Team effectiveness is not “bullet-izable*”

After a long day of reviewing the proposed annual plans for each of the company’s organizational groups, we all felt we had been drinking from a fire hose. The experience left the members of the executive team on edge as we broke for dinner and some social time.

By the next morning, a typically withdrawn group of managers was ready to vent their frustrations. The newest member of the team observed:

We will contribute better thinking and align ourselves for action if we spend less time reading PowerPoint slides in a meeting and spend more time preparing in advance for dialogue and deliberation.

Seeing proposals for the first time in a PowerPoint format drained the material of its nuances and didn’t provide sufficient opportunity for analysis or reflection. Of course this made sense. In the 2003 Wired article “PowerPoint Is Evil“, Edward Tufte argues that the program encourages “faux-analytical” thinking that favors the slickly produced “sales pitch” over the sober exchange of information.

Ruth Marcus adds that

The deeper problem with the PowerPointing of America — the PowerPointing of the planet, actually — is that the program tends to flatten the most complex, subtle, even beautiful, ideas into tedious, bullet-pointed bureaucratese.”   (PowerPoint: Killer App?)

Some leaders in the U.S. Military go so far as likening PowerPoint to an enemy. In a 2010 New York Times article “We Have Met the Enemy and He Is PowerPoint,” U.S. Brigadier General H.R. McMaster, who has banned the application’s use for military briefings, reflects

It’s dangerous because it can create the illusion of understanding and the illusion of control… Some problems in the world are not bullet-izable.*

Aligned commitment to action requires both nuanced understanding and sufficient opportunity to discuss implications, options, and tradeoffs. Whether the final decision results from group consensus or having a leader who declares the way forward – understanding and dialogue are critical success factors.

The team member who complained about PowerPoint had a good point. The way it was used in this situation served to inhibit deep understanding and prevent give- and-take conversations. By carefully designing a meeting agenda and interactive process, Centauric was able facilitate a conversation that transcended PowerPoint resulting in commitment to a clear well-considered plan of action.