What, So What, and Now What: How to Assess Other People’s Thinking
Things They Forgot To Tell Me in Business School

At some point in your career, as you rise to ever-increasing levels of responsibility, you hit a point where you stop entirely “doing” things and begin only “managing” things. While this rise brings you power and prestige within the organization, providing greater personal authority to influence others and impact outcomes, there is also a concomitant increase in your own dependency and reliance. There can be no lone wolf within a corporate pack. Ever-increasing teams of people continue to do the work that it is now your job to manage. And you manage this by making decisions based on other people’s thinking in the form of data, analysis, conclusions, and recommendations prepared and presented to you, done by others. In a strange way, you control people’s professional destinies while being entirely at their mercy. So, while your ability as an engineer, scientist, creative, or other becomes increasingly less relevant on a day-to-day basis, your ability to effectively sift through endless streams of other people’s thinking becomes increasingly important.

The key question now becomes “How do I make good decisions in a timely and consistent manner with little first-hand exposure to the issues?” It is best viewed as a mix of both art and science, with others bringing the science and you providing the art. Consistency is about framework, and timeliness thrives on simplicity, while you are on your own for the “good” part. This leads us to three basic questions, the so-called Troika Analytica: 1) “What?” 2) “So what?” and 3) “Now what?” If you focus on getting satisfactory answers to these three simple questions you will understand the quality and relevance of the information presented to you, which in turn will point the way toward the appropriate related action, whatever topic at hand.

To start with, nobody should be stepping in front of you in a formal decision-making situation without a package of material that includes a concise narrative containing data, analysis, conclusions, and recommendations. Without these, there is a fourth unspoken question you need to ask, which is “WTF?”. Let us, for now, take as a given that these prerequisites are in-place and proceed.

What?
The “What?” part relates to the appropriateness and composition of the information presented and the analysis undertaken. Are the right data being used to address the question at hand? Are the data complete, consistent, accurate, up to date, and available? Are we trying to estimate distance with a measuring cup?
Break it down, question how the data and analysis are both sufficient and appropriate to support the conclusions and recommendations presented. Were all available data included or were awkward, conflicting, bits left out to make things more convincing? Were the conclusions built from the ground up or proved from the top down? Either may be valid depending on the circumstance but it is important to know for your own decision making, as it plays to the potential pre-conceived notions of the presenter.

So What?
The “So What?” speaks to relevance as embodied in the conclusions, the inferences drawn from the analysis. How does this information assist in the decision-making process? Are the conclusions a logical extension of the analysis, or have they been padded or shaded to push an agenda, or convoluted along the lines of “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bull s—t”? Relevance to the presenter may simply mean the path of least resistance to the answer they desire, whereas relevance to you lies more with the best answer for the organization in light of factors possibly beyond the presenter’s purview.

Now What?
The “Now what?” addresses the recommendations. What are you asking me to do? What are the next steps? Do the recommendations follow logically from the conclusions and back on through the analysis and data, or do they stretch credulity? Do these recommendations fit the organization’s broader needs? If there is a conflict between a logical decision on this topic and the greater organizational good, what are the trade-offs in deciding one way or the other?
​
Follow this simple formula, add a dash of open-minded skepticism, and you will develop a consistent assessment style that will greatly improve the quality of decision-making based on other people’s thinking.