Between the years 1998 and 2004 I taught public speaking.
One of the lessons was how seating arrangements in public speeches cause different retention-of-material and varying attitudes in the audience.
In a classic frontal-setting such as a classroom or seminar room where the speaker is in front and tables/chairs are lined up in rows, the front and middle seated people generally learn and retain the most. People in those seats also tend to have a more positive or eager-to-learn attitude. Those in the backseats, especially left and right, retain less and have a more skeptical attitude. Plenty of studies have been done on this.
The skeptical choose backseats subconsciously, to keep a distance between themselves and the speaker. Being in the back reduces the speakers impact on them.
This is the reason I choose round tables for my seminars. Round tables enable interaction between participants, for a more social and dynamic setting while also reducing fixation on the speaker. This doesn’t support focus on the speaker as a classroom setting would, but it creates more fun overall.
In smaller groups I choose a horse-shoe setting. The back side of the horse shoe is not excluded from learning-retention or energy-transfer because the speaker remains at their center, while those on the side retain information because they are closer. There is no hiding here and everyone gets a piece of the cake.
If there are no round tables, I remove the tables because they create a safety barrier between the speaker and audience behind which one hides body language and attitudes.
An ideal setting also leaves space between chairs. Crowdedness reduces personal space which leads to a decline in mood.
The Boardroom setting with two sides facing each other and the speaker at the end of the table is similar to horse-shoe, except with the table as energy-barrier and body-language mask. People directly facing each other instead of sitting at a slight angle is more confrontational or aggressive and can lead to arguments.
The circle without tables is ideal when it comes to energizing, friendliness, transparency and fun. But if the speaker or group leader joins the circle, it can undermine the speakers authority. The speaker is then subconsciously perceived as on equal standing with the circle rather than leading it – unless the speaker has such a strong presence that it balances out the equality.
Seating arrangement ultimately depends on context and purpose. In a Business context you probably want a little more authority, in a seminar context you want more fun.
Amazingly, studies also show that when the speaker stands on the right side of the stage (left from the audiences perspective) he or she is speaking to the right-brain (emotions, images) and on the left-side he or she is speaking to the left-brain (reason, analyzing). Comedians who know this, prefer standing on the left and those speaking on serious topics prefer to stand on the right. I usually stand in the middle and only move left or right for variation. I also sometimes move to the back of the room to address the people who are hiding.
In my seminars I tell people to switch positions every day or even after every break so that they gain multiple perspectives on the event. No position is good or bad, each comes with upsides and downsides. For example, in the back the power of the speaker to brainwash you is slightly reduced, but so is your learning retention.
In theaters the backseat problem is mitigated because the backseats are higher than the front seats. So both front and backseats are influenced to a similar degree.
There is much more to this but you can figure it out yourself if you understand the basics I just shared.
