Does your pitch have an Ayatollah?

The scarcest resource a pitch team has is time. And one of the main reasons teams run out of time is that many lack someone who's both empowered to, and willing to, make hard, often-unpopular decisions. Not rushed decisions, not unilateral decisions, but decisions that stand nonetheless.

Years ago, while talking to another pitch consultant, I heard her describe this function as a 'pitch Ayatollah', instantly connoting the kind of strict, unbending power anchored in moral authority we recognize in fundamentalist theocracies. I laughed, uncomfortably, at the analogy. It left a lasting impression, however, because as pitches heat up, agencies without this kind of pitch leader chew up their remaining time debating instead of doing. Knowing that someone has absolute authority helps the team resolve questions of emphasis and organization that, given the lack of hard data available in most pitch situations, ultimately become matters of judgment and belief rather than evidence-driven decision-making.

What kinds of decisions do pitch Ayatollahs make? They decide, for example, when to stop 'tweaking' the proposed positioning–or when it still needs to be adjusted. They decide to release the leave-behind document for reproduction early, before all the slides have been perfected, accepting the risk that what's presented at the pitch may vary from what's in the document. (And by doing so, they decide that the pitch team's attention is best spent rehearsing rather than reproducing documents during the final hours before the pitch.)

Pitch Ayatollahs make the tough decision about who's ready to present and who has to stay home, even if he or she has worked hard to develop the pitch. They decide which slides to cut, no matter how much heart someone else may have for them. The same with ad ideas, even if the Creative Director thinks they absolutely have to be shown. And the PA decides whether or not to show the video clip that the team just spent $15,000 shooting. Tough calls.

Can't these decisions be made with a more consensual process? Sure. Early on, decisions not only can, but should be, made with full involvement of the team, or at least the key managers on the team. Consensus and collaboration make for great idea generation and individual buy-in. They tap the collective intelligence of the full team, the 'wisdom of the crowd' that James Surowiecki writes so compellingly about. But in the final week before the pitch, the group's need for speed, energy, and rest may require-indeed, usually does require-a transition to a more authoritarian structure, one that everyone must acknowledge because to debate over the power structure at this late juncture tosses even more time and energy onto the scrap-heap.

Assuming that you go this route, it's important that your team expects this to happen, in advance, understands the reasoning behind it, and plans for it. Otherwise people may feel blindsided and puzzled, and may worry needlessly that something that they've done individually has provoked the change. Nerves fray and tempers disappear under pitch stresses. One agency successfully used the title 'executive sponsor' to embrace the Ayatollah approach, appointing the executive early on in the process and making it clear throughout where the buck would stop. You can pick any name you choose, so long as the individual's authority to make key decisions is fully supported by top management and fully understood by all.

Who should perform this role? In agencies with a single strong leader, it's often the CEO or President who takes it on, but many agencies share authority among pairs or triumvirate. Also, an agency that pitches frequently can't afford to tie up its top executive solely on new business development without risking inattention to existing businesses, organic growth, and the needs of the agency at large. Ideally, the Pitch Ayatollah role falls to someone who's earned a lot of respect and social credit with others in the organization, a well-liked, respected, and decisive senior executive who'll be forgiven for the toes inevitably stepped on and the eggs broken in the process. Pitch Ayatollahs need a lot of confidence, pitch experience to inform good judgment, and thick skins. Many organizations rotate the role, pitch by pitch, to spare one individual the constant burden and frictions that come with the role. While the role is great for developing leaders, it's no place for people without a lot of leadership experience, tact, emotional intelligence, and communication skill. There's simply too much at stake.

The most important thing, however, is that top management provides the unyielding support to the PA. If top brass reserve decision-making during the pitch process for themselves, they've effectively named themselves PAs, no matter what else they've said to the organization and whoever the 'token' PA or executive sponsor is. Better to be clear and upfront about it. Similarly, in agencies where several leaders run the shop, it's important that they decide a priori who will run each individual pitch, and defer to the designated PA... even if it's their turf.

The gains in efficiency, team energy, team morale, and ability for the team to tell a seamless story significantly outweigh, in my opinion, the not-inconsiderable risk that some of the decisions made won't be 'perfect', or as good as one of the other leaders would have made. There's no time for perfect in pitches, and perfection isn't even the point. A pitch, beyond everything else, is the opportunity for a client to get to experience what it might be like to work with an agency on its business. By helping the agency team to focus and bring that experience to life, the Pitch Ayatollah adds tremendous value to both client and agency.