How To Not Lose Your Audience In The Details
At senior levels, more data doesn't make the argument stronger. It dilutes clarity. Find out the problem to solve, then filter your entire response through that lens.
Want to up-level your executive communication? My cohort-based course, Mastering Executive Presence & Communication with AI, starts on May 25. Become a paid subscriber to this newsletter and get 20% off (the highest discount offered)!
Also, I have 2 spots open for executive coaching clients looking to accelerate their careers starting in June (L6+ only). Connect via a free Intro Call to learn more!
“But I had the right answer” is a common retort I hear among high performers. Like them, I believed that if I had the data and did the analysis, then I would surely be able to influence others to “see it my way.” However, at the senior levels, more data doesn’t make the argument stronger. It dilutes clarity.
Our instinct to bring more data comes from our school days. In our early years, we were taught to back up our arguments with research and cite our sources. We showed up to carefully curated forums where we were asked to argue our logic and defend our thesis. At leadership levels, no one is sitting around waiting for you to give your arguments in long speeches. Business decisions need to be made with time as a key constraint. And so, rather than defaulting to getting yet another analysis done, consider these three other approaches instead.
Option 1: Create more trust (through others)
When I can’t get someone to agree with me, my instinct is to get more data to back up my logic. “Here are reasons A, B, and C why my method is better. Don’t you agree?” However, if the other person doesn’t trust me enough to trust the data or my arguments, then I can get 3 more data points or repeat the current arguments until I’m blue, and it will not make a difference.
Here’s what to do instead: Come up with 3-5 other ways of influencing this person without adding more information by default. Try going through another person whom they trust more than you. Let someone else try to make the case. Try a different way of having the conversation, leading with curiosity and questions instead of facts. Try creating a different forum, where they can listen to the debates from a safe place without having to give their two cents (yet).
Option 2: Lead with the conclusion
When preparing for executive reviews, we like to build up the context, talk about the risks and caveats, and then arrive at the conclusion. It sounds like this:
“If we launch on schedule and the next two tests hold and nothing changes with the macro environment and the team executes the roadmap... we should be able to meet our 2026 revenue targets.”
You’ve already lost the person halfway through. They probably won’t agree with your next step, because they didn’t really follow all the details.
Instead, lead with the conclusion, then add the caveats and risks.
“We are on track to meet our 2026 revenue targets. And here are three projects we need to continue to execute well on...”
Same information. Different perceptions of confidence and seniority. Write the conclusion first.
Option 3: Narrow down to ONE point
When we are pitching ourselves for a stretch project or new role, the impulse is to prove you’re qualified by listing everything you’ve accomplished. When someone asks, “Why are you qualified to lead this project (for this role)?” you launch into a 5-minute monologue of your accomplishments. Again, you’ll lose the decision-maker quickly. They don’t want to do the filtering to see what is truly relevant for the task at hand.
Instead, figure out what problem the decision-maker truly wants solved. What is the objective of the project? What is the main challenge or primary goal of the job? The person who lands the project isn’t necessarily the one who has the most accomplishments. They are the ones who walk in and say: here’s the problem you’re trying to solve, here’s the one thing in my background that’s most relevant, and here’s how I’d approach it.
When you’re preparing for an important conversation, stop asking “What do I need to include? Is this enough information?” and start asking “What does this person need to believe, and what’s the single most direct path to that belief?”
Find out what problem they’re trying to solve. Then filter your entire experience through that one lens to increase the relevance and quality of your response.
One of my clients summarized it well after trying the different approaches: “The information was the same and always there,” she told me. “I just kept thinking that if I organized it better, it would land. But really, it was just too much detail. What I was missing was the high-level point that is relevant to each person. The thing that gets their attention.”
That’s all folks! See you next week at 3:14 pm.
Yue
Great article Yue, thank you.
Influence is a tricky thing. I’m a data nerd …. so often fell into this data hole. A few things took me a long time to learn.
The first, is that there is rarely if ever, one truth. Facts can be interpreted vastly different ways. Predictions about the future … don’t even come close to any form of defined version of being “true”. So we’re left with instinct, judgement, ability to execute. Or more accurately, others perception of your instinct, judgement and ability. This was hard for me to learn.
The second lesson was that people make decisions with both their head and their heart. The balance may differ but it’s worthwhile learning how to speak to both. Sure provide data and insight, but also think about your audience wants, and needs. This could be for a better world, more safety, or for just a bigger swimming pool. In my experience, the heart is often more influential than you think.
This is a great breakdown. The point about trust is critical. Data (there we go again) shows that both organizations and people work together faster once trust is built, so consider ways to build that trust early.
The other element I'd consider is the purview of the individual you're working with. If this is a leader somewhere higher in the organization, they very likely have an elevated view with greater organizational context.
Their asymmetric knowledge is also influencing their perspective and they may not be able to share it with you (directly). This is where the recommendation to be curious may help you collect new data -- that could actually change your recommendation.