Why Structure, Not Just Analysis, Dictates Boardroom Success, According to Nick Curum

In a recent LinkedIn post, Nick Curum delves into the critical role of structure in business communication, arguing that the order in which information is presented can be more influential than the analysis itself. Curum highlights that a well-researched paper can be overlooked, while a less robust one might be approved, often due to how the facts are sequenced for decision-makers.

Curum introduces the foundational work of Barbara Minto, a pioneer at McKinsey & Company. “She did not change how consultants analysed anything. She changed the order they wrote it in: answer first, then the reasons, then the evidence,” Nick Curum explains, underscoring that Minto’s contribution was revolutionary in terms of presentation, not just content.

The Power of Order: Structure as a Decisive Factor

The core of Curum’s argument is that structure is not merely aesthetic but a fundamental determinant of how an audience engages with information. “Structure is not decoration. It decides what the room does with the same facts,” he asserts, emphasizing that the same data can lead to vastly different outcomes depending on its arrangement.

To illustrate this point, Nick Curum outlines six distinct structures that are particularly effective in boardroom settings, categorizing them into those designed to make a case and those intended to tell a story.

Structures for Making a Case

Curum details three primary structures for presenting a compelling argument:

• The Pyramid Principle: This classic structure, popularized by Minto, begins with the main answer, followed by three supporting reasons, and then the evidence for each reason. Curum suggests this is ideal for board papers and executive summaries.
• SCQA (Situation, Complication, Question, Answer): Curum notes that the “complication” element is key in this framework. It’s particularly useful for initiating papers on topics that weren’t explicitly requested.
• PREP (Point, Reason, Example, Point): This structure involves repeating the main point for emphasis. Curum recommends it for situations where an unexpected question needs to be answered effectively.

Structures for Storytelling

For narratives that require a more engaging flow, Curum proposes three storytelling structures:

• Hero’s Journey: Referencing Joseph Campbell’s work, Curum describes this as a path of struggle and return, bringing new insights to the group. It’s suitable for presenting turnaround strategies.
• The Mountain Structure: This approach builds tension by detailing escalating consequences until a turning point is reached. Curum suggests it for explaining project overruns.
• The 3-Act Play: Comprising a setup, conflict, and resolution, this structure is ideal for post-mortems or recounting how a client problem was successfully resolved.

Ultimately, Nick Curum advises readers to reconsider their approach when a paper is deferred. Instead of solely revising the analysis, he recommends focusing on the structure. “Next time a paper of yours gets deferred, do not rewrite the analysis. Rewrite the order,” he urges.

By observing where questions arise after a presentation, one can gauge the effectiveness of the structure. As Curum puts it, “Then watch where the questions land. Early means the sequence failed. Late means it held.” This insight offers a practical method for evaluating and improving communication strategies in high-stakes business environments.