When I was growing up, there was a famous TV show named Dragnet. The show had evolved from a radio show of the same name and was famous for (at the time) what seemed like real life depictions of crime and the police work that followed. In retrospect, the scripts were pretty lame and the acting was exceptionally dry.

Nevertheless, the signature statement of the lead character was “Just the facts.” It didn’t matter whether he was interviewing witnesses, suspects or someone else, all he wanted were the facts. Not interpretation, emotion, judgment or opinion. Just the facts!

Sometimes I think that competitive intelligence clients might want “just the facts.”

That means that the competitive intelligence person is neutral about interpretation and decisions. The clients reserve for themselves the right and responsibility to make sense of the facts for their situation. It is clearly true that a leader constantly accumulates many things (including but not only facts) to be integrated into their existing knowledge, biases and preferences. Indeed, though facts are certainly important to them, the key is the internalized interpretation leading to decisions. Part of the reason I think is that the interpretative process is not so open to examination. Another reason is that the integration process at the end of the day is often the considered judgment of one person. It is not a predictable (to outsiders) process that takes in A and B to produce C.  Hence, it is not welcomed when a competitive intelligence person infers more responsibility than has been assigned.

Why does this matter to competitive intelligence?

Because when you encounter such a client, it is critical to know ahead of time so that what you deliver aids the client’s interpretation but does not attempt to replace it. For example, it would be a mistake to be an advocate for a particular position when the client considers your contribution only one of many to their decision process. The competitive intelligence facts that you bring will be processed, compared to and evaluated against so much that might not be visible to you. You risk looking silly to assume that one perspective (i.e., yours) is sufficient to fully inform the decision making of a client.

But aren’t we sometimes told that it is critical for a competitive intelligence professional to take and defend a position!

Well, taking a position and defending it against criticisms, attacks and honest challenges can certainly be important. Senior management or clients may test your confidence by this tactic. Or, they may sincerely want and expect you to be an advocate for a specific strategic observation or direction. When that is true then giving them “just the facts” will seem like a half done job. There will be little credit due you.

Further, sometimes the expectation of advocacy is limited. This means that your opinions may be solicited and, perhaps, appreciated but only at a specific time and place. As long as you explain your position in those settings and within the often fuzzy boundaries set by your client, you should advocate something specific and clear based on your commissioned competitive intelligence work. Outside of that setting, it is possible that your client prefers you be less of an advocate and more of a supporting function.

Occasionally you might be a full fledged participant in strategy discussions.

This is an ideal position for many competitive intelligence people. It gives you access to discussions (formal and informal), greater insight into the client thought processes and concrete knowledge of how decisions are made. Thus equipped, you will have great confidence about what to interject and when. You can be identified with a specific direction over time and this enhances your ability to effect meaningful change. There is no doubt that you will be an advocate for something. Congratulations if you have earned a place at the strategy table!

Here are some ways to determine what approach you should take?

1. Ask your client. This is obvious but you might forget to include this question among the many others that you ask at the beginning of an engagement. You could ask something like, “Would you prefer that I present the background and framework to help you or would you like me to recommend specific actions?”
2. Understand the decision making process. This can be less obvious. It is important to understand who decides and how they prefer to reach decisions. They might have a particular view of staff inputs. The discussions may be relatively open or closed. Generally, the more open and inclusive the process then the safer you are in offering your opinions.
3. Observe similar contributors. There are many that have information likely to be valuable. For example, finance, marketing, sales and business development have important roles. Do they offer strong opinions to strategy decision makers or do they concentrate on delivering their slices of information? Take a cue from them when you are initially presenting to a client.
4. Evaluate your relationship. Most of the time, new relationships between a competitive intelligence person and a client are tentative. The reason is that competitive intelligence can make people feel vulnerable because it points out how the company is doing versus its competitors. Since your client may be responsible for a large part of the company’s performance, receiving such conclusions may personally painful. So, you start slow. Maybe “just the facts’ is best. Later, when trust has been established, deeper and less guarded feedback can be given.
5. Test your own convictions. Few things are as distasteful as a “put on.” That is someone that is projecting something that they don’t believe is true or important. Similarly, when someone’s thoughts are not yet well formed, they can say things that are weak. Thus, be careful about moving beyond a neutral position to one of advocacy when you are not ready. Far better to stick to facts and minimal interpretation than to be exposed for poor or incomplete work.

The only answer to the “Neutral or Advocate?” question that works is “it depends.”

Sometimes a neutral, sometimes a careful advocate and occasionally a full participant with other advocates – all are possible. Make sure that you are selecting the right one for your next engagement.