At a stakeholder meeting in 2018, a few individual contributors were brought in to share their research with some senior stakeholders.
They started sharing back in granular detail the research with VP's, who didn't connect with that level of granularity.
Dalia saw a huge gap between what the researchers thought the VP cared about and what Dalia felt they cared about.
When we're talking with our team mates we're used to justifying the validity of our findings in granular detail — our teams might care, but our VP's and stakeholders want strong opinions and synthesis on what to do next.
That can make us uncomfortable.
How did we get here?
First we wanted approval
Then we sought stakeholders knowledge
Then we asked for more of their time
Then we asked for inclusion in the forums where our work was being used to make decisions
We have been focussed on so long for getting the 'seat at the table' but we've already been in it.
Having a seat isn't just being part of the right meeting, the moment they see your research, have conversations based on it, that's your seat
We're at risk of losing it if we're not going to use it effectively.
So what do we do now to leverage your seat for it's full potential?
Look for Patterns
Tell the right story
Close the loop
Looking for patterns:
Carry out research on your stakeholders — emails, presentations, check-ins, reports.
How do they communicate?
Positive based — 'upside' of a situation
Fact-based — 'numbers / hard evidence'
Intensity-based — 'if we don't do this the world will end'
What is the language are they using?
Money
People
Funnels
Do you understand the terms, and how comfortable would you be communicating this back to them?
Case Study: Investment Planning at Shopify
When shopify scaled they split the organisation into product lines to get investment from executive.
Research inserted themselves into the structure to get research in the hands of people before they had done investment planning.
Tell the right story
The story stakeholders want to hear is "should we invest in this" and we need to give them memorable shorthand they can reference the more complex narrative.
We take our work from the "What" to the "So what"
Top of this image is the granular research insights the product team were using.
Bottom is the reframing of those insights into more memorable shorthand for the stakeholders.
Feedback — If we're going to spend time, energy and resources crafting stories to share with executives we need to know how well they're being perceived.
After they delivered the research Dalia sent the stakeholders a survey asking for specific investment decisions that were made based on the research
Dalia encourages us to take as step back and find out what our stakeholders are trying to decide.
Kat is telling a story about the first time she went to a mining site for research — she managed to get 1 question in before the participant asked "why should I help you IT folk out, you're here to take our job?"
Orica is the number one global supplier of commercial explosives 🧨
People with eating disorders often present with at least one addition mental illness. Around 22% access support for their easting disorder and only a small amount receive evidence based care.