Insight |
|||
|
still feel the room mentally‘ check out’: biologically speaking, people’ s brains are on autopilot.
Paying attention Manta has this advice:“ To deliver truly engaging events, we need to create the right kind of‘ prediction errors’: small, meaningful surprises that the brain cannot fully anticipate. In practice, that means introducing novelty, moments of awe, playful elements, or unexpected formats, so long as they are tied to the purpose of the event rather than random gimmicks.”
He adds:“ Give people enough structure that they feel secure, then strategically break the pattern so their brains have a reason to wake up and say,‘ Wait, this is different. I should pay attention.’ We call it‘ paying attention’ to something because we pay with energy.”
But it’ s not only re-designing programmes and networking events that need to be looked at if we’ re to engage delegates and stakeholders. Manta’ s further advice for planners is to treat light, air, and temperature as cognitive variables, not logistical ones.
He takes the view that indoor air quality and comfort are not just HR
|
concerns, they directly affect cognition. Studies in offices and classrooms show that even moderate increases in indoor CO 2 within typical building ranges( around 950 – 1,000 ppm and above) are associated with measurable declines in decision‐making, concentration, and strategic thinking.
Manta illustrates this by saying:“ In a crowded ballroom with poor ventilation and no natural light, you are literally asking jet‐lagged brains to perform in low‐oxygen, high‐fatigue conditions. You cannot get a meaningful ROI from an audience that is biologically struggling to stay awake.”
Our reality check requires us to know which improvements could and should be made. Matey would like to see someone explicitly accountable for behaviour in every event team, not just logistics or content, someone who makes sure a behavioural layer is built into the planning process from the start, and not bolted on at the end as a‘ neuroscience-backed’ label.
She adds:“ Most event decisions are made without seriously considering whether they hold up against how people actually think and behave. We use outdated assumptions, generational stereotypes, attention
|
“ The programme needs to be treated as a behavioural journey, rather than a content delivery schedule” |
span myths, and the idea that logos on banners create brand memory.
“ The science disagrees, but the practices persist. In the future, only those teams that base their event decisions on human psychology and account for things like trust, emotional involvement, psychological value, belonging, and cognitive biases, which are currently not taken seriously enough, will win.”
Time for changes For meetings and conferences to make a meaningful impact for delegates, clients and stakeholders, changes are needed. Time for some tougher conversations with clients and stakeholders? Maybe.
Adding white space into programmes might feel challenging to some, but putting sponsors’ brands and products in front of tired brains makes no sense.
Manta suggests we shouldn’ t be too hard on ourselves.“ Often we don’ t know what we don’ t know, that’ s precisely why learning from each other is so valuable.”
His sentiment is correct, but it never hurts to have an unemotional reality check to assess what we believe we’ re doing at our conferences and meetings versus what we’ ve actually been delivering. n
|