Working back from the person whose yes is final, a sponsor finds whose views that person defers to, and whose views those people defer to, then plans the conversations in reverse order.
An example
Pricing small commercial policies with a new data model was the change a head of underwriting innovation at a specialty insurer wanted, and the final decision would be the chief executive's. Before raising it with anyone, she worked backward. On underwriting the chief executive deferred to the chief underwriting officer, and on risk models to the chief risk officer. The chief underwriting officer relied in turn on two senior underwriters who had built the current rating approach; the chief risk officer leaned on the model validation team. So she started at the far end: a month of working sessions with the validation team on the model's testing, then a review with the two underwriters, who suggested changes she adopted. The two chiefs each heard about the model first from people they trusted. When it reached the chief executive, both were in favor.
Why it works
Decision-makers rarely decide alone. They lean on a few people, who lean on others in turn, and a proposal taken straight to the top goes to advisers who have never seen it. Working back from the decider shows whom to approach first, so each person hears it from someone they trust, which makes the path to yes much easier. It depends on reading the chains of deference accurately and on adopting the improvements people suggest along the way.
The thinking behind it
David A. Lax Lax and Sebenius's 3-D Negotiation: Powerful Tools to Change the Game in Your Most Important Deals (2006) describes backward mapping: start from the agreement you want and the party whose consent is hardest to get, map patterns of influence and deference, and decide which earlier agreements would make the final yes most likely. That yields the order of approach, which is the plan this page describes.
James K. Sebenius In A Better Way to Negotiate: Backward (2004), Sebenius argues that the order in which parties are approached can decide whether a coalition forms, and advises studying to whom the hardest party defers; in his examples, an early endorsement from a respected party raised the value of later approaches. Briefing the validation team and the senior underwriters first meant the two chiefs heard the proposal from people they trusted.
When it fits
Proposals that need a senior yes and will be tested by the people that senior person relies on are where it pays. You need knowledge of who defers to whom, gathered from people who know the organization, and the time to work through several layers before the formal ask.
How to use it well
Start with the decider and ask whose view they rely on for this question. Then ask the same of each of those people.
- Draw the chain, layer by layer, until you reach people you can approach directly.
- Start at the far end: brief those people first, listen, and adopt the good changes.
- Move up the chain, so each person hears the proposal from someone they trust before they hear it from you.
- Reach the decider last, with the advisers already informed.
Check your map with someone who has watched the decider make similar calls.
What it costs and where it backfires
It takes time, and the further back you start, the longer it takes. If the map is wrong, you spend effort on people who do not matter and miss someone who does. People who learn they were approached in sequence may feel handled. Telling people different stories at each step, or leaving out on purpose someone entitled to be consulted, turns sequencing into deception.
When it is used on you
Go to each of your trusted advisers and ask what they reviewed and what they changed when a proposal reaches you already endorsed by them. Their endorsement is evidence; weigh it alongside your own reading. Ask for the alternatives that were considered, and decide on the substance.