Talking to Executives: That’s Not a Derailment, That’s the Meeting

Why being understood matters more than being right

Seattle, USA – Photo by Kevin Goldsmith – February 2026

When I was starting out at Microsoft, I nearly derailed my first executive presentation over the word “avatar.”

We were building virtual world software, and I used “avatar” the way the industry did. The VP stopped me, insisting it wasn’t the right term based on its dictionary definition. I pushed back, stating it was accepted industry usage, and asked to move forward. He agreed, but became distant for the rest of the presentation.

Afterward, my boss’s boss pulled me aside. “If the VP wants to talk about a word, that’s what you talk about.” I was never invited to present to that VP again.

I was two years out of university. It was a painful lesson.

I’ve made a lot of mistakes in executive communication over the years, and I’ve been on both sides of that table long enough to understand why they happen. Before I was someone people presented to, I was terrified of the same thing. When I started at Adobe, my director was in San Jose while I was in Seattle. I’d see him present to the broader organization occasionally, but the first time he called me directly, I nearly froze. He just had a question about something, but I picked up the phone, heard his voice, and thought: “I’m talking to the director.” It felt enormous and scary.

I also know what it feels like to be on the receiving end of that anxiety. A few years later at Adobe, I was now a Director. A team that joined my organization set up a meeting to introduce themselves when I visited their office. I came to the conference room expecting to sit around the table and talk. Instead, I walked in to find a polished deck waiting for me, the whole team lined up, ready to present. It was the first time anyone had ever built a slide deck just for me. I felt guilty, honestly, because it was obvious they’d spent serious time on it, and I had just breezed in thinking we’d hang out. I understood immediately why they’d done it. But I also wanted to tell them: I’m just Kevin. You don’t have to do this.

The key: Executives are just people with different responsibilities. The anxiety you feel walking into that room is completely understandable, and mostly unnecessary.

What I learned the hard way from that Microsoft VP is that when you speak to executives, every word carries weight. The core tension is that you are closer to the work than they are. You’re the expert in your domain. But that doesn’t make you the expert in the room. You’re there because the thing you’re working on matters to them, not necessarily in the way it matters to you. Executives have the broader business context. You have the deeper technical context. They’re optimizing for risk, clarity, and decision making, not technical elegance.

Executives aren’t there to hear your whole presentation. They’re there to get something specific, and that something is usually part of a much larger set of conversations they’re having. If you give them a complete tour of your work and none of it is what they came for, they’ll interrupt you. Or they’ll check email. Or they’ll leave. Not out of disrespect, but because they have other things to do, and this meeting didn’t give them what they needed.

A framework: the four C’s

Before any executive communication, whether it’s a meeting, an email, or a Slack message, run through four questions.

Clarity. Are you using language that cannot be misinterpreted? Not your team’s language, not industry jargon. Plain language. Define terms the moment you use them, or don’t use them at all.

Context. Have you situated your topic inside the broader business picture, as best you understand it? You won’t have all their context. That’s fine. Show that you’re thinking past the narrow scope of your project. The executive you’re talking to is probably thinking about two other projects and how yours intersects with them. Meet them there as best as you can.

Consequence. Have you made it clear what happens if a decision is made or not made? Don’t assume the stakes are obvious. Say something like: “If we get the help we need, I’d put our odds of delivering on time at 70%. Without it, 30%.” That gives them something to act on. They’re not going to intuit the downstream implications of your team’s situation. You have to surface them.

Control. Are you demonstrating command of your subject, including its risks and trade-offs? Executives have usually been where you are. They can tell when someone is leaving something out, whether intentionally or because they haven’t thought it through. Either reading is bad for you.

If you skip answering one of these four questions, they’ll go hunting for the answer. That’s when the interruptions start and when you lose control of the room.

Calibrating your technical level

One common challenge in executive settings is explaining topics at the right level of technical detail for your audience. This challenge is called technical calibration: making sure your explanations match what your audience understands and needs, not just what is technically accurate.

Overexplaining occurs when you dive deeply into technical details with an audience that lacks the same technical background or expertise. For example, if you are a developer or a frontline engineering manager presenting to a mixed-background group, most will not be technical. If you go straight to implementation specifics without first gauging your audience’s familiarity, you risk losing them. I have seen this happen when I wanted to give team members exposure to the executive team. Despite my advice to focus on the business context, they presented too much technical detail. As a result, my peers disengaged—not out of disrespect, but because the level of information wasn’t appropriate for them. It can be tough to watch, especially knowing how much effort goes into preparing.

Under-explaining happens when you assume the audience shares your technical context and use unexplained terms or reference internal systems without clarification. Under-explaining can make your message opaque to executives, even if they don’t say so. Executives may not interrupt to ask, but will quietly disengage if they can’t follow the discussion. Clear technical calibration helps prevent this by defining terms and providing just enough context.

To technically calibrate, start by identifying your audience’s background and what matters to them. Focus your explanation on three areas: business impact, customer impact, and risk. These areas matter most to executives. Lead with what changes, who is affected, and what costs or risks are involved. Offer more technical details if requested, but always start with a clear context relevant to your audience’s familiarity.

Here’s something worth understanding about the translation problem. As a CTO, my job is to make complex technical realities legible to people who don’t live in technology. My peers on the executive team understand the broad strokes of engineering, but they’re not going to track a detailed architectural discussion, nor should they. I continuously hear fairly complicated things from people on my team, figure out what’s actually important in a business context, and translate them for my peers. That skill didn’t come naturally. I developed it by presenting to executives over the years and paying attention to what landed and what didn’t.

If you’re looking to move into senior technical leadership, this is not optional. The ability to translate your domain for non-technical peers is one of the most critical skills you can develop. In the first years of my career, I thought being technically correct was sufficient. What I eventually learned is that clarity and alignment matter more than precision. You can be right about everything and still fail to move anything if the people you’re talking to can’t follow you.

How to handle the room

A few more things worth knowing.

Lead with the conclusion. In written communication, especially, I see people bury the point. They walk me through everything that happened before telling me why they’re writing. Put the conclusion first. We have this problem. Here’s what I need. The background can follow, if I need it.

Plan to use half your time. If you’re given an hour, prepare for thirty minutes. You will get interrupted. Questions will go deep. Tangents will happen. If you’re done in half an hour and could have taken an hour, that’s a great outcome. It means you were clear and direct, leaving room for the conversation to go where it needed to. The executives you are presenting to will appreciate your brevity if it gives them time back in their day.

Say “I don’t know” when you don’t know. This is harder than it sounds. You’re in front of people who matter, and someone asks a question you can’t answer. The instinct is to approximate, to say it’s going pretty well, to give them something. Resist that. If you guess and you’re wrong, the next time they hear about your project from someone with the real information, they’ll wonder whether you were confused or covering something up. It’s more important for you to protect your credibility than your ego. If you don’t have an answer, commit to providing one as soon as possible after the meeting.

Treat interruptions as signals. If someone goes deep on something you considered minor, or starts a side conversation with the person next to them, that’s not a sign things are going badly. Something you said connected to a concern you’re not aware of. Stay with it. Follow it. Don’t try to reroute back to your slides. I’ve made this mistake. The executives started talking among themselves because something I’d said triggered a prior discussion. At a certain point, I was just standing at the front of the room waiting. I tried to bring them back because I was worried about running out of time. They didn’t have it. We ran out of time anyway. The deck got a “just send it over, sorry we ran out of time.” That is a common outcome from one of these meetings. Remember: your job in the room isn’t to get through your material at all costs—it’s to meet executives where they are and help them move things forward. If you do that, you’ve succeeded, even if the meeting doesn’t go as planned.

Executive brevity isn’t disinterest. Senior leaders in large companies can spend eight hours in meetings a day. They get direct because directness is how you survive that schedule. If they’re short with you, it probably just means they’re operating efficiently. Don’t confuse it with dismissal.

The view from the other side

Now that I’m regularly on the other side of these conversations, I recognize pretty quickly when someone is protecting their ego instead of informing me. When they get defensive about a challenge, when they oversell, when they’re more focused on how they look than on what I actually need to understand. And I recognize the opposite, too. When someone says, “I don’t know, but I’ll find out,” I trust them more, not less. When someone slows down and clarifies rather than powering through, I appreciate it.

What executives want from anyone presenting to them is to help them understand something so they can make a good decision. That’s it. You are not there to demonstrate your expertise. They already assume you have it. That’s why you’re in the room. You’re there to enable good decisions for the people you’re talking to.

Every word should either reduce ambiguity, increase alignment, or surface risk. Remember, every executive conversation is a chance to build trust and influence outcomes. Treat each as an opportunity to connect, learn, and shape direction.

Ask yourself one question before every executive interaction: Am I optimizing to be right, or am I optimizing to be understood?

The answer should always be the latter.


To hear an extended discussion of this topic, please listen to my recent podcast episode: Talking to Executives: That’s Not a Derailment, That’s the Meeting.

Originally published in my newsletter

What Really Happens in a Board Meeting

Blaine, WA, USA – November 2025 – Photo by Kevin Goldsmith

Many companies treat their board meetings like something between a state secret and a seismic event. People talk about them in hushed tones. Execs disappear for days to “prepare the deck.” Afterwards, the chatter changes. Priorities shift. New projects materialize out of the ether.

If you’ve never been in a board meeting, it can all seem mysterious, and maybe a little ominous.

Board meetings aren’t actually mysterious. But they are consequential. Understanding what happens in that room can help engineering leaders feel more confident and prepared for the responsibilities ahead.

The Board Meeting Is the Company’s Performance Review

The easiest way to understand a board meeting is to think of it as a quarterly performance review, not for you, but for the entire company. The board’s job is governance, not day-to-day execution. But when you’re in the room, that distinction gets blurry.

Leadership walks in trying to demonstrate progress and competence. The board walks in looking for clarity, judgment, and evidence that the company is being run responsibly. That tension is always there, even when everyone gets along.

Most employees only see the aftereffects: sudden shifts in priorities, new urgency on old initiatives, or a directional change that seems to come out of nowhere. When you understand the meeting, those reactions make more sense. They’re the natural downstream effects of a conversation where the company’s leaders were held accountable for the plan they proposed.

The Board Isn’t a Shadow Government, But It Can Feel Like One

Inside most companies, the board feels invisible. You don’t meet them. You don’t email with them. Yet they’re the group that hires and fires the CEO. Even founders aren’t immune. When you hear “The CEO stepped down,” it usually means the board decided it was time.

That’s one reason board meetings carry so much weight. Executives know the stakes. And while boards rarely act on one bad meeting, repeated surprises or unclear thinking will put pressure on the CEO, which eventually rolls downhill.

I’ve even been in the room when an executive presented a plan so poorly, and after enough prior concerns, that the board effectively decided in the moment that they needed to go. That’s the exception, not the rule. But it illustrates the point: credibility is earned, and it can be lost.

Not All Boards Behave the Same

Boards vary widely depending on the company’s stage.

In early-stage or growth-stage startups, the board is often hands-on. Sometimes very hands-on. Because the board at this stage usually includes the company’s investors, individual members may push directly on product direction or dive deep into operational details. It isn’t always ideal, but early companies are fragile, and investors are understandably trying to protect their bet.

In founder-led companies, the dynamic shifts depending on who sits at the table. Early on, it’s often people the founder knows and trusts, which creates a more deferential tone. As more institutional investors arrive, that dynamic changes.

Later-stage boards tend to be more formal, more metrics-driven, and more focused on predictable execution. The meetings feel closer to performance evaluations, even when the culture is friendly.

One thing doesn’t change: a board reflects the CEO. Formal CEOs produce formal boards. Informal CEOs yield looser, more conversational meetings. The CEO sets the weather.

What Actually Happens in the Meeting

People are often surprised to learn how much preparation goes into a board meeting—weeks of it.

Everything centers on a shared deck: financials, KPIs, major initiatives, strategic updates, risk areas, hiring plans, and decisions requiring approval. That deck is reviewed, revised, rehearsed, and pre-briefed long before the board enters the room. By the time the meeting starts, the board already knows what they’re about to see, or should.

A typical meeting looks something like this:

The CEO sets the stage: what’s going well, what’s not, what leadership needs from the board.

Finance presents the numbers: revenue, runway, margin, CAC, churn; whatever matters most to the business model.

Product, marketing, and sales walk through their worlds: customer signals, wins and misses, market conditions, and upcoming bets.

If the company has made a significant strategic push: AI, international expansion, a new product line, there’s usually a deep dive.

Throughout all of this, the board probes. A good board isn’t antagonistic, but it’s direct. Their job is to test whether leadership is thinking clearly and operating responsibly.

At the end, there’s a closed session. No executives except the CEO (and sometimes CFO). That’s where the board talks candidly about leadership performance. It’s also why execs take these meetings seriously.

The CTO’s Seat at the Table

The funny part about board meetings is that the CTO is almost always there, but rarely the center of attention, even in technology companies. Most board members aren’t technologists. In my entire career, I’ve only had one board where someone truly came from a technical background.

That means the CTO’s job in a board meeting is translation.

As a CTO, your role is to translate complex technology into clear, business-relevant insights, focusing on risks, investments, and support needs, so that non-technical board members can make informed decisions.

When an initiative is technology-led (cost optimization, AI investment, infrastructure modernization), you’ll sometimes present directly. More often, your work shows up indirectly through product velocity, reliability metrics, margins, and sales enablement.

The worst thing a CTO can do is surprise the CEO in the room. A board meeting is not the moment for new revelations or unplanned detours. If you introduce something your CEO hasn’t already heard, and agreed belongs in the conversation, you’re forcing them to react in real time, in front of the people who evaluate their performance. Even if the content is harmless, the surprise signals a lack of coordination inside the leadership team, and boards pick up on that instantly.

The second worst mistake is over-indexing on detail. Most board members aren’t technologists, and they’re not there to adjudicate between queueing models or deployment patterns. If you dive too deep, you overwhelm them, lose the narrative, and inadvertently signal that you’re thinking tactically rather than strategically. Early in my career, I thought that being thorough meant being exhaustive. What it actually meant was that I didn’t yet understand what the room needed from me.

I’ve made both mistakes. You learn quickly because the feedback, explicit or implicit, is immediate. Part of growing as a technology leader is learning that clarity, judgment, and alignment matter far more in a board meeting than technical virtuosity. Your job isn’t to impress them; it’s to help them trust that the company’s technology function is in steady, intentional hands.

Who’s in the Room, and Why It’s Not Everyone

People often ask why the board doesn’t record meetings, why it doesn’t open them, or why they can’t sit in to “learn.” The simple answer is context. Board meetings include discussions of risk, strategy, personnel, and decisions that may never come to pass. Without proper context, those conversations can be misinterpreted, leading to unnecessary fear.

That’s why attendance is limited to the executive team and a handful of supporting leaders. It’s not secrecy for secrecy’s sake. It’s to keep the conversation honest and productive.

What the Board Really Pays Attention To

Across every board I’ve worked with, a few patterns hold:

  • They care most about outcomes, not implementation.
  • They want clarity and judgment, not technical depth.
  • They evaluate leadership as a team, not as individuals.
  • They notice inconsistency immediately: mixed narratives, mismatched data, executives talking past each other.

A board meeting isn’t the place to demonstrate how clever you are. It’s the place to illustrate how aligned and effective the leadership team is.

Managing the Human Side

Board meetings aren’t just business reviews; they’re relationship-driven human interactions. Boards bring their own histories, biases, experiences, and incentives. Investors think about returns. Independents think about governance and risk. Founders think about mission and control. Everyone around the table is pulling from their own mental models.

As an executive, you navigate that while staying steady. No defensiveness. No surprise opinions. No contradicting your peers in the room. If there’s a disagreement, work it out before or after the meeting, not in front of the board.

Board members pay closer attention to the executive team’s dynamic than most people realize. If they sense misalignment, they’ll push the CEO to fix it. I’ve seen that happen more than once.

After the Meeting

How leaders talk about the board to their teams matters. Saying “the board won’t let us” creates a shadow authority that disempowers the people actually making decisions. It also feeds the myth that the board runs the company.

They don’t. Leadership does. The board evaluates, approves, challenges, and guides. If they consistently don’t like what they see, they replace leadership. But they aren’t running the business day to day.

That distinction matters more than people think.

What to Take Away

Board meetings aren’t often dramatic. They’re not mysterious. But they are a critical part of how companies stay accountable and aligned.

For technology leaders, understanding them is helpful for two reasons.

First, it demystifies the decisions you see after every quarterly meeting. You understand why priorities shift and where specific pressures come from.

Second, it prepares you for the rooms you’ll eventually grow into. Because one day, you may find yourself sitting at that table. And once you’re there, the job is simple: be clear, be honest, be thoughtful, and never forget that the board is there to help the company succeed, not to trip you up.

That’s the work. And like most leadership work, it’s less about knowing the correct answer and more about showing good judgment when the stakes are high.


To hear an extended discussion of this topic, please listen to my podcast episode: https://itdependspod.com/episodes/demystifying-board-meetings-a-ctos-perspective/

This article was originally published at https://kevingoldsmith.substack.com/p/what-really-happens-in-a-board-meeting