Why board and committee papers fail — and how to fix them

In a guest blog for GGi, Chris Harrison advises boards to look to Minto, not Heidegger

“Give me assurance — not more detail.”

After 38 years on NHS boards and committees and having waded through more meeting packs than I care to remember, I know that the quality of board papers remains a constant frustration. Whenever non‑executives get together, one theme surfaces with weary predictability: we are not overwhelmed just by too much information, but by a lack of clarity. Board packs have become too long, too detailed, and too focused on reassurance rather than assurance. If only more authors and presenters adopted the Minto approach described in this paper.

Papers sprawl. Appendices multiply. Context and detail dominate. Slide decks balloon. And when a board member challenges, seeking further assurance, the response is often to promise even more detail next time. The result is the opposite of assurance. Instead of helping board members understand what is happening, the paper obscures the details. Instead of surfacing risk, it buries it. Instead of enabling good governance, it thwarts it.

The same pattern appears in presentations at seminars and board development sessions. Speakers sometimes spend so long setting out the context that the purpose of the session arrives only after the audience’s attention has moved on, and it’s time for a break. By the time the core message emerges, the room has often endured a lengthy preamble that adds weight but not clarity. The result is the same: delay, dilution, and a missed opportunity for real insight.

Two approaches: Heidegger or Minto?

I’ve noticed that most papers fall into one of two styles.

1. The Pedagogical Crawl – the 'Heidegger' approach

This is the instinct many of us learned early in our careers:
Start from first principles. Work through layers of background. Explore every angle. Present the nuances. Build the rationale step by step. Only then, pages later, reveal the conclusion.

It’s an approach that mirrors Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time. It’s a work of profound insight, but also a lesson in how a pedantic, exploratory, rabbit‑hole‑laden structure can exhaust the reader long before the key point emerges. By the time the author circles back to the central question, the path is so dense that few readers will still be left standing. Believe me, I’ve been there with Heidegger!

I say this with a sense of rueful self‑awareness. I’ve fallen into the “executive-splaining” trap myself more than once. Flushed with enthusiasm and pride for the particular project or decision I was reporting on, I wanted to ensure that all the board members understood how difficult it had been to reach this point, the difficulties I had overcome, and the expertise I had demonstrated. Desperate to get this across, the papers became longer and longer, and the appendices ever fuller. I will be forever grateful to Sam Richards, the District General Manager at Trafford Health Authority, who, in early 1990, took me aside and explained what was really needed.

2. The Hierarchical Clarity – the 'Minto' approach

Barbara Minto’s Pyramid Principle suggests the opposite of pedagogy:
Lead with the point. State the conclusion and the recommendation at the top. Follow with the essential reasons. Then, and only then, provide the supporting detail for those who want or need to dip into it.

This structure does not patronise experienced board members by walking them through a curriculum. It respects their time, expertise and accountability. It also treats assurance as something that must be demonstrable, not simply described.

In my experience, papers written this way are far more likely to generate a focused discussion, a shared understanding of risk, and genuine assurance.

Why the Heidegger approach fails boards

Boards don’t need a lecture. They certainly don’t need a textbook. They need a clear line of sight.

A pedagogical structure assumes the reader is starting from scratch. It presumes they require instruction. But that style:

• Obscures risk: Risk is buried in the narrative rather than explicitly stated.
• Dilutes accountability: If the reader can’t find the decision, they certainly can’t own it.
• Invites overconfidence: Dense reassurance masquerades as assurance.
• Consumes the time boards don’t have: NHS boards have complex agendas and need to focus available time on key issues.

The irony is that this style is often born of anxiety. Authors fear challenge, so they pre‑empt it with detail. But detail is not a defence. Detail is noise unless it is curated.

Why the Minto approach works for governance

For trust boards and committees, good papers have a few defining features:

1. They start with the conclusion

Boards should know the answer immediately:
“What are you asking us to do?”
“What is the issue?”
“What is the level of risk?”
“What is our confidence level?”

2. They then show the justification

A short, sharp rationale:

• What is happening
• Why it matters
• What has changed
• What needs a decision
• Where assurance comes from
• Where gaps remain


3. They then provide the details, if required

Background, charts, data, and analysis are essential, but they should sit beneath the line, not on top of it. They should support the story, not smother it.

This structure aligns much more closely with how governance operates in practice. Modern boards operate under extreme time, regulatory, and reputational pressures. They need immediate clarity to make good judgements.

What this means in practice

Boards and committees should demand well-constructed papers and presentations

Here is a simple set of tests for any board paper or presentation:

• If the board only read the first paragraph, would they understand the issue?
• If not, start again.
• Genuine assurance is usually concise.
• It should be the first thing the board sees.
• Board time is not curriculum time.

Boards and committees should seek assurance over reassurance

• Reassurance is narrative.
• Assurance is evidence.
• Boards are drowning in the former and starved of the latter.

Boards and committees should require a Minto‑style structure, which helps:

• turn data into insight
• turn narrative into evidence
• turn background into context
• turn papers into tools for decisionmaking rather than demonstrations of effort.

Lessons from 38 years on NHS boards

Across the many boards, committees and governance systems I’ve worked with, the most effective conversations came from papers that:

• were short but not simplistic
• respected the intelligence of the reader
• made the decision point unavoidable
• treated risk as the organising principle
• placed analysis before description
• got to the point before taking the reader through the reasoning

In short, the best papers put clarity before narrative, and evidence before exposition.

Boards make better decisions when they can see the landscape without fog.

Conclusion: Trust boards deserve better than lectures

If we want stronger governance, better assurance, and more focused scrutiny, we need to abandon the instinct to lead board members through lengthy contextual prologue.

As much as I admire Heidegger’s philosophical depth, trust boards do not need phenomenology. Boards need clarity. Phenomenology belongs elsewhere.

Minto’s structured, conclusion‑first approach is not just a writing technique; it is a tough governance discipline. It forces authors and presenters to think critically, prioritise, and take a position.

And it gives boards exactly what they require: the right information, in the right order, at the right time.

References

Heidegger, M. (1927). Being and Time. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Minto, B. (2009). The Pyramid Principle: Logic in Writing and Thinking. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Afterword

In case you were wondering, I have tried to stick to the Minto principles in this article. Here’s how I think I’ve applied them, though, like everyone else, I’m still learning:

• I led with the conclusion. The opening paragraph immediately states the core argument: “the problem is not a lack of information but a lack of clarity”.
• I followed with the key reasons. The next sections explain why papers and presentations fail, before introducing the Heidegger–Minto contrast.
• I placed the judgement before the journey. The main recommendation comes early: “adopt a conclusion‑first structure for governance. The detailed explanation sits underneath”.
• I kept the supporting detail beneath the line. Examples, anecdotes and philosophical references are used sparingly and only after the central point is established.
• I ended by reinforcing the message. The conclusion comes back to clarity, discipline, and the value of the Minto approach in board settings.