When crafting “Why I”/”Why We” thought leadership articles, build credibility by discussing the price that you and/or your organization paid, anticipating objections, and setting scenes.
Recently, two authors published “Why I” or “Why We” articles in a well-respected legal industry media outlet that, on their face, seem to have nothing in common.
One was an attorney explaining why she had taken her 20-year solo practice to a large firm. The other was a non-lawyer CEO explaining why his company became one of the first alternative business structures (“ABS”) (i.e., non-lawyer-owned law firms) in his state.
But the articles did have something in common: They both employed the same three techniques to make their explanations for what they did credible; techniques that are often lacking in these kinds of articles.
The conventional advice for writing “Why I”/”Why We” articles
You’ve surely seen “Why I”/”Why We” thought leadership articles before. In these articles, the authors explain why they or their organizations did what they did. These articles can be an effective way to win hearts and minds by explaining the logical reasons for doing something noteworthy, while also appealing to readers’ emotions by working in how the authors’ values influenced their actions.
The typical advice you get for writing one of these articles is to tell your story, explain your mission, share your values, and be “authentic.”
So that’s what most authors do. They describe what they or their organization did. They then tack on their values and mission to that description and call it a day.
When they do that, their article will read like a press release because that’s pretty much what it is. The article will almost certainly be all sunshine and rainbows about why the author or authors did what they did.
But people aren’t dumb. Nobody believes that taking the action that lends itself to writing a “Why I”/”Why We” article about it is going to come without issues. A “Why I”/”Why We” article that’s all sunshine and rainbows is unlikely to be credible in readers’ eyes.
By utilizing three techniques, authors of “Why I”/”Why We” articles can give their articles the credibility needed to position themselves favorably.
Technique 1: Discuss the price you paid for taking the action you took
The first technique both articles employed was discussing the price the authors had to pay—that is, the adversity they faced—for the actions they took.
The solo attorney explained that when joining the larger firm, she was terrified that the firm’s brand would swallow the reputation she’d spent decades building, in part because a different firm that tried to recruit her told her a lawyer’s name doesn’t matter; they felt that all that matters is a firm’s brand. She also recounted loving being her own boss and how she had to give that up to join the larger law firm.
The CEO noted he was entering a field hostile to non-attorneys seeking to provide legal services. He further acknowledged that not every ABS should be structured the way his ABS was, that not every legal matter could be standardized, and that not everything about representing a client should or can be automated.
Both authors faced adversity when making their decisions, which increased the credibility of their views and their article.
Before you write a “Why I”/”Why We” article, answer one question: What was the price you paid or adversity you faced for taking the action you took? The lateral attorney gave up autonomy that she treasured. The CEO needed to acknowledge that the legal industry looked down on what he was trying to do, and that he wanted to provide legal services to clients while giving engineers real equity in his business, which a conventional law firm structure wouldn’t have allowed him to do.
If you can’t answer what adversity you faced when taking the action you discuss in your article, you don’t have a credible “why,” you have a “what.” A credible “why” leads to a credible “Why I”/”Why We” article. A “what” leads to a press release dressed up as a “Why I”/”Why We” article.
Technique #2: Anticipate the reader’s objections and handle them
The second way the two authors injected credibility into their articles was by addressing the objections, questions, and doubts a reader would likely have about their journeys.
In the attorney’s article, she quotes a peer who asked her, “Why would you ever want to practice at that law firm?” The attorney didn’t soften that quote, nor did she handle it in a footnote. She put the hostile question front and center early in the article and spent most of the rest answering it.
The CEO did something similar. In his article, he said he recognized that lawyers and the legal industry are skeptical of applying a startup mindset to law, and that startups often treat legal requirements as obstacles to work around rather than factors to build into their operations. But then he explained how his company avoided that outcome.
This technique of calling out objections and addressing them early builds credibility because your reader will develop them as they read your article. If you don’t call out these objections in your article and answer them, your readers will assume you didn’t consider them, and will view their objections as undermining the merits of your arguments. They might also think you’re dodging those objections or that you failed to completely think through your arguments. Either way, they’ll likely see you as less credible.
When you call out these objections, you’re signaling to your readers that you know they might have questions or objections, and you’re responding to them.
Technique #3: Set scenes
Both authors set scenes for readers, thereby increasing the credibility of their articles by allowing readers to see the world through their eyes and to adopt the logic behind their decisions and actions.
The attorney described standing in her new firm, watching another lawyer finish her client meeting, fill out a drop-down form, hit “send,” and then, suddenly, work started getting done-work that would have taken her dozens of emails to get started.
She could have written that the firm had “excellent infrastructure,” but she didn’t. That wouldn’t have been as vivid or as persuasive. Instead, she painted a picture in the reader’s mind of one reason she took her practice to this firm.
In another part of the article, she recounts a friend asking her, “What freedom do you actually have as a solo practitioner if you’re on a family vacation and a client can interrupt it?” That exchange prompted her to reevaluate her life as a solo attorney and eventually join her new firm.
The CEO, in his article, recounted how his company considered focusing on certain target clients but ran into a structural problem, and what he and his colleagues did to get around it.
Neither author was discussing cold, heartless statistics or copy-and-pasted value statements. They were setting scenes, which builds credibility by establishing the humanity of their decision-making regarding the actions they’re writing about.
Two pitfalls to avoid when writing “Why I”/”Why We” articles
When written well and employing the techniques I outlined above, “Why I”/”Why We” articles can be effective thought-leadership articles. But keep in mind two potential pitfalls.
First, not all “Why I”/”Why We” articles are the same. “Why I” articles are singularly focused. Somebody’s talking about their life or career, often bringing vulnerability to the fray.
The attorney’s article tells the reader about her fears, sleepless nights, and her decision to follow her father into a law office. She ends by offering to talk to any solo who’s wrestling with the same concerns she had when deciding whether to make the move to a larger firm.
But “Why We” articles are institutional and more focused on accountability. The CEO, in his article, discloses nothing of a personal nature; he’s offering a standard that he’s inviting readers to hold him to, treating “expanded permission as expanded obligation.”
These are two different things: vulnerability and accountability. A common failure in crafting these thought leadership articles is that an author working at an organization plays up the vulnerability or courage of their organization when encountering and overcoming a rough patch. The problem is that institutions can’t be vulnerable or courageous. But they have obligations to their stakeholders.
So when writing a “Why We” article, authors from organizations should name the obligation that they’re holding themselves and their organizations accountable for satisfying, focus on that obligation, and stay away from talking about vulnerability and other emotions that organizations don’t have.
The second potential pitfall is that “Why I”/”Why We” articles are naturally self-serving. The attorney’s article is essentially a recruiting tool aimed at solos in a similar boat who might find her new law firm an appealing place to practice. The CEO’s piece is obviously trying to build legitimacy for a controversial form of law firm ownership, ABS, and serve as a hiring pitch to engineers to join his company.
Nobody publishes a “Why I joined a bigger firm and regretted it” article. Nobody’s publishing articles talking about the evil reasons they launched a company. But readers are not dumb nor naïve. They understand that.
If the writer of a “Why I”/”Why We” article can establish credibility by discussing the price they paid for taking the action they took, anticipating objections, and setting scenes, readers are likely to discount the self-interest they see in that article.