Stop Burying the Lead
Your board deck is not too detailed. It is structured in the wrong order.
Most executive communication fails because it starts where the work started, not where the decision-maker needs to start.
Teams usually present the data first, then the analysis, then the implications, and finally the recommendation. That may reflect how the thinking happened, but it is not how senior leaders consume information. Executives do not want to reconstruct the argument in real time. They want the answer first, then the evidence that supports it.
That is the discipline behind Barbara Minto’s Pyramid Principle, developed during her time at McKinsey. The core rule is simple:
Start with the answer, then group the supporting logic underneath it.
This matters because executive decision-making depends on compression. A CEO, board member or executive committee should be able to understand the recommendation, the decision required, the reason it matters, the evidence and the next step within the first minute.
If your presentation saves the “big reveal” for slide 19, you have already lost the room.
The mystery novel problem
Inexperienced leaders often treat presentations like mystery novels. They build context, reveal clues, walk the audience through the analysis, and hold the conclusion until the end.
That is fine for fiction. It is terrible for board communication.
The board does not want a journey. It wants the bottom line. The first slide should contain the full argument; the rest of the deck should defend it. The same principle applies to executive emails. The first sentence should tell the reader what you need from them: the ask, the decision, the recommendation, the risk or the answer.
This is not a style preference. It is an operating issue. Bottom-up communication forces senior leaders to do the writer’s work: extract the point, infer the recommendation and identify the decision. That slows the organisation down.
The executive rule
Before sending a board paper, strategy update or executive email, apply one test:
Can the reader understand the recommendation in 60 seconds?
If not, the communication is not ready.
Poor executive communication is rarely caused by weak thinking. More often, the answer exists but is buried under context, process, detail and corporate cushioning. The fix is to put the conclusion first, then organise the evidence.
Use this prompt to clean up a single draft.
Prompt: Minto Pyramid Rewrite
Act as a McKinsey Engagement Manager trained in the Minto Pyramid Principle.
Rewrite the following strategic update, board paper or executive email so it is suitable for a CEO, board member or executive committee.
Draft:
[Paste text]
Apply this structure:
1. Start with the answer:
- Put the recommendation, decision or core message first.
- Make the opening paragraph sufficient for an executive to understand the point.
2. Use SCQA:
- Situation: relevant context
- Complication: what has changed or become urgent
- Question: what decision or issue this creates
- Answer: what should be done
3. Build the pyramid:
- Group the supporting logic into three clear pillars.
- Remove duplication and overlapping arguments.
4. Support with evidence:
- Replace adjectives with facts.
- Flag unsupported claims.
5. Make it executive:
- Remove corporate fluff.
- Cut unnecessary context.
- End with the specific action, decision or next step required.
The point is not to make the writing sound like McKinsey. The point is to force the thinking into executive order: answer first, logic second, evidence third, detail last.
But fixing one draft is not enough. The bigger problem is that most leadership teams do not have a shared communication standard. Every team builds decks differently. Every update has a different structure. Some people lead with the answer; others lead with process. Some bury the ask; others hide weak logic under dense slides.
That creates executive drag.
For paid subscribers, below is the executive communication standard I would give to a CEO, Chief of Staff, COO or strategy leader who wants faster, clearer decisions from their team.
The Executive Communication Standard
Most leadership teams do not have a writing problem. They have a decision-throughput problem.
The CEO is forced to decode the ask. The board is forced to infer the recommendation. The executive committee is forced to sit through the analysis before seeing the conclusion. Over time, this becomes an operating tax on the organisation.
Use the following standard with your team.
1. The 60-second rule
Every executive communication must be understandable in 60 seconds. The reader should be able to identify the recommendation, the decision required, why it matters, the evidence, the trade-off and the next step.
This applies to board papers, executive emails, investment cases, risk papers, transformation updates, vendor recommendations and operating reviews. The standard is not “short.” The standard is clear. A long paper can still be executive-ready if the answer is obvious early. A short email can still fail if the ask is buried.
2. The first-slide rule
Every board deck must have a first slide that contains the full argument. Not a contents page, background slide, market overview or project timeline. The actual argument.
Use this structure:
Recommendation: What should we do?
Why now: What has changed or become urgent?
Evidence: What proves this is the right move?
Trade-off: What are we accepting, rejecting or risking?
Decision required: What do we need from the board?
If slide one does not contain the argument, the deck is not ready. The rest of the deck should defend the first slide, not discover it.
3. The executive email rule
Every executive email should start with one of four labels:
Decision: I need you to decide X by Y.
Recommendation: I recommend X because Y.
Risk: X is off track and requires intervention.
Update: No decision required; this is for awareness.
That one change tells the reader how to process the message before they start reading.
A weak executive email starts like this:
Hi Sarah, hope you’re well. I wanted to provide some background on the vendor implementation workstream. As you know, we kicked this off in March following the steering committee discussion…
A better version starts like this:
Decision: I need your approval by Friday to pause the vendor rollout for two weeks because the current integration risk is higher than the launch plan assumes.
The context is not removed. It is moved below the decision.
4. The decision-request template
Use this structure for any executive ask:
Decision required:
[What decision is needed, by whom, and by when]
Recommendation:
[What we recommend]
Why now:
[What has changed, broken or become urgent]
Options considered:
[Option A, Option B, Option C]
Recommended option:
[Chosen option and why]
Trade-offs:
[What we gain, what we risk, what we give up]
Evidence:
[Numbers, facts, customer data, financials, operational signals]
Risks:
[Execution, financial, legal, reputational, people, customer]
Next step:
[What happens after approval]
This template forces the writer to separate the decision, the recommendation, the evidence and the trade-off. That separation matters because executives do not just need to know what you think. They need to know what choice they are being asked to make.
5. The board-deck rule
The main deck is for judgement. The appendix is for proof.
Most board decks are too long because teams confuse analysis with insight. They include every chart because they did the work. They keep every slide because someone might ask. They present the process instead of the conclusion.
Use this rule:
A slide belongs in the main deck only if it changes the decision.
If a slide supports, explains, documents or proves the work, it probably belongs in the appendix. Do not delete the detail. Just stop leading with it.
When challenged, use this line:
I have that detail in the appendix. I have not led with it because it supports the recommendation rather than changes it. I can pull it up if useful.
That sentence shows you have done the work, keeps the room focused on the decision, and prevents the meeting from being hijacked by supporting analysis.
6. The red flags
Your team is communicating bottom-up if you regularly see:
“By way of background…” in the first paragraph
decks that start with market context
emails where the ask appears after paragraph four
slides titled “Analysis” but not “Implication”
recommendations supported by adjectives instead of evidence
appendices disguised as main decks
executive summaries that summarise activity, not judgement
meetings where the decision emerges in the final five minutes
These are not style issues. They are operating signals. They tell you the organisation is making senior leaders work too hard to find the point.
7. The CEO script
Use this with your team:
From now on, I want the answer first. Every board paper, executive email and decision request should begin with the recommendation, the decision required and the evidence. Put the analysis in the appendix. I do not want less rigour. I want the rigour organised around the decision.
That last line matters. This is not a call for shallow communication. It is a call for disciplined communication. Do not remove the analysis, weaken the evidence or dumb down the work. Organise it around the decision.
Two follow-up prompts
Use these to enforce the standard.
BLUF audit for executive emails
Act as an executive communications coach.
Analyse these emails:
[Paste emails]
Apply BLUF: Bottom Line Up Front.
For each email:
1. Identify the main point.
2. Rewrite the first sentence so the ask, decision or recommendation appears immediately.
3. Move context into a Background section.
4. Cut unnecessary preamble.
5. Reduce word count by 40% without losing meaning.
6. End with the exact action required.
Use this format:
Subject:
BLUF:
Decision / Ask:
Why it matters:
Key evidence:
Background:
Next step:
Appendix rule for board decks
Act as a Board Advisor.
Here is my board or executive committee deck:
[Paste slide titles and short description of each slide]
Apply the Appendix Rule.
1. Identify which slides belong in the main deck because they directly support the decision.
2. Identify which slides are analysis, process detail or supporting evidence.
3. Move non-essential analysis slides to the appendix.
4. Rewrite the main-deck storyline in this order:
- Answer
- Why now
- Recommendation
- Evidence
- Risks
- Decision required
5. Create a one-slide executive summary.
6. Give me transition lines to use if a board member asks for appendix detail.
The executive takeaway
Communication quality is an operating issue. Bad communication slows decisions, and slow decisions create organisational drag.
If your team writes bottom-up, your executives have to reverse-engineer the answer. If your board decks bury the recommendation, your directors have to excavate the point. If your emails hide the ask, your decisions slow down.
The fix is simple but uncomfortable: put the answer first, then defend it.
That is the Minto discipline. It is the BLUF discipline. It is the Appendix Rule. And it is the difference between communicating work and communicating judgement.