The board member says: 'We should do this.' Why your deal is only beginning

A CEO may also sit on or chair the board. These are therefore two directional decision profiles, not mutually exclusive legal categories. The comparison comes from the Neurofactor target-audience framework. Responsibilities, company rules, committee structures and the proposal itself determine what applies in a specific organisation.

In Neurofactor's directional profile, a board member scores BIS 8, BAS 4 and k 0.08; the CEO profile is BIS 6, BAS 7 and k 0.10. BIS describes sensitivity to potential adverse outcomes. BAS describes sensitivity to opportunities and reward. As an interpretative contrast, the numbers suggest that loss, accountability and decision security may deserve stronger emphasis with a board member, while a CEO may initially engage more readily with strategic opportunity.

The k parameter relates to delay discounting, the decline in a later outcome's subjective value. Within a comparable model, a lower k indicates less steep discounting. The small difference between 0.08 and 0.10 is not evidence that all board members are more patient, nor does it predict procurement speed. A long-term strategic horizon and a short decision deadline can coexist.

These values are directional role estimates, not individual tests, measured population averages or causal explanations. They can help formulate a better question, but they cannot replace research into the actual buying situation.

Imagine selling an organisation-wide research programme. A CEO may care first about the strategic decisions it will improve: allocation of investment, competitive positioning or reputational exposure. A detailed tour of dashboards and implementation work packages can feel premature. Start with the consequential strategic choice.

A board member may see the same potential and immediately ask what it takes to bring the proposal before colleagues. Can the projected effect be substantiated independently? Which assumptions remain uncertain? Who owns implementation and what happens if it slips? What simpler alternative was considered? Those are not necessarily objections to innovation. They are questions about accountable execution.

Both roles care about upside and downside. The difference is which question is answered first and what additional evidence becomes essential before approval.

The criteria change even for the same person when support turns into a formal decision. Use this matrix as a diagnostic aid, not a universal governance map.

A strong case study can open the door, but it rarely covers every question relevant to a major decision. Organise evidence around a single main claim. Show strategic relevance - the objective or threat that makes the decision matter; effectiveness - measurements, references, cases and their limitations; risk - what could fail, who owns it and how it will be monitored; alternatives - including postponement and doing nothing; delivery - people, timing and dependencies; and governance - review, escalation and stop/go criteria.

The point is not to eliminate all uncertainty. It is to make remaining uncertainty visible and manageable. A proof asset only helps when it answers the specific doubt that matters to the next decision-maker.

A board brief does not have to be long. It does need to survive forwarding, summarising and questioning without your voice-over.

Fictional scenario, not a documented client case. You present an organisation-wide research and change programme. The CEO appreciates the potential to improve strategic choices. A board member says: 'We should do this.' Everyone leaves feeling positive.

Then the proposal travels. Finance: 'When will impact become measurable, and how much will phase two cost?' Operations: 'Which teams will release capacity, and what happens if we fall behind?' A fellow director: 'Why this approach rather than a smaller alternative?' Legal: 'Which data, contracts and supplier dependencies are involved?' Oversight, where relevant: 'How will the board monitor the decision?'

The sponsor is not necessarily less enthusiastic. The proposal is simply not ready for the next decision. If those answers were never prepared, your contact must build the missing case alone.

Treat this as a working model rather than a mandatory sequence. Sponsorship: someone sees enough value to take it forward. Challenge: other functions test assumptions. Reframing: a sales proposition becomes an organisational decision. Alignment: ownership, timing, budget and conditions are reconciled. Formalisation: the authorised body approves a defined next step or rejects it.

Approval for a pilot is not the same as approval for a full rollout. Ask what the next meeting is actually being asked to authorise. An honest sales forecast begins with that distinction.

The strongest boardroom process anticipates the internal work your sponsor will face.

Fictional wording.

For the CEO: 'If this programme helps us identify which choices create the most strategic impact, we can allocate the next investment round more effectively. Which decision should become clearer first?'

For a board member: 'We propose a phased programme with independent evidence, named risk owners and a go/no-go after the pilot. What would the board need to see to authorise that first stage responsibly?'

Same offer. Different first interpretation.

Confusing enthusiasm with authority: support is not approval. Selling only the upside: ignoring the downside does not remove it. Responding to doubt with more slides: use one sharper piece of evidence instead. Making the sponsor reconstruct the case: every internal retelling creates room for distortion. Failing to ask for a specific decision: 'What do you think?' is not the same as 'What remains to authorise phase one?'

Do not caricature the CEO as a risk-taker and the board member as a blocker. Their concerns overlap, and titles vary. Your job is to create one sound proposal that can survive both strategic and accountable scrutiny.

A board member who says 'We should do this' may have become an important ally. What matters next is whether the case can withstand challenges after you leave the room. The CEO can open the strategic why; the board-level process must establish what is being approved, on what evidence, with which risks and under whose responsibility.

Your deal does not truly advance when someone applauds the pitch. It advances when that person can defend the choice without you.