Public speaking in Lausanne: should proposals be presented side by side?

When addressing a committee, giving each proposal its own narrative seems a natural approach. The managerial question is more specific: should speakers preserve that separation or make the proposals directly comparable before asking for a decision?

What the literature establishes

Christopher K. Hsee (1996, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes) shows that preferences can reverse depending on whether alternatives are evaluated separately or jointly. An attribute that is difficult to assess in isolation can carry more weight when another proposal provides a point of comparison. Presenting the same information therefore does not guarantee that it will carry the same weight in a judgement.

The mechanism: making a criterion evaluable

Christopher K. Hsee, George Loewenstein, Sally Blount and Max H. Bazerman (1999, Psychological Bulletin) develop this explanation in a review and theoretical analysis of preference reversals. Evaluability here means how easily someone can assess whether a particular attribute value is favourable or unfavourable. As a possible application, technical performance that is difficult to interpret on its own may become a deciding factor when placed alongside that of a competing solution.

The premature conclusion

One might conclude that a comparison table necessarily produces a better decision. These studies instead establish that the evaluation mode can change preferences; they do not demonstrate that every preference resulting from a comparison is superior. A difference that is easy to compare may still be secondary to the objective being pursued. (our executive and employee training programmes)

What the evidence cannot promise

These studies are not a direct test of oral presentations to committees in Lausanne. In practice, separating proposals also changes memory demands, while placing them side by side depends on the selection of criteria and units. Attributing every preference change to evaluability would therefore be excessive without controlling these dimensions.

A practical check in Lausanne

Within SHR's « Public Speaking & impact » programme, an exercise in Lausanne could address a decision familiar to medtech companies, higher education institutions, international sports organisations and scale-ups across the Lake Geneva region: choosing between pilot projects. Randomly assign participants to two formats — proposals presented separately or side by side — while keeping the facts, criteria, units and presentation time identical, then collect individual preferences before any discussion. Measure the proportion choosing each project in each group and ask participants which criterion determined their choice. A difference would indicate sensitivity to format worth investigating, not the automatic superiority of one presentation or an already established local effect. To go further: explore the Public Speaking & Impact training in Lausanne in the canton of Vaud, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.

In pictures: Public Speaking & Impact in Lausanne

• public speaking & impact
• Lausanne
• research
• training lausanne