My Executive Communication Framework for PMMs

For three years, I struggled with executive communication. Some presentations landed. Others bombed. I couldn't figure out the pattern.

Then I started analyzing every successful executive interaction I'd had—presentations that drove decisions, emails that got responses, conversations that influenced strategy.

I found a consistent structure underlying everything that worked.

The pattern: Situation → Complication → Resolution → Impact

Every successful executive communication followed this four-part framework. Every failed communication missing one or more parts.

Once I identified this pattern, I rebuilt every executive interaction around it. Within six months, my communication success rate went from 40% to 85%.

Now I use this framework for everything: board presentations, CEO updates, exec team proposals, budget requests, strategic recommendations.

This is the executive communication framework I wish someone had taught me on day one.

The Framework: Situation-Complication-Resolution-Impact (SCRI)

This four-part structure works because it mirrors how executives think about strategic decisions:

Situation: What's the current state?

Complication: What problem or opportunity demands action?

Resolution: What should we do about it?

Impact: What happens if we do this?

Total time: 2-5 minutes to present, depending on complexity.

Why This Structure Works

Executives make dozens of decisions daily. They need context quickly, understand the problem immediately, see options clearly, and know business impact.

This framework delivers all four in the order executives need them.

Other structures fail because:

Bottom-line-first: Jumps to recommendation without context. Executives don't trust recommendations without understanding the problem.

Problem-solution: Misses business impact. Executives won't approve solutions without knowing ROI.

Data-first: Buries the point in analysis. Executives lose attention before reaching the recommendation.

SCRI works because it balances context, problem identification, solution, and business justification in the minimum necessary structure.

Part 1: Situation (The Current State)

Goal: Establish baseline so executives understand what "normal" looks like.

Time: 30-45 seconds

What to include:

• Current metrics or market position
• What's been working
• Relevant recent history

What NOT to include:

• Comprehensive background
• Long historical context
• Methodology details

Example (Competitive Analysis):

Good Situation: "For two years, we've dominated mid-market with 58% win rate. Our 'operational in 2 weeks' positioning wins consistently. We've grown 40% annually in this segment."

Bad Situation: "Our company was founded in 2019. We initially targeted enterprise but pivoted to mid-market in 2021 after conducting extensive market research. We've tested various positioning approaches..."

The difference: Good situation is brief, establishes current success, sets baseline. Bad situation is too much background that doesn't inform the strategic decision.

The test: Can you state the situation in 2-3 sentences? If not, you're including too much context.

Part 2: Complication (The Problem or Opportunity)

Goal: Create urgency by showing what changed or what's at risk.

Time: 60-90 seconds

What to include:

• What changed recently
• Why it matters
• Business impact if we don't act
• Timeline/urgency

What NOT to include:

• Detailed analysis of causes
• Every possible risk factor
• Speculative future scenarios

Example (Competitive Analysis):

Good Complication: "Three months ago, Competitor X raised $50M and launched enterprise features. Our win rate dropped from 58% to 42%—we're losing deals we used to win. Pattern: Buyers now expect enterprise capabilities even in mid-market deals. If this continues, we'll lose another $8M pipeline over 12 months."

Bad Complication: "The competitive landscape has become more challenging. Multiple factors are contributing to increased pressure, including market maturation, new entrants, and evolving buyer expectations. This is consistent with industry trends we've been monitoring..."

The difference: Good complication is specific, urgent, quantified. Bad complication is vague, lacks urgency, doesn't establish stakes.

The test: Does your complication create tension? If executives aren't leaning in at this point, you haven't established urgency.

Part 3: Resolution (What We Should Do)

Goal: Present options and make a clear recommendation.

Time: 90-120 seconds

What to include:

• 2-3 strategic options
• Clear recommendation
• Why you chose that option
• Tradeoffs acknowledged

What NOT to include:

• Only one option (executives want choices)
• Five or more options (creates analysis paralysis)
• No clear recommendation (forces executives to decide without your guidance)

Example (Competitive Analysis):

Good Resolution: "Three options:

1. Build enterprise features ourselves ($2M, 18 months)
2. Partner with enterprise vendor ($400K, 6 months)
3. Reposition to avoid enterprise comparison ($0, immediate)

Recommendation: Partner approach (option 2).

Why: Delivers enterprise credibility at 1/5 cost and 1/3 timeline of building. Maintains flexibility to build later if market justifies investment.

Tradeoff: We're dependent on partner's roadmap. If partnership fails, we've invested 6 months without building internal capability."

Bad Resolution: "We could build features, or partner, or reposition—each has pros and cons. What does the team think we should do?"

The difference: Good resolution presents options, recommends one, explains why, acknowledges downside. Bad resolution dumps decision on executives without guidance.

The test: Would an executive who missed your presentation be able to explain what you recommended and why? If not, your resolution isn't clear enough.

Part 4: Impact (Business Outcomes)

Goal: Quantify what happens if we follow your recommendation.

Time: 30-60 seconds

What to include:

• Revenue impact
• Timeline to results
• Key success metrics
• Decision needed and deadline

What NOT to include:

• Speculative long-term projections
• Detailed implementation plans
• Every possible outcome

Example (Competitive Analysis):

Good Impact: "Expected Impact:

• Win rate improvement from 42% to 50-52% (8-10 points)
• Pipeline recovery: $6M annually
• Investment: $400K
• ROI: 15x with 6-month payback

Timeline: Partnership launch in 6 months, full impact in 12 months

Decision needed: Approve $400K partnership budget by May 15 to hit Q3 launch target."

Bad Impact: "This should improve our competitive position and potentially increase win rates. Long-term strategic value could be significant. We'll need to monitor results and adjust as needed."

The difference: Good impact is quantified, specific, includes clear ask. Bad impact is vague, lacks numbers, no clear decision point.

The test: Can a CFO evaluate ROI from your impact statement? If not, you haven't quantified enough.

The Complete Framework In Action

Here's the full SCRI framework applied to a competitive strategy presentation:

Situation: (45 seconds) "For two years, we've dominated mid-market: 58% win rate, $8M annual pipeline, growing 40% YoY. Our 'operational in 2 weeks' positioning wins consistently against slower competitors."

Complication: (90 seconds) "Three months ago, Competitor X raised $50M and launched enterprise features. Our win rate dropped from 58% to 42% in 12 weeks—16-point decline. Win/loss interviews reveal 68% of recent losses cite 'enterprise capabilities' we don't have. Pattern: Mid-market buyers now expect enterprise features even though they're not using them. If this trend continues, we'll lose another $8M pipeline over next 12 months. We need to respond in next 90 days or accept being positioned as 'SMB solution.'"

Resolution: (120 seconds) "Three options:

Option 1: Build enterprise features ourselves

• Investment: $2M, 18-month timeline
• Pros: Full control, deep capabilities
• Cons: Expensive, slow, uncertain market demand

Option 2: Partner with enterprise vendor

• Investment: $400K, 6-month timeline
• Pros: Fast, proven technology, lower cost
• Cons: Dependent on partner roadmap

Option 3: Reposition away from enterprise comparison

• Investment: $0, immediate
• Pros: No cost, plays to our strengths
• Cons: Cedes $12M enterprise TAM

Recommendation: Option 2 (Partner)

Why: Delivers enterprise credibility at 1/5 cost and 1/3 timeline of building. Lets us compete in enterprise-influenced deals without major product investment. Maintains flexibility to build internally later if ROI justifies it.

Tradeoff: We're dependent on partner's product roadmap. If partnership underperforms, we've invested 6 months without building internal capability."

Impact: (60 seconds) "Expected outcomes:

• Win rate improvement: 42% → 50-52% (8-10 point recovery)
• Pipeline recovery: $6M annually
• Investment: $400K partnership + $50K integration
• ROI: 13x with 8-month payback
• Timeline: Partnership live in Q3, full impact by end of year

Success metrics:

• Win rate in enterprise-influenced deals improves to 50%+
• Sales can demo enterprise features in competitive situations
• "Enterprise-ready" objection rate drops from 68% to <30%

Decision needed: Approve $450K budget and partnership agreement by May 15 to launch in Q3."

Total: 5 minutes, 4 parts, complete strategic recommendation.

How to Adapt SCRI to Different Executive Communication Formats

The beauty of SCRI: It scales to any format.

Format 1: Executive Email

Subject: Competitive Strategy Recommendation (Decision Needed by May 15)

Situation: We've dominated mid-market (58% win rate) for 2 years with speed-focused positioning.

Complication: Competitor X launched enterprise features 3 months ago. Our win rate dropped to 42%. We're losing $8M annual pipeline. Pattern: Mid-market now expects enterprise capabilities.

Resolution: Three options—Build ($2M, 18mo), Partner ($400K, 6mo), Reposition ($0, immediate). Recommend Partner: Best ROI and timeline.

Impact: Expected 8-10 point win rate improvement, $6M pipeline recovery, 13x ROI. Need approval by May 15 for Q3 launch.

Full analysis attached. Can we schedule 20 min to discuss?

Total: 150 words, scannable in 60 seconds.

Format 2: Board Presentation (3 slides)

Slide 1: Situation + Complication

• Dominated mid-market: 58% win rate, 40% YoY growth
• Competitor X enterprise launch → win rate dropped to 42% (16 points in 12 weeks)
• $8M annual pipeline at risk if trend continues

Slide 2: Resolution

• Three options: Build ($2M, 18mo), Partner ($400K, 6mo), Reposition ($0, immediate)
• Recommendation: Partner—enterprise credibility at 1/5 cost, 1/3 timeline
• Tradeoff: Partner dependency vs. speed to market

Slide 3: Impact

• Win rate: 42% → 52% (+10 points)
• Pipeline: $6M recovery
• ROI: 13x, 8-month payback
• Decision: Approve $450K by May 15 for Q3 launch

Total: 3 slides, 7 minutes presenting.

Format 3: CEO Monthly Update

[Within monthly update structure]

Strategic Issue: Competitive Pressure from Competitor X

Situation: We've owned mid-market (58% win rate) with speed positioning.

Complication: Competitor X's enterprise features launched 3 months ago. Win rate dropped to 42%. We're losing $8M annual pipeline to "enterprise capability" objection.

Resolution: Recommend partnering with enterprise vendor ($400K, 6 months) vs. building ($2M, 18 months) or repositioning ($0, immediate). Partnership delivers enterprise credibility at lowest cost and fastest timeline.

Impact: Expected 10-point win rate recovery, $6M pipeline, 13x ROI. Need decision by May 15 for Q3 launch.

Total: 100 words within larger monthly update.

The Common Mistakes That Break SCRI Framework

After coaching dozens of PMMs on executive communication, here are mistakes that break the framework:

Mistake 1: Situation That's Too Long

Problem: Spending 5 minutes on background before getting to the complication.

Fix: Situation should be 30-45 seconds maximum. If you can't state current state in 2-3 sentences, you're including too much context.

Mistake 2: Complication Without Urgency

Problem: Describing a problem without showing why it matters now.

Fix: Always include business impact ("we're losing $8M") and timeline ("if this continues for 12 months"). Create tension that demands resolution.

Mistake 3: Resolution Without Clear Recommendation

Problem: Presenting options but not recommending one.

Fix: Always recommend one option and explain why. Executives can disagree, but they need your guidance to make decisions efficiently.

Mistake 4: Impact Without Numbers

Problem: "This should improve our position" instead of quantified outcomes.

Fix: Always include: Expected metric improvement, revenue/cost impact, ROI, timeline. CFOs need numbers to approve budget.

Mistake 5: Missing the Decision Point

Problem: Presenting SCRI but not stating what decision you need and when.

Fix: Always end with "Decision needed: [specific action] by [specific date]."

The Follow-Through That Completes the Framework

SCRI gets you through the presentation. Follow-through proves you were right.

After presenting my competitive strategy recommendation using SCRI framework:

Week 2: "Partnership discussions in progress. Reviewed 3 vendors, narrowed to 2 finalists based on technical fit and timeline."

Month 3: "Partnership signed. Integration starting next week. Sales already using partnership announcement in deals—seeing 15% increase in enterprise deal engagement."

Month 6: "Partnership live. Early results: Win rate improved from 42% to 48% (+6 points, trending toward 52% projection). Pipeline up $4.2M (on track for $6M annual projection)."

Month 12: "Full-year results: Win rate 51% (+9 points from low of 42%). Pipeline recovery: $6.4M (107% of projection). ROI: 14x on $450K investment. SCRI framework accurately predicted outcomes."

This follow-through did more to build executive trust than the original presentation.

The Uncomfortable Truth About Executive Communication Frameworks

Most PMMs think: Every executive communication is unique and requires custom approach.

The reality: Executives make strategic decisions using consistent mental framework. SCRI mirrors that framework, which is why it works across all executive communication.

The PMMs who master executive communication:

• Use SCRI framework for every executive interaction
• Keep Situation brief (30-45 seconds)
• Create urgency in Complication with business impact
• Make clear Recommendations with tradeoffs acknowledged
• Quantify Impact with specific metrics and ROI
• Follow through to prove recommendations delivered results

The PMMs who struggle with executive communication:

• Treat every presentation as unique without consistent structure
• Spend too much time on situation/background
• Present problems without urgency or business impact
• Show options without making recommendations
• Use vague language instead of quantified outcomes
• Don't follow up to validate predictions

The difference in career trajectory is dramatic.

PMMs who consistently use SCRI framework become trusted advisors executives consult before major decisions. PMMs without consistent framework remain hit-or-miss communicators who occasionally land presentations but can't predict what will work.

The SCRI executive communication framework:

Situation (30-45 seconds): Current state, what's working, recent baseline

Complication (60-90 seconds): What changed, business impact, urgency, timeline

Resolution (90-120 seconds): Options, recommendation, rationale, tradeoffs

Impact (30-60 seconds): Quantified outcomes, ROI, timeline, decision needed

Total: 3-5 minutes for complete strategic recommendation.

Use this framework for:

• Board presentations
• CEO updates
• Executive emails
• Budget requests
• Strategic proposals
• QBRs
• Positioning recommendations
• Resource allocation decisions

Use SCRI consistently, and your executive communication success rate will go from inconsistent to predictable.

That's when you become someone executives trust for strategic guidance.

That's when your career accelerates.