A voice brief should capture how you think.

A brief that asks for a voice that is “confident, approachable, and authentic” gives a writer very little to work with. Almost anyone could agree to those words. They do not explain which argument an executive would make, what they would notice, or where they would draw a line.

Start with judgment. The useful material in a voice brief is a record of decisions: what this person believes, how they arrived there, and what would change their mind. Style becomes easier to hear once there is a particular person doing the thinking.

Begin with a decision, not a biography

Ask the executive about a recent choice that was difficult to make. Keep the question small enough to answer from memory: a meeting they canceled, a project they stopped, a hire they changed their mind about. Ask what the obvious answer was and why they chose something else.

A useful follow-up is: “What would somebody competent disagree with here?” This keeps the discussion out of easy declarations that nobody would challenge. It also gives a writer the counterargument a good article needs.

For example, “We value focus” is a position with no edges. “We keep one afternoon free of internal meetings because a scattered week makes deep work difficult” contains a choice, a cost, and a reason. A writer can develop it without inventing a personality.

Collect evidence in the speaker’s own words

Take notes from the conversation with permission. Preserve a few sentences exactly, even when they are less polished than you would publish. A characteristic aside or qualification can reveal more than a page of adjectives.

Separate material into three small groups:

• Beliefs: positions the executive can explain and defend.
• Evidence: examples they have personally observed, with enough context to check what happened.
• Language: phrases, rhythms, and words that sound natural to them.

Record the source of each example. Distinguish a remembered conversation from a documented result. Mark anything that needs confirmation before publication. A vivid anecdote is still unfinished material if the writer does not know whether it can be shared.

Write down the limits

A voice brief should also make restraint visible. Which subjects does this person understand well enough to write about? Where are they still learning? Which personal details should remain private? What kinds of humor feel natural, and which feel performed?

Include a short “would not say” list with explanations. “Avoid the phrase ‘move fast’ because she usually argues for a slower discovery phase” teaches a writer something. A long list of banned fashionable words may improve the surface while leaving the argument generic.

Treat these notes as working boundaries, open to revision. They should help the executive recognize themselves in the draft, without turning every sentence into an imitation of an old one.

Make a one-page working brief

You can begin with six prompts. Answer each in a few sentences rather than building a document nobody will reread:

1. Reader: Who is this for, and what problem are they dealing with?
2. Position: What does the executive believe about that problem?
3. Reason: What experience or evidence led to that belief?
4. Tension: What is the strongest reasonable objection?
5. Sound: Which two or three real sentences capture how they speak?
6. Limits: What needs checking, and what should remain out of scope?

For a particular article, add the intended takeaway. “The reader should reconsider a standing meeting” is more useful than “establish thought leadership.” It gives the editor something concrete to evaluate.

Check the brief against a real draft

Ask a writer to produce a short opening using the brief. Review it with the executive and listen for specific corrections: “I agree with this, but I would not be that certain,” or “The real issue was the handoff, not the meeting.” Put those corrections back into the brief.

In ArticleAtelier, the executive’s voice notes hold the enduring context; the piece’s brief holds the argument for this particular draft. Keep that distinction useful. A new assignment should not require rediscovering the person, and an old profile should not decide the argument before the conversation has happened.

The brief is doing its job when an editor can explain why a sentence belongs to this person—and when the person can disagree with it in a precise way.