Nothing is more exciting than plowing through a three hundred-page mystery novel waiting with anticipation to find out “who did it”. Unfortunately, that excitement doesn’t translate well to non-fiction. Most executives want answers, not long drawn out sagas. Yet, we often make them wait.

It’s time that we shift our focus. Throw away the detective cap and pipe and put on your pinstriped suit. It’s time to become a prosecutor.

Think about the way a prosecutor lays out the opening argument for his or her case. What’s the first thing they say?

“On June 5, 2010 Mr. Gray entered the music room, picked up a piece of conduit and struck and killed Ms. Goldfinch.” The prosecutor then lays out the case. Story complete. The rest of the trial is where the evidence is presented to support that initial assertion.

But what if prosecutors adopted the way that many of us present information? The opening argument might go something like this.

“On June 5, 2010, Ms. Goldfinch returned home from a day at the track. While reading in her music room, she was beaten with a piece of conduit. Ms. Amber who came by to pick up Ms. Goldfinch for a dinner engagement called the police at 5:32. The police ran their investigation.

They found that the killer entered through the backdoor. The police considered three suspects, Mr. Gray, Col. Relish and Professor Peach. The police followed their standard investigative procedure. They dusted for fingerprints and collected DNA evidence from hair follicles left at the scene.

They then interviewed each of the suspects. Mr. Gray said that he was on a hunting trip during the crime. Professor Peach and Col. Relish said they were together at an awards banquet. The police spoke with one hundred people at the banquet. Forty-five were women and fifty-five were men. Of the men, thirty were between eighteen and thirty-five years of age while the others were all older than thirty-five. Ninety-five percent of the witnesses recalled seeing Professor Peach and Col. Relish. The police then interviewed the individuals with whom Mr. Gray had gone hunting. There were ten in total. Five lived in the city, four in the country, and one wasn’t sure. Three of the men were over six feet tall. None of the men could corroborate Mr. Gray’s story.

The police then compared the DNA and fingerprint evidence to samples taken from the three suspects. There was a one-point match against Professor Peach, a three-point match against Col. Relish, and a five-point match against Mr. Gray. The DNA did not match Professor Peach or Col. Relish although our forensic scientists made an interesting discovery. Col. Relish is a carrier of a very rare form of Hepatitis C. Mr. Gray’s DNA matched the sample found at the crime scene.

The police also interviewed Ms. Amber regarding each of the men’s relationship with Ms. Goldfinch. Ms. Amber reported that Col. Relish had never met Ms. Goldfinch. She said that Ms. Goldfinch and Prof. Peach had been dating for several years and rumor had it that he was planning to propose to her. She also said that Mr. Gray was Ms. Goldfinch’s college sweetheart who she dumped for a circus clown. She said that on several occasions she heard Mr. Gray swear to get even and ensure that if he couldn’t have her, no one would.

Given that Mr. Gray’s DNA was found at the site, that his alibi didn’t check out, and that he made threats against Ms. Goldfinch, we believe the he is guilty.  Oh, by the way, he’s also an electrician and has access to conduit.”

That seems a lot less effective doesn’t it? Putting the answer at the end is great for mystery novels. It doesn’t work for business decisions and actions. Lead with the answer and then make your case. Your audience will let you know what additional information they need. It will also help focus your discussion on the decision or action rather than the minutia of the process.

————————–
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com