The Conversion Series: Part 4 - The Proposal Stage

Photo by Vitaly Gariev on Unsplash‍ ‍

In the last article, we explored client conversations and the importance of preparing your questions, ideas, mood and reconnecting with your purpose, so that what might otherwise feel like “selling” begins to feel more like service.

This article picks up at the next phase — when a need has emerged and you’re asked to send a proposal. There are skills and helpful attitudes here. When handled well, this stage can save time, reduce frustration, and significantly increase your hit rate.

Proposals Aren’t About Winning

This may seem counter-intuitive. When invited to put forward a proposal, it’s natural to slip into “have to win” mode. We tighten up emotionally. We polish the language so it sounds convincing. We remove anything uncertain or uncomfortable. We send the document and hope it lands well.

Sometimes it does. Often, there is silence.

My belief is that our job at this stage is not to win the work, but to shape a piece of work that genuinely meets the client’s needs and clearly specifies what we will require to deliver it well. When we hold that stance, we ask better questions. We explore important topics with more care and less desperation. We signal that our integrity matters more than winning — and clients feel that difference.

Three Principles

1. People convert, not proposals

Presentation and documentation matter, but trust grows when clients have a sense of who they will be working with, how those people think, and whether they feel understood.

Where possible, involve colleagues early and talk through options rather than disappearing to craft a perfect proposal in isolation. When clients experience your thinking and your care in real time, confidence builds. A proposal discussed generates far more trust than one delivered by email.

2. Don’t skip the real questions

Before writing anything, you need clarity.

What would “good” actually look like? What outcomes matter most? Who needs to say yes? Is there a budget aligned to the scale of what’s being asked? How do they like to work? And just as importantly, what will you need from them if this is to succeed?

When we are trying to win, these questions can feel pushy. When we are designing something that will genuinely work, they feel thorough and land as being professional.

If these assumptions aren’t tested in conversation, we are designing in the dark. Drafting a comprehensive proposal may feel productive, but without clarity it is built on guesswork.

3. Design it with them

When clients can see their concerns, language and trade-offs reflected in the shaping of the work, ownership increases.

That may mean discussing the pros and cons of different approaches, being clear about what is and isn’t included, and naming what you will need from them to achieve the outcomes they want. It can feel slightly uncomfortable to be that transparent, but it strengthens trust.

Erika’s Experience

You may remember Erika — capable and respected, but never particularly comfortable with BD.

After a good conversation with a former client, she was invited to submit a proposal. She and her colleague shaped it carefully. It was thorough and competitively priced. They pressed send, quietly confident.

Then nothing.

Days passed. A follow-up. Still nothing. Alongside her professionalism sat irritation — a sense of being slightly dismissed and a small erosion of belief that the effort had been worthwhile.

The proposal wasn’t the issue. The deeper problem was that the commitment had never truly been designed. Key players hadn’t shaped it. Budget hadn’t been explored directly. Assumptions remained untested.

Later, she met another potential client, Isaac. Early on, she sensed scepticism, so instead of moving quickly into how she could help, she asked about his previous experiences. He spoke openly about being burnt by consultants who over-promised and under-delivered.

After sharing this and sensing Erika’s interest and validation, Isaac became more open.

She explored his context — his concerns, pressures and aspirations — while also sharing what she had seen in similar projects. She outlined two possible approaches, including the benefits and downsides of each, and was clear about what she would need from him and his team for the work to succeed.

Rather than rushing away to write a detailed proposal, she suggested a short follow-up conversation to refine scope and costs. They discussed fee ranges openly. Isaac indicated what he felt workable. Only then did she put something simple in writing.

He signed.

What Changed?

In the first situation, Erika tried to be impressive and responsive. In the second, she stayed in conversation longer. She tested assumptions, involved the client in shaping the work, and made mutual responsibility explicit.

She stopped trying to win and started designing work she could confidently deliver.

When the goal is simply to “get the job,” we avoid awkward questions, over-polish documents and hope for the best. When the goal is to truly understand the need and shape it well, we ask clearer questions, involve the right people earlier, and test commitment before investing heavily.

It requires more confidence, but it saves a lot of time polishing a proposal and dramatically increases hit rate on work you know you can deliver.