaks the ice. But don’t turn every slide into an interactive quiz. Use polls to make a point, illustrate divergence, or adjust course on the fly. If 70% of the room says they don’t use a tool you assumed was standard, that’s a pivot moment. Be ready to adapt. Group activities: small groups, big returns Think-pair-share and small group problem-solving are underrated in business settings. People process concepts differently when they explain them aloud. That’s learning-by-teaching; it’s low-stakes rehearsal for behaviour change. Real-world example: in one half-day workshop with a retail team in Brisbane, we broke people into product, sales and logistics groups. Each group had to imagine a rollout plan for a new loyalty scheme. The cross-pollination in the plenary that followed revealed assumptions that otherwise would have surfaced only when the program failed. The time invested up front saved weeks of firefighting later. The psychological backbone: why interactivity improves retention There’s a cognitive reason interactive methods work. Engaging with content—speaking about it, testing it, applying it—creates more neural pathways than passive listening. That’s the difference between hearing something and owning it. Active participation triggers problem-solving, emotional engagement and social reinforcement, which together cement memory. And don’t underestimate emotion. People remember how they felt as much as what they heard. Laughter, surprise, curiosity—these are retention multipliers. Handling the predictable objections “I don’t have time.” Then you’re probably not doing interaction right. A well-designed interactive element can be 3–7 minutes and yield much more value than 15 minutes of uninterrupted pontificating. If you’re constrained to 20 minutes, use one targeted poll and a quick pair discussion—far better than a compressed monologue. “What if the audience asks off-topic questions?” This can happen. The trick is to surface the question, thank the person, and park it where it belongs—on a visible flipchart or a digital board. You create a promise to address it at a designated time. The audience sees you’ve respected their contribution without derailing the session. “Interactivity is chaotic.” Yes. Good. That chaos is where insights live. But chaos must be scaffolded: set clear instructions, give timing, and nominate a facilitator in each group. Chaos without scaffolding is just noise. Technology: servant, not master Tech enables interaction—polling apps, anonymous Q&A platforms, collaborative boards—but it’s a tool, not a solution. I’ve seen sessions collapse because the presenter relied on a flaky connection or a voting app nobody could figure out. Test tech, always, and have a simple fallback (show of hands, sticky notes). Technology should lower friction, not introduce it. Managing hesitancy: creating a psychologically safe environment People don’t participate because they fear looking foolish. You can counter that in simple ways. Start with a low-risk prompt, or use anonymous channels. Celebrate partial answers. Use language that values process over perfection: “Tell us one idea that’s half-formed” invites risk-taking. A practice I’ve used with teams in Canberra: begin with a 90-second “no wrong answers” brainstorm on a silly topic—then transition to the real issue. It sounds quaint, but it signals permission to contribute. Time management and focus: choreography, not improvisation Interaction needs choreography. Map your run-sheet with timestamps and guardrails. Flag where you’ll take polls, where you’ll stop for group work, and what the deliverable is after each interaction. If you don’t manage the pacing, conversations will overrun and the meeting will feel unfinished. Also: give participants the outcome you need them to produce. Don’t ask for “thoughts.” Ask for “three one-line commitments” or “a single recommended metric.” It’s astonishing how much clearer answers become when the prompt is precise. When interruptions happen: how to turn disruption into value Unexpected questions, a dominant personality, or technical glitches—they all happen. The skill is in reframing disruption as data. If someone goes off-topic but passionately, that passion signals an underlying issue worth recognising. If a poll shows bewilderment, that’s permission to slow down. If a tech failure stops you, use the pause to surface the most interesting question in the room and have a discussion—often more valuable than anything on slide 12. Two opinions you may not like 1) End-of-session Q&A is overrated. Sprinkle interaction throughout. Save the time for synthesis, not a desperate final appeal for engagement. 2) Dense handouts and long slide decks are a liability. If you want people to act, give them less to read and more to do. Yes, that sounds brutal. It also works. Small practices that change outcomes - Open with a poll that matters. Signal you’ll adapt to the results. - Use an early micro-commitment: ask people to type one action they’ll take into the chat. It raises buy-in. - Repeat the gist. After a group discussion, summarise in 20 seconds to create closure. - Follow-up with one-sentence reminders. Behaviour change rarely sticks after one meeting. A word on measurement If you run training or present proposals, you must measure. Pre/post surveys, a quick 48-hour pulse check, or manager observation of a behaviour during the following month will tell you whether the interaction led to application. Measurement is not optional theatre; it’s the only way to know what worked. We do this in our workshops: short pre-session diagnostics and a three-week follow-up measure of intent vs action. You’d be surprised how quickly people revert to old habits unless they’re nudged. Final note — this isn’t a soft add-on Interaction is the mechanism that turns information into action. It’s how you test assumptions, surface resistance, build relationships and—ultimately—create change. Presentations are a rare opportunity to convene attention; use them wisely. Design for participation, be ruthless about timing, and treat disruption as a leading indicator, not a nuisance. Do fewer monologues. Ask one better question. Sources & Notes - Microsoft Canada. (2015). “Group project: Attention spans.” Microsoft Canada Attention Spans research; often cited in industry discussions about attention and technology.