The power of explaining ‘why’ in getting actions and decisions

The power of explaining ‘why’ in getting actions and decisions

I have been enjoying a terrific discussion with one of my corporate clients this week that has some insights for you also.

My client is head of strategy at a sovereign wealth fund who has asked me to work with some of her less experienced colleagues.

In reviewing one of the storylines we built in a coaching session she had a question for me that nails one of the biggest challenges I see in articulating recommendations and business cases.

She said: “It feels like the author told his readers about the model but did not explain why this is a good model.


This is a common trap when preparing recommendations and I want to share some thoughts on how to avoid it.

The ‘Pitch Pattern' provides a useful frame to explain what I mean and illustrate how to avoid this trap.

I have worked through the pattern here point by point, italicising the reasoning elements to help you see what I mean.

Point 1 – We understand the problem / opportunity. This point demonstrates that you have defined the problem accurately and insightfully. For example, you might say:

Our project is behind schedule and puts our ability to meet our quarterly goals at risk. Here is why:

  • Half the team has been away ill over the past two weeks, seriously affecting our ability to deliver on A, B and C
  • If we do not deliver A, B and C before month end, Team Z won't be able to start their program of work.


Note that I did not just say “half the team has been away ill” without explaining why that matters. Likewise, I explained why it mattered that ABC may not be delivered by month end, rather than just stating that they may not be delivered.

Point 2 – We have a great solution. It is tempting here to describe the solution without explaining why it is the right solution. This is where my client came unstuck. For example he said something like this:

We suggest ‘borrowing' two people from Team Z to help us get back on track.

  • Mary has the right skills to complement Fred's work and is currently under utilised
  • Bill can quickly fill hole X, and is currently working on tasks that are not time sensitive


Note that I did not just say ‘We suggest ‘borrowing' two people from Team Z' without explaining why and then support with further evidence. I have used the same pattern for the supporting points and in illustrating the following two points.

Point 3 – We can deliver. This point offers an opportunity to explain your plan while also justifying why it is right.

If we ‘borrow' Mary and Bill for two weeks we will be able to get back on track within two weeks.

  • The team is now back at full health and we are unlikely to see them take more time off. They have no annual leave planned, they and all their family members have had covid, and they are all motivated to get the program back on track
  • Borrowing Mary and Bill for two weeks will be sufficient to reset our schedule (explain how each of the major the tasks Mary and Bill will undertake will fix the problem)


Point 4 – We can manage the risks. Again here, we need to offer reasons not just tasks.

We can manage the risks to our project and also other Team Z work. To achieve this we will

  • Keep in close contact with Zahir who runs Team Z to minimise the likelihood that his work is not materially impacted by borrowing Mary and Bill
  • Stick to our proposed work schedule and ensure no variations are indulged, which would put our schedule at risk


Note that I did not just list the risks, which is something I see being done a lot at this stage. Think hard about what worries you about this proposal and explain how you will counter each of these worries.

I hope that helps.

Kind regards,
Davina