Learn STANCE: The Presentation Framework for Promotion Boards
STANCE is State6's six step structure for the presentation task at a UK police promotion board: Situation, Take a position, Assessment, Navigate the options, Cost and risk, End with impact. It is built so the panel hears your recommendation early and your judgement clearly.
Work top to bottom the first time, then use the contents to jump back to whatever you need. It applies at Sergeant, Inspector and Chief Inspector level.
The STANCE Builder and presentation export are on the Gold plan.
The framework
Why structure wins
Most officers preparing a board presentation spend their time on content: what data to quote, how much to rehearse. Few spend time on structure, and that is the gap the panel sees. Strong officers fall short not because they lack experience, but because the shape of what they say does not let the panel see it.
Two ideas underpin STANCE. The first is BLUF, bottom line up front, which began in the military and spread to every setting where clarity under pressure matters: give the listener the destination before the journey. The second is the Pyramid Principle, developed by the McKinsey consultant Barbara Minto: lead with your conclusion, support it with arguments, support each argument with evidence. Most officers do the opposite. They build the case first and reach the conclusion at the end, by which point the panel is already forming a view about whether the answer ever had a direction.
The primacy and recency effect compounds it. Memory holds the first things and the last things most clearly, and the middle fades. A presentation that buries its conclusion after three minutes of context hands the panel its weakest material exactly when memory is strongest.
For the habits that cost marks before content even matters, see why police promotion board presentations fail.
What STANCE stands for
Six steps, each doing a specific job. The detail and a worked example for each follow below.
Situation
State the problem. Two sentences at most.
Take a position
State your recommendation before any evidence.
Assessment
The evidence that proves your recommendation is right.
Navigate the options
The alternatives you considered and discarded, and why.
Cost and risk
What this takes. Resourcing, dependencies, risks and mitigations.
End with impact
One sentence. The outcome you are committing to and how you will know it is working.
STANCE, PEEL or STARR? Which one applies
State6 uses three frameworks, one for each kind of task. Using the wrong one costs you, because the structure does not match what the panel is listening for. A presentation task usually still targets a CVF competency or one of the three values (Courage, Respect and Empathy, Public Service), so as you plan, name which one the scenario is really about.
STARR, Behavioural questions
Learn STARR →Tell me about a time when, Give me an example of, When have you
A spoken answer drawing on past experience, showing individual action, outcome and reflection. The panel is assessing whether you have already demonstrated the behaviour at the level required.
PEEL, Forward facing questions
Learn PEEL →How would you handle, What would you do if, What is your view on
A spoken answer that takes a position on a question, grounds it in evidence, engages with the tension and commits to action. PEEL is one answer to one question.
STANCE, Presentation tasks
A scenario briefed in advance or set out in writing, where you are given time and asked to present a recommendation
A structured presentation with a beginning, a body and a close. The difference from PEEL is scope and formality: if you have been given a topic and told you have ten minutes, STANCE applies.
If you are preparing for forward facing questions alongside your presentation, how to structure a forward facing question covers why PEEL and STARR are not interchangeable. For where the presentation task sits in the wider process, the complete police promotion board guide walks through every stage of the board.
The six steps
For each step you get what it is for, what the panel looks for, a weak and a strong example, and the most common mistake. The examples all run on one scenario, rising sickness absence, so you can see the presentation build.
Situation
60 to 80 words · State the problem. Two sentences at most.
The panel does not need the journey. They need to know what the journey is about. Your Situation is the specific, named problem your presentation addresses, with one or two pieces of hard evidence that prove it exists. If you find yourself explaining causes, context or history here, you have already drifted into Assessment.
What the panel looks for
A named problem and the evidence it is real, inside two sentences. The panel wants to know exactly what you are presenting about by the end of your second sentence.
Weak
Sickness absence has been an issue across the force for some time and there are a number of contributing factors that have been identified through various reviews and staff surveys over recent years.
Strong
Sickness absence across the command unit has risen eighteen percent over the last twelve months, with the highest concentration in two response teams. The National Police Wellbeing Survey, run through Oscar Kilo, reports high levels of fatigue across the workforce, and HMICFRS describes a service under sustained workforce pressure.
Common mistake
Opening with context instead of the problem. If you are still setting the scene at thirty seconds, you have lost the structure before you have started.
Take a position
60 to 80 words · State your recommendation before any evidence.
This is the Minto Pyramid Principle in practice: lead with your conclusion, and let everything that follows support it. Most officers present at length before telling the panel what they think. STANCE inverts that. If you cannot state a clear recommendation here, you have not finished thinking yet. The panel should hear your decision in the second step, not after three minutes of evidence.
What the panel looks for
A clear recommendation, stated as decided, not as something you are still weighing. The panel rewards a candidate who commits, and marks down one who lists options and chooses none.
Weak
Having looked at the data and spoken to supervisors, I think there are several things the force could consider in terms of addressing the sickness issue, including wellbeing support, supervisor training and potentially a referral pathway.
Strong
My recommendation is a structured twelve week supervisor led wellbeing intervention, starting with the two highest absence response teams, rather than a force wide programme or a referral only model.
Common mistake
Hedging the recommendation. I would consider, it might be worth looking at, one option could be: these all signal you have not made a decision. State the recommendation as already decided, then build the case for it.
Assessment
300 to 400 words · The evidence that proves your recommendation is right.
Assessment is the largest section and it has a specific discipline: you are building the case for a decision you have already stated, not conducting an open ended review. Named sources, specific data, force context, inspection findings. Vague references to various studies or force data suggests carry no weight. Name the source, name the finding, connect it to your recommendation.
What the panel looks for
Named evidence connected directly to the recommendation. The panel wants an officer who knows the evidence landscape and has applied it to this problem, not one reciting general points.
Weak
The evidence shows that sickness absence is a problem in many forces and there are research findings that support supervisor led approaches to wellbeing. The force data also indicates that there are issues in some teams.
Strong
The National Police Wellbeing Survey, run through Oscar Kilo, reports high levels of fatigue across the workforce, and the wider evidence on short term absence points to early, supervisor led contact as a key lever. HMICFRS describes a service under sustained workforce pressure, with rising demand and an inexperienced workforce. Our own performance data shows the two highest absence teams have also had the largest change in supervisor to officer ratio in the last eighteen months.
Common mistake
Treating Assessment as a chance to re-examine the question rather than build the case. If your evidence makes the recommendation sound uncertain, you have undermined Take a position rather than supported it.
Cost and risk
250 to 300 words · What this takes. Resourcing, dependencies, risks and mitigations.
Panels are not just assessing whether your recommendation is right. They are assessing whether you understand what it costs to deliver. An answer with no Cost and Risk section sounds like an officer who has not led anything at scale. At Sergeant this is your team and the time it needs; at Inspector your command and the functions it draws on; at Chief Inspector force level resource and the wider environment. Name the real costs, name the real risks, and give a specific mitigation for each.
What the panel looks for
Real costs and real risks, each with a mitigation, named at the right rank. At Chief Inspector the panel also wants the strategic and inspection dimension, not just a logistics list.
Weak
This would require some supervisor time and there might be some resistance from staff initially. I would manage this through good communication.
Strong
The resource cost is supervisor time: about four hours a week across the twelve weeks, plus a sergeant designated as lead coordinator. The budget implication is minimal, as this draws on existing capacity rather than new headcount. The main risk is that supervisors experience it as additional burden rather than core leadership work, which I would manage through how I brief it. The second risk is inconsistent delivery if the lead sergeant lacks oversight from me, which I would mitigate with fortnightly review at my tier.
Common mistake
Treating this as a risk register without the strategic dimension. At Chief Inspector the panel expects you to name what continued underperformance means for the force's relationship with the inspectorate and for public confidence. If it reads like a logistics section, it will not score at that rank.
End with impact
30 to 50 words · One sentence. The outcome you are committing to and how you will know it is working.
The primacy and recency effect is as powerful at the close as at the opening. The last thing the panel hears is the thing they carry into scoring. End with impact is not a summary of what you have said. It is a forward looking commitment: a specific outcome, a measure, a timeframe, and personal ownership. One sentence. If you find yourself summarising your earlier sections, you have written the wrong close.
What the panel looks for
A forward looking commitment, not a recap: a specific outcome, a measure, a timeframe, and the clear signal that you own delivery personally.
Weak
In conclusion, I think the approach I have outlined will make a real difference to the team and I am committed to making it work.
Strong
Sickness absence in the two affected teams will reduce by at least six percentage points within sixteen weeks, measured through monthly workforce reporting, and I will hold the lead sergeant accountable for delivery at our fortnightly governance meetings.
Common mistake
Summarising instead of committing. The panel has already heard your analysis. What they need at the close is a specific outcome, a measure, a timeframe, and the clear signal that you own delivery.
See a full presentation
A complete worked presentation
Chief Inspector level
Sickness absence across your command unit has risen eighteen percent over twelve months, concentrated in two response teams. Present your approach as a new Chief Inspector.
Situation
Sickness absence across the command unit has risen eighteen percent over the last twelve months, and it is not spread evenly: two response teams account for most of the increase. The National Police Wellbeing Survey, run through Oscar Kilo, reports high levels of fatigue across the workforce, so this is a local spike inside a national pressure, not a one off.
Why it works: Names the problem and the evidence it is real in two sentences, and frames it as a local spike inside a national pattern. Nothing about causes yet, that belongs in Assessment.
Take a position
My recommendation is a structured twelve week, supervisor led wellbeing intervention, targeted first at the two response teams driving the rise, rather than a force wide programme or a referral only model. I am not proposing to review the problem further; the decision is made, and what follows is the evidence and the delivery behind it. I have chosen a targeted, supervisor led approach because that is where the evidence and the cost case both point.
Why it works: States the recommendation in the second step, decided rather than hedged, and names what it is chosen over. The case is built afterwards, not towards.
Assessment
Three things make the case for a targeted, supervisor led approach. First, the national evidence. The National Police Wellbeing Survey, run through Oscar Kilo, reports high levels of fatigue across the workforce, and the wider evidence on short term absence is consistent that early, supervisor led contact is a key lever, ahead of formal referral once someone is already off. HMICFRS describes a service under sustained workforce pressure, the national backdrop this local rise sits inside. Absence is best prevented by the supervisor who sees the officer every shift, not by a process that only engages once the officer has already disengaged. Second, the local picture. Our own workforce data shows the rise is concentrated in the two response teams, and those are the same two teams that have had the largest turnover of sergeants in the last eighteen months. That matters, because it points to a supervision gap rather than a workload spike: the teams losing the most time are the teams whose supervisory continuity has been most disrupted. Third, what we have already tried. The command has historically leaned on occupational health referral, and our own figures show that officers in the highest absence teams are the least likely to self refer, so a referral led model has been reaching the people who need it least. There is also an efficiency point a Chief Inspector is expected to make: supervisory contact costs hours from existing capacity, whereas a force wide programme or an expanded referral service would cost both budget and headcount we do not have, and would spread effort thinly across teams that are coping. Put together, the evidence does not just say wellbeing matters in general. It says the lever that works is supervisory, the problem here is supervisory continuity, and the resource should go where the data shows the harm is concentrated. That is exactly what the recommendation does, which is why I am confident committing to it rather than commissioning another review.
Why it works: Builds the case for a decision already made, with named national sources and the candidate's own force data, and connects every point back to the recommendation. The longest section.
Navigate the options
I considered two serious alternatives before settling on this. The first is a force wide wellbeing programme rather than a targeted one. The argument for it is real: it treats every team alike and avoids any sense that two teams are being singled out. I rejected it because spreading a fixed amount of supervisory capacity across the whole force dilutes it to the point where it changes nothing, and the evidence says concentration is what works. Fairness is better served by fixing the worst affected teams first and then extending what works, than by a thin offer to everyone. The second alternative is a referral led model through occupational health, strengthened with a clearer pathway. The argument for it is that it uses an existing, professionally run service rather than asking supervisors to take on more. I rejected it because our own data shows the officers in the highest absence teams are the least likely to self refer, so a referral model, however well designed, keeps missing the people the intervention is for. The counter argument I take most seriously is the workload one, that asking already stretched supervisors to do more risks making the problem worse, and I deal with that head on in cost and risk.
Why it works: Takes the two strongest alternatives, not easy targets, argues each fairly, and rejects each with a specific reason tied to the evidence. It also flags the workload challenge and hands it forward.
Cost and risk
The resource cost is supervisor time: about four hours a week per team across the twelve weeks, plus one sergeant designated as lead coordinator. There is no additional headcount and no new budget line; this draws on existing capacity, which is part of why I have kept it targeted rather than force wide. The first and biggest risk is the workload one I flagged: that supervisors experience this as another initiative landing on top of the day job. I would manage that through how it is framed and resourced, positioning it as core supervision rather than a welfare add on, and by protecting the time formally rather than expecting it to be found. The second risk is inconsistent delivery across the two teams if the lead sergeant does not have enough oversight from me, which I would mitigate with fortnightly review at my tier. There is also a dependency I would not leave to chance: this leans on occupational health and our wellbeing leads, and I would confirm their capacity before I start rather than discover it mid way, because a plan that assumes partner availability it has not checked is a plan that fails in week four. The third risk is the strategic one, and it is the reason this sits at command level rather than team level: if absence in these teams is not turned around, it shows up in our HMICFRS engagement on workforce and wellbeing, it erodes the resilience of the very teams carrying the most demand, and it feeds a cycle where the officers left behind carry more and become more likely to go off themselves. Naming that is the difference between a logistics plan and a command decision.
Why it works: Names real costs and a specific mitigation for each risk, and crucially names the strategic and inspection dimension, which is what lifts this from a logistics list to a command decision.
End with impact
Within sixteen weeks, short term absence in the two teams will be down by at least six percentage points, measured through monthly workforce reporting, and I will own delivery personally through fortnightly governance with the lead sergeant.
Why it works: One forward looking sentence: a specific outcome, a measure, a timeframe, and personal ownership. No summary of what came before.
Why this works
Targets Public Service and We Take Ownership, visible in putting scarce resource where the harm is and owning delivery at the close. The decision is stated up front, the case is built on named evidence and force data, the strongest alternatives are genuinely engaged, the costs and the strategic risk are owned, and the close commits to a measurable outcome.
994 words, around 8 minutes spoken at 120 words a minute. Situation 61, Take a position 76, Assessment 328, Navigate the options 208, Cost and risk 284, End with impact 37.
The sources named in the example are publicly available. The National Police Wellbeing Service, Oscar Kilo runs the National Police Wellbeing Survey, and HMICFRS reports are published openly. Naming verifiable sources in your Assessment is what turns an opinion into evidence.
Without and with STANCE
Sickness absence across the command unit has risen eighteen percent over twelve months. Present your approach as a new Chief Inspector.
Without STANCE
Sickness has been an issue across the force for some time, and it is something a lot of forces are grappling with at the moment. There are various factors involved, including workload, leadership, shift patterns and personal circumstances, and they tend to interact in ways that make it difficult to point to any single cause. What I would do first is look at the data properly to understand where the absence is concentrated, speak to the sergeants and the teams most affected to hear it from them, and get a sense of what wellbeing support is already available and whether people are actually using it. From there I would put together a plan that targets the most significant causes, and I would keep it under review as we went.
Tells the panel you would look at things. No decision, no evidence, no ownership. By the time a recommendation arrives, it reads as the end of a report rather than the judgement of a leader.
With STANCE
The situation is an eighteen percent rise in sickness absence across the command unit over twelve months, concentrated in two response teams. My recommendation is a structured twelve week supervisor led wellbeing intervention, starting with those two teams, rather than a force wide programme or a referral only model. The evidence supports it: the National Police Wellbeing Survey, run through Oscar Kilo, reports high levels of fatigue across the workforce, and the wider evidence points to supervisor led early intervention as a key lever on short term absence. The alternative I considered was a referral pathway to occupational health, which I discarded because officers in high absence teams are the least likely to self refer. The cost is supervisor time, about four hours a week, drawing on existing capacity. The main risk is that supervisors feel this is extra burden, which I would manage through how I brief it. The outcome I am committing to is a measurable reduction in short term absence by week sixteen, reviewed at week eight with the sergeants running it.
The same scenario, given structure. This version tells the panel what you have already decided, why, what it costs and what you are accountable for.
Rank and timing
Rank calibration within STANCE
The framework applies at every rank. What changes is the scope of each step. The most common error is calibrating STANCE at the rank below the one you are applying for.
Sergeant
Watch out: If your presentation does not mention your responsibility for the people delivering it, you are presenting at constable level.
Inspector
Watch out: If your presentation is entirely about what you will do personally rather than what your command will deliver, you are presenting at sergeant level.
Chief Inspector
Watch out: If your End with impact sounds like something you would say to your own team rather than to a Chief Superintendent, rewrite it upward.
For more on what panels look for at each rank, read Sergeant, Inspector and Chief Inspector level.
Timing and word targets
A steady speaking pace is around 120 words a minute, so a ten minute presentation runs to roughly 1,200 words. The section targets below total about 900 to 1,200 words: aim for the upper end to fill a full ten minute slot. Most candidates overrun because they spend too long on Assessment and leave too little for Navigate, Cost and risk and End with impact, which are where the panel sees your judgement rather than your knowledge of the evidence.
Situation
60 to 80 words
Two sentences. The problem and the evidence it exists. Nothing else.
Take a position
60 to 80 words
The recommendation, already decided. No hedging, no preview of the evidence.
Assessment
300 to 400 words
The biggest section. Named sources, specific data, direct connection to your recommendation.
Navigate the options
200 to 280 words
At least two credible alternatives, each rejected with a clear reason.
Cost and risk
250 to 300 words
Real costs, real risks, specific mitigations, named at the right rank.
End with impact
30 to 50 words
One sentence. Outcome, measure, personal ownership. No summary.
Ten minutes feels long until you present it out loud. The most common failure is running over on Assessment and collapsing Navigate and Cost and risk into a sentence each. Practise with a timer. The sections you rush are the ones the panel weighs most carefully.
Common failures
Common failure modes
Building to the recommendation
The most common structural failure at inspector and chief inspector boards. The officer opens with context, builds through options, and arrives at the recommendation in the last quarter. Nothing in that is wrong, but the panel has waited three minutes to find out what the officer actually thinks, so it lands as the conclusion of a report rather than the decision of a leader.
Rank calibration failure
Pitching the scope of each step at the rank below the one you are applying for. A chief inspector candidate presenting a command unit solution to a force level problem, or an inspector presenting a team outcome to a command question. STANCE does not fix that by itself, but it creates the discipline to ask at every step whether this is pitched at the level you are applying for or the level you are leaving.
Weak or absent alternatives in Navigate
Presenting alternatives that are obviously wrong and dismissing them easily. The panel expects genuine engagement with the strongest counter argument. Find the option a reasonable senior officer could actually defend, then explain precisely why it fails.
Cost and risk as a logistics list
Naming costs and risks without the strategic and inspection dimensions. At chief inspector level the panel expects you to know what continued underperformance would mean for the force's inspection rating and for public confidence. A section that reads like a project plan with no strategic dimension scores at inspector level, not chief inspector.
A closing summary instead of a commitment
Ending with a restatement of what you have already said. End with impact is a forward looking commitment: a specific outcome, a measure, a timeframe, and personal ownership. The last thing the panel hears is the thing they carry forward, so a summary close wastes the strongest memory slot in the presentation.
Vague evidence in Assessment
References to force data, research shows, or various studies suggest carry no weight because they are unverifiable and signal you do not know the evidence well enough to name it. Assessment needs named sources, specific data, and a direct line from the evidence to the recommendation.
Build and present
Generate a presentation file
Once you have built a STANCE example in State6, you can generate a PowerPoint file from it. The download produces one slide per STANCE section, each carrying your content condensed into the points a panel would see on screen, with your full answer text sitting in the presenter notes for each slide, ready for a practice run.
It is a rehearsal tool, not a finished board submission. Use it to hear how the structure sounds from slides, where the time goes, and which sections you collapse under pressure. That is usually where the gaps are.
Ready to build?
In the STANCE Builder you enter your topic, generate a rank calibrated model with prompts for each section, and write your own answer section by section. Each section has a coach that gives structured feedback on what is working and what to improve, across three rounds to match how a real board would hear it.
Get started with State6STANCE and the voiced AI Mock Board are both on the Gold plan, so you can build your presentation and then deliver it out loud to a scoring panel.
STANCE is a skill, not a script. The goal is not to sound like you are using a framework. It is to sound like a decisive leader who has thought the problem through before walking into the room. For a full walkthrough on a real scenario, read the presentation structure walkthrough on the blog.