Is one Flow Structure better than another? Not really. Some structures work especially well in particular situations. Opportunity/Leverage generally works well for investment presentations, and Form/Function generally works well for industry peer groups. But is there a right or wrong way to organize any particular presentation? No. In fact, the 16 Flow Structures overlap to some degree. The key is: Choose one or two Flow Structures for the entire presentation. Where presenters get into trouble is when they choose all 16 and sometimes all 16 on each slide.
When you do make your choice, you'll elevate your audience from the trees to the forest. They'll be able to follow your presentation easily, and by navigating them through the parts , you'll be sending them the subliminal message of Effective Management .
If you fail to choose, your presentation will drift, your audience will become confused and drift too, and you'll never get them to Point B. It's less important which Flow Structure you choose than that you make a choice. Here's an example from the world of politics of how critically important it is to choose and follow a Flow Structure. It's the State of the Union Address [1] delivered by President Bill Clinton in 1995 after losing his Congressional majority in the mid- term elections :
Can you tell which Flow Structure President Clinton was using? Don't feel bad; no one else could, either. There was none. In trying to be all things to all people, Clinton's choppy address prompted David S. Broder of The Washington Post , one of the nation's senior political commentators, to write, "It was a speech about everything, and therefore about nothing." That is not exactly the kind of review you want to receive for one of your presentations. Broder and most others in the audience suffered from full-blown MEGO syndrome. Just to make matters worse , at 82 minutes, the speech set a record as the longest State of the Union Address. Apparently, President Clinton (or his speech-writing team) learned a lesson. The next year, this was the outline for his speech: [2]
The President titled this speech "Seven Challenges," so the Flow Structure was that old warhorse, Numerical. Like all State of the Union Addresses, this was a complicated and lengthy speech, but the simplicity of the Flow Structure made it easy to follow. The audience in this case, the nation always knew where they were and where they were going. By way of comparison, let's look at President George W. Bush's watershed speech, his response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Having been in office only eight months, he had not yet had the opportunity to address a joint session of Congress, but given the urgency of that dramatic time, he now called for such a session. On September 20, he began his now-famous "War on Terrorism" speech this way:
By citing the solid condition of the country, President Bush began with the Form. He then moved on to demonstrate how it Functioned: in the courageous acts of the American people, in the unity of Congressional leadership, and in the outpouring of support from the rest of the world. Next, he turned to the September 11 attacks and the role of Al Qaeda, citing the Problem facing the nation. But with the wounds of the nation still fresh, he didn't stay with the Problem for very long. He promptly moved on to his planned Solutions: his demand that the Taliban give up supporting the terrorists, his confidence in the readiness of our armed forces, his establishment of an Office of Homeland Security, his call for assistance from other nations, and the role of the American people. The essence of his entire speech was captured in this memorable passage:
President Bush was widely praised for rising to the historic occasion with a forceful and eloquent speech. The clear Flow Structure he used helped him to provide guidance and reassurance to a disquieted nation. |