In this article
A story is a structure for understanding. It does not require a dramatic opening, a fictional villain or an emotional claim. In a business setting, an accurate example and a clear trade-off may be more persuasive than a polished performance.
Presentation storytelling tips: start with the decision
Duarte describes storytelling as a way to structure business presentations. The seven edits below are a practical workplace checklist, not a reproduction of its seven examples.
1. Write the audience's decision in one sentence
Before opening presentation software, finish: “After this talk, this audience needs to…” Choose a concrete verb: approve, compare, prioritise, investigate or implement.
“Understand our project” is too broad. “Approve a limited trial with an agreed review date” gives the talk a clear purpose.
If the audience has no decision to make, identify the useful understanding or action instead. Do not force a sales-style call to action into a neutral briefing.
2. Choose one relevant problem
Show the difficulty your recommendation addresses. Avoid opening with company history unless it changes how the audience should judge the proposal.
Hypothetical example: A team requests approval to revise an onboarding process. The opening describes a new employee receiving conflicting instructions from two departments.
That incident provides a route into the problem. It does not establish how widespread it is; the next section must supply appropriate evidence.
3. Show the turning point
A turning point is the information or event that changed your understanding. It may be a failed assumption, a new constraint or a pattern in the evidence.
Explain why the current approach no longer seems sufficient. “We have always wanted to improve onboarding” is weaker than describing the specific ambiguity now needing attention.
Keep the sequence honest. Do not present a recommendation as something that emerged from research if it was chosen before the research began.
4. Match evidence to the claim
An anecdote can illustrate a problem. It cannot, by itself, establish its frequency or prove that your proposed solution will work.
Use records, observations or analysis appropriate to the claim. State the period, scope and uncertainty when they affect interpretation.
Place detailed evidence where listeners can inspect it, such as an appendix or follow-up document. The main slide should communicate the conclusion without hiding its basis.
5. Make one trade-off visible
A useful presentation admits what the recommendation costs or gives up. More consistency may require additional review time; faster delivery may reduce opportunities for customisation.
Present at least one credible alternative if the decision genuinely has options. Avoid comparing your proposal only with an obviously poor choice.
Explain which condition would make you reconsider. This helps the audience assess your judgement rather than merely your confidence.
6. Use slide titles that advance the argument
Replace labels such as “Background” and “Analysis” with accurate statements that explain the slide's role.
| Label-only title | More useful title |
|---|---|
| Current process | Two teams give different ownership instructions |
| Proposed solution | One named owner would resolve the handover gap |
| Next steps | Trial the revised instruction with one intake group |
These are hypothetical examples. In your own deck, make sure each statement is supported by the slide beneath it.
If the titles read coherently in sequence, the presentation has a visible route. If they do not, reconsider the order before redesigning the visuals.
7. Close with an owned next step
Name the action, responsible person, timing and review condition. “Let's improve communication” leaves too much unresolved.
For a proposal, distinguish the decision you need today from later implementation choices. For a briefing, explain where people can ask questions or find the current instruction.
Do not introduce a major new claim on the final slide. The ending should make the next move easier, not start another argument.
Rehearse with a sceptical listener
Ask a colleague to identify the decision, strongest evidence and main limitation. Then invite the most reasonable objection.
If they cannot explain your proposal without using your exact words, simplify the mechanism. If they understand it but remain unconvinced, investigate the evidence rather than adding more dramatic language.
Time the talk at a comfortable pace. Keep a shorter version ready in case the meeting changes.
Give every slide a role
Label each slide in your private outline as problem, evidence, option, recommendation or action. A slide can serve more than one role, but you should be able to explain why it is there.
If several slides repeat the same role without adding substance, combine them. If the recommendation arrives without evidence or alternatives, add the missing reasoning before polishing the design.
Check transitions aloud. Explain why the next slide follows from the previous one rather than saying only “moving on.”
Keep an evidence appendix for questions that need detail. Do not use the appendix to hide limitations that affect the main conclusion.
This simple role check can expose a presentation assembled from available material rather than designed around a reader's decision. Reordering a few slides may improve the talk more than rewriting every sentence.
Check the whole presentation
Before presenting, check that every example is accurate or clearly hypothetical, every figure has an identifiable source and every internal term is explained.
Remove slides that serve only to show how much work you completed. Your audience needs enough evidence to judge the recommendation, not a diary of preparation.
Explore Storify, the broader guide to storytelling in presentations and storytelling in meetings for related formats.
For your next deck, apply these seven edits to the outline first. The most useful improvement may be a clearer decision, not another slide.
AI-assisted researched guidance from PeakBelt. Hypothetical examples are labelled in the text. See our editorial approach.