| Same meeting. Same decision-makers. You've been refining your pitch for three months. They threw together a deck last week. |
| They got a yes. You're still waiting. |
| This isn't about who has the better idea. |
| What's Actually Happening |
| Your brain has done the work. You see the connection between your idea and what the company needs. It's obvious to you. |
| But when you present, the decision-maker's prefrontal cortex is doing something different. It's trying to bridge the gap between what you're saying and what they already care about. That takes effort. Extra cognitive load. And when the brain works that hard, it defaults to no. |
| You're not a bad presenter. You're making their brain work too hard. |
| The person who got approved? They started with the problem the decision-maker was already trying to solve. Their brain didn't have to work to figure out why it mattered. It just had to figure out how to solve it. |
| That shift from "Should I care?" to "How do we do this?" is the difference between approval and another round of revisions. |
|
| I Keep Seeing This Pattern |
| Smart people come to me for communication strategy. Senior analysts. Directors. People who know their stuff cold. |
| They're not struggling because they lack presence or polish. They struggle because somewhere between their brain and the room, the connection breaks. |
| They understand the problem deeply. But they can't prove it in the way decision-makers need to see it. |
| Business schools don't teach this. You learn frameworks and models. You don't learn how to structure your thinking so someone else can follow your logic and take action on it. |
| That muscle exists. You just haven't trained it for how organizations actually make decisions. |
| What Changed When I Figured This Out |
| I used to think influence was about confidence and persuasion. Be compelling enough, and people will listen. |
| Then I watched really smart people repeat themselves in meetings. Same points, different words. Louder. Slower. With more data. |
| Nothing changed. |
| What I realized: They were answering their own question, not the one in the room. |
| Leaders who get approval do something different. They prove they've thought past the surface. They describe the problem with enough detail that you trust they can deliver the solution. They show you the right mix of data and context. Not everything they know. Just enough to move you from skeptical to ready. |
| And they know something about timing. They read the room. They know that what worked last month doesn't work today because priorities shift. Budgets get cut. Leaders leave. Markets move. |
| I built LATTE to make this repeatable: Look, Anticipate, Think, Talk, Evaluate. |
|
| Why Office Politics Keep Tripping You Up |
| In my lightning lesson, people always react when I say how much politics factor into decisions. |
| But here's what I mean by politics. Your CFO is under pressure to cut costs by 15%. Your VP just lost two people on her team and can't backfill. The person you're presenting to got burned on a similar project last year and is still hearing about it. |
| These aren't peripheral details. This is the context your idea lives in. |
| When I say separate facts from feelings, I mean this: You feel frustrated that your idea keeps getting delayed. That's real. But the fact is your CFO's mandate matters more than your frustration. |
| The LATTE Matrix walks you through Look and Anticipate so you can see what's actually driving decisions, not what you wish was driving them. |
| That's not manipulation. It's just being realistic about how people work. |