The CEO CF Challenge: a better way to think through a difficult decision
A difficult decision deserves a clear question, thoughtful attention and more than one perspective. The CEO CF Challenge gives leaders a structured way to do that work with peers.
You bring a real business or leadership issue. A coach helps you prepare. In the room, the group seeks to understand the situation before offering observations and recommendations. You then decide what you have discovered and what you will do.
The value lies in how those stages connect. Preparation gives the questions something specific to examine. Questions improve the basis for feedback. Reflection turns that feedback into your own judgement.
Begin with the question beneath the concern
Before building a presentation, there is a more important task: deciding which question deserves the group’s attention.
Imagine a founder who starts with, "We need a better sales director." A preparation conversation might uncover a different issue: customers buy a pilot but hesitate to roll it out. Now there is a question to investigate, rather than a staffing decision already embedded in the explanation.
This is an illustrative example. It shows why framing matters. A coach can help narrow the issue, identify relevant context and distinguish what is known from what is assumed.
The preparation should make the situation understandable. You do not need a polished story in which every decision already looks right.
Make the explanation yours
A useful Challenge presentation tells peers what is happening, what you have tried, what evidence you have and where you need help. Choosing that material can reveal a gap before anyone asks a question.
A timeline might show that an explanation does not fit the order of events. A figure may prompt you to check its source. Describing two options may help you notice a third.
Bisra and colleagues’ meta-analysis of self-explanation found learning benefits from prompts to explain material. Those studies concerned instructional settings. The relevant design principle here is to keep the leader actively involved in explaining the issue.
Give each stage its own job
One established 75-minute version of the Challenge uses the following sequence. Session timings can vary; preparation and follow-up sit outside these blocks.
Present for 15 minutes. Explain the situation and the question you want help with.
Take questions for 20 minutes. Help peers understand the context before they offer advice.
Listen to observations and recommendations for 25 minutes. Consider the perspectives offered without having to respond to each one.
Use 15 minutes for discoveries, rediscoveries and commitments. Identify what matters and decide your next actions.
The structure protects distinct kinds of thinking. Its precise timing is a facilitation choice, rather than a scientifically established optimum.
Understanding comes before advising
"Which customers are hesitating?" invites clarification. "Have you thought about hiring someone I know?" already points towards a solution.
Giving questions their own stage helps the group explore the problem before narrowing towards an answer. In the pilot example, the questions might reveal that some customers lack a business case while others cannot implement the product. Similar symptoms can have different causes.
At this stage, the presenter can correct the group’s understanding and identify what still needs checking. A useful contribution may be, "I do not know; I need to find out."
Separate what a peer notices from what they advise
An observation identifies something relevant in the account or the contributor’s experience. A recommendation proposes an action. Keeping them distinct helps you accept a useful observation while still questioning the suggested response.
For example, a peer may notice that three customer groups have different buying requirements. Their recommendation might be to test a separate proposition with each. You can examine both parts of that reasoning.
Members bring different business experience, and their views may conflict. The facilitator helps the exchange remain constructive. The Facilitator Assistant captures the contributions so that speakers can check the wording and the presenter can review it.
The purpose is to widen and test your understanding. The group does not vote on how you should run your company.
The next action belongs to you
In the closing stage, you identify discoveries and rediscoveries: what is new, what you now see differently and what you already knew but need to act on.
You then choose SMART Commitments: specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound actions.
In our illustrative example, a commitment could be to speak with three customers whose pilots stalled by 30 October 2026, then record whether the obstacle concerns purchasing, implementation or something else. The useful features are a defined action, evidence to gather and a real date.
Returning to that commitment matters. Experimental research on progress monitoring supports reviewing progress rather than relying on intention alone. It does not establish the outcome of the complete CEO CF method.
A Challenge can leave you with a clearer decision. It can also leave you with a better question and the action needed to answer it. Both are useful progress.
Talk with us about the decision you would bring and whether CEO CF is the right peer community to help you work through it.
