Picture this example: you are in an air-balloon, and you can see the sun rising from the east. Meanwhile, your friends are on the ground, venturing east by foot through a well-forested section of land. You send them a message, "Hope you have your sunglasses ready." They respond, "? Why?!?" Because where they are— at ground level, surrounded by trees— they are navigating the landscape with a torchlight! Little do they know they will soon be blinded by the rays of the sun as they continue to head east and clear the forest...
It is common knowledge that some people are better at seeing the big picture. Others are better at the details— they can "see the forest from the trees," so to speak. And, exceptional early-stage founders can see the forest and the trees. Ultimately, information and perspectives from all levels of detail help provide a richer representation of the landscape startup teams must navigate.
Back to the example: Both parties are operating to the best of their abilities with the information they have— the information they perceive at their level of detail. However, because different brains communicate at different 'altitudes' (levels of detail) — diverse teams are presented with a communication challenge. In startup-land, this communication challenge manifests in numerous ways:
Employees continue to perform tasks' business-as-usual,' even though the operating context (strategic landscape) has changed.
Team members believe they have communicated key things clearly, and comprehensively, yet baffled by why the other party (or parties) don't seem to understand their position.
Team members misunderstanding, undermining even the importance of what the CEO is trying to communicate company-wide from a strategic-level.
A general disagreement about the organization's priorities, especially if the CEO is visionary, can see beyond the horizon. The leadership team has not been able to chunk down the vision into finer, more manageable details (smaller chunks).
Another example: A CEO asks the engineering lead (or CTO) whether the companies' technology infrastructure is readied to handle a 10X increase in customer volume and utilization in preparation for the festive season. The engineer responds with, "Well, it depends. I need to check X… I need to do a calculation across several experiments to confirm Y etc."
While the engineer is sorting through the details and considerations needed to provide an accurate answer, the CEO gets frustrated that his/her question isn't being answered clearly and directly. What the CEO wants to hear is:
Yes.
No (and what should be done about it).
'I don't know,' and when the CTO can provide a clear answer.
What the engineer means to say is, "Let me run some numbers and get back to you by the end of this week."
Net-net: both parties have an opportunity to intentionally communicate at the level of detail (altitude) the receiving party normally communicates. And, both parties have an opportunity to either request for more detail in communications (chunking down) or a higher-level summary in communications (chunking up).
Below, we have included a set of questions (a frame) you can use to adjust the level of detail in your (and others') communication. Furthermore, these questions are great first-principle training sequences anyone can practice.
To use the questions well, you first start with the message you want the other party to receive, then run yourself through the questioning sequence numerous times. We will run through some examples together, so you get the gist. Furthermore, we presuppose every communication piece serves to achieve a common goal.
Increasing Altitude: Chunking Up Question
When you communicate that message, what will having that do for the receiving party?
For example, let's suppose I'm part of the finance team, and my instinct is to communicate the following details to the CEO:
"I'll need an extra day to determine the level of dilution you will incur once new investor money is in and existing investors exercise their pro-rata."
Okay, run this through the chunking-up question, and you might note the following response:
"The CEO can determine if he/she has an equitable amount of ownership and maintains control at the board level."
Then, take your answer to the question and run it through the same chunking-up question again.
"The CEO will have peace-of-mind that he/she can continue to build the company in a friction-free manner, knowing he/she can be well-compensated as the company succeeds in the long-term."
Notice how chunking up changes the frame of the original message. And, you can run the message through the same chunking-up question as many times as you would like. Typically, 2 or 3 times should suffice.
In this particular example we shared, we ran the chunking-up question twice. Having done so, we can take the final message elicited by the questioning sequence and loop it to the front to construct the following communication piece the finance team member can use to communicate to the CEO:
"So you have peace-of-mind that you can continue to build your company in a friction-free manner, knowing you will be well-compensated as the company succeeds in the long-term...
… I'll need an extra day to determine the level of dilution you will incur once new investor money is in and existing investors exercise their pro-rata."
Decreasing Altitude: Chunking Down Questions
How specifically will you know when you have it?
Let's flip the previous example on its head and start with the CEO. Suppose I'm the CEO, and my instinct is to communicate the following to the finance lead:
"I need to know I still maintain control of this company after this investment round is done."
— this is the message or request of the other party. The outcome is to "maintain control of the company." However, this provides little detail or information for a finance person to perform the request. Therefore, run the statement through the first question, "How will you know when you have maintained control of the company?"
The answer might be:
"I'll know when I'm the majority shareholder, and my dilution % post-raise does not fall below 18% — this information will be presented in a spreadsheet."
Notice how the answer becomes richer in detail as you chunk-down, and it gives the finance person a clearer understanding of what you want. Here are some other chunking-down questions you can use to chunk down any request:
When do you want it? (Time-bound) The answer might be, "I would like to know this by close of business this Friday."
Where do you want it? (Place) The answer might be, "An email in my inbox with a link to the document or a PDF."
Now, I'll take all chunk-down responses and rephrase the CEO's request of their finance lead:
"I need to know I still maintain control of this company after this investment round is done. I'll know when I'm the majority shareholder and my dilution % post-raise does not fall below 18% — I want this information presented to me in a spreadsheet. I would like this delivered to my email inbox with a link to the spreadsheet (or a PDF) by close of business this Friday."
Conclusion
Different brains communicate at different altitudes by default. A well-choreographed team implicitly understands this and works together to ensure important communications happen at the same level, and more importantly, are enriched by many levels of detail.