From Delivering Analysis to Making Recommendations
A VP I coached had a habit that looked like a strength. His executive updates carried everything he knew.
He was already one of the strongest performers in his business. The updates were more than the room needed. He kept answering questions nobody had asked.
Strong VPs rarely hear about this. The behavior is still producing results, so nobody says anything.
Today his updates open with the business issue and what he recommends. Then he stops. The detail is still there for anyone who wants it.
That change is easy to describe. For a leader whose credibility was built on being thorough, it is a hard one to make.
Why thorough analysis stops being the finished product
For most of an engineering career the analysis is the product. A client pays for the calculation, the design review, the risk assessment, the report. The engineer who can explain every dependency is the one people trust.
That habit gets rewarded for fifteen years.
Then the audience changes. A CEO or a board wants to know what the firm should do.
At that level a senior leader is expected to make a recommendation. The analysis still matters. It becomes the input.
Nobody announces the shift or tells a new VP that the job has changed shape. The leader keeps bringing what always worked, and the executive team starts to wonder why they are doing the deciding.
There is a practical reason the room reacts that way. An executive team has more decisions than time. When a leader brings analysis without a recommendation, the decision goes back up the chain. The hardest part of the work has just been handed to the CEO.
The ACEC Research Institute's workforce study shows the job shifting with seniority. Compared with young professionals, the industry's most experienced people put materially higher value on presentation and public speaking. The same goes for strategic thinking tied to business goals and for understanding how the firm makes money.
Those are the skills of somebody who recommends.
The credibility trap: more detail can read as less command
Engineers have a particular reason to fall into this.
In a technical review the most complete answer wins. Missing a detail is how you lose credibility with peers. Years of that teach a leader that more information signals more command.
So the executive believes that more detail demonstrates control of the issue. In practice too much analysis makes the person look less decisive.
Pressure brings it out. A leader walks in planning to make a clear recommendation. The CEO challenges it. The leader retreats into analysis.
From the leader's side that feels responsible. More evidence seems like the honest answer to a challenge.
The CEO sees somebody who was asked for a view and went back to the data.
This is one way strong technical leaders end up labeled not quite ready. Their analysis is correct and their judgment is often sound. What the senior team keeps experiencing is a leader who has not committed to anything. Few executives will say that to the leader directly.
Telling that leader to communicate more concisely will not fix it. Concise analysis is still analysis. What helps is a structure the leader can prepare in advance and hold when the pushback comes.
The six questions that structure a recommendation
The recommendation itself fits in four lines.
Here is what I believe we should do. Here are the two or three facts that matter most. Here are the risks. Here is the decision I need from you.
Getting to those four lines takes more thought than building forty slides. These are the six questions I work through with a leader before any meeting where a recommendation is on the line:
What decision is being made?
What is the answer?
Which facts best support it?
What trade-offs must be acknowledged?
What level of detail does this audience need?
What questions are likely to come next?
The first one sounds obvious. Skip it and the meeting turns into an update, whatever the agenda says.
The second forces the commitment. Put the answer at the top, in one sentence, ahead of the supporting material.
The third is where the analysis earns its place. Out of everything the leader knows, two or three facts carry the argument. Choosing them is the skill.
Naming the trade-offs up front protects credibility. It tells the room the leader has seen the downside and still holds the view.
Level of detail changes by audience. A board, an executive committee and a client's leadership team need different depth on the same decision.
The last question is where the rest of the analysis goes. The leader prepares answers to the likely follow-ups and keeps them in reserve. Nothing is lost. It waits to be asked for.
What senior audiences are actually listening for
The ACEC Research Institute tested 53 separate skills with the engineering workforce. Analytical and critical thinking came in at 95 percent. The confidence to ask questions and engage with others tied it. Self-motivation and personal accountability followed at 94 percent.
Speaking up sits level with analysis in the industry's own ranking. Most firms still develop only one of them deliberately.
One executive interviewed for the same ACEC study named initiative among the hardest skills to teach, along with listening and knowing when to pick up the phone.
Put that next to the recommendation structure and the connection is plain. A recommendation is initiative in its most visible form. The leader has taken a position and asked for a decision with their name on it. Analysis without a recommendation leaves the ownership with the room.
So senior audiences listen for two things. What does this person think we should do? Will they own the result if we say yes?
The VP I mentioned earlier saw this when he started disagreeing with senior leaders. When he had a real case, he made it plainly. Here is the request. Here is what we are already committed to. Here is what this would cost. Your call.
He expected that to cost him relationships at the top. The opposite happened. Senior leaders respected his judgment more.
Practicing this inside real decisions rather than in a workshop
Most leaders who struggle here already understand the idea. The hard part is holding the recommendation when the CEO pushes back.
That is why this gets practiced on real meetings. A workshop role play has no stakes, and the person playing the CEO is not the CEO.
The method I use connects four points: the goal, the leadership capability the goal requires, the situation the leader is about to walk into and the behavior that situation calls for.
Take a market sector leader preparing for a regional president role. The capability that role requires is making recommendations the executive team can act on. Next month's executive committee meeting is the situation, with a decision on staffing a major pursuit on the agenda. The behavior is opening with the recommendation and holding it through the first challenge.
Before the meeting we work through the six questions. Afterward we look at one moment. When the pushback came, did the recommendation hold or did the leader go back to the analysis?
The VP I described earlier now does something similar before any senior conversation. He works out why the issue matters and what result his recommendation will produce. Then he answers the question once.
The people who judge readiness are the same people sitting in the meeting, so they see the difference the first time it happens.
Ready to sharpen how one of your leaders lands with the C-suite?
Pick a leader whose analysis you trust and whose recommendations you rarely hear.
Their next board presentation or executive committee discussion is the place to start. We prepare the recommendation together, then look at what happened when it met the room.
Comments