Think of your thoughts as a pyramid before you put pen to paper.
Most of us, when faced with the task of writing a document, have a vague idea of the topic but lack a concrete strategy for articulating it. We often start writing, hoping that the structure will magically materialize from our stream of thoughts. The result? A chaotic narrative that leaves the reader playing detective.
Our minds crave order, often creating patterns where none exist. Take the ancient Greeks, for example, who saw constellations in the stars instead of random specks of light.
In a similar vein, research suggests that readers instinctively arrange information in a document into a pyramid-like structure. They look for a top-down approach where conclusions are buttressed by supporting arguments, much like the cornerstones of a pyramid.
Information is easier to swallow when it’s neatly arranged in a logical pyramid.
Consider these statements: “The seats were freezing. I nearly got into a brawl. Italy’s performance was subpar. That was a terrible football match.” This narrative is a jigsaw puzzle, with the main point revealed only at the end.
A pyramid structure, on the other hand, presents a summary statement first, followed by the reasoning. The previous narrative would have been more digestible if structured this way: “That was a terrible football match: the seats were freezing, I nearly got into a brawl, and Italy’s performance was subpar.”
Constructing Your Thought Pyramid: A Guide to Streamlined Communication
Imagine building a pyramid of ideas. Start from the base, listing all the points you wish to convey, grouping those that lead to a similar conclusion. Then, for each group, craft a summary statement that sits a level above. Think of each summary as the apex of a smaller pyramid within your larger structure.
This process continues, level by level, until you’re left with a single, powerful statement that encapsulates the essence of your entire discourse. Voila, your thought pyramid stands tall and clear.
Let’s illustrate this with an example. From statements like “Our customer base is expanding,” “Each customer is purchasing more,” and “We’ve hiked our prices,” you might distill the summary, “Our sales are on the rise.”
This summary could then be grouped with others such as “Our fixed costs are dwindling” and “Our variable costs are decreasing,” leading to an overarching message: “Our profit margins are widening.”
The process of grouping and summarizing is straightforward, but it’s crucial to stick to a couple of fundamental principles:
Firstly, any idea expressed in the pyramid must be a distilled version of the ideas grouped beneath it. Avoid vague summary statements like, “There are three reasons why we should venture into the Austrian market.” This is a sign of lazy writing, where the author hasn’t taken the time to properly condense the three reasons for the reader.
Secondly, ideas within a group must be logically similar and share the same level of abstraction. For instance, a group can’t consist of “apple,” “fruits,” and “table,” as an apple and a table aren’t logically similar, and “fruits,” being a more abstract term, belongs on a higher level of the pyramid.
The Art of Justification: Deductive Reasoning and Pyramid Structures
Every statement you craft within your pyramid structure should spark curiosity in your reader’s mind. This curiosity is then satisfied on the next level down, often through the power of deductive reasoning.
Deduction, a stalwart of logical thinking, allows you to draw conclusions from a set of premises. Consider this: “All humans are mortal” and “Goliath is a human.” From these premises, you can deduce that “Goliath is mortal.” This entire process can be succinctly summarized on the level above as, “Given that Goliath is human, he must be mortal.”
When you’re advising your reader, it’s worth considering reversing the order of your deduction. Start with your conclusion. After all, that’s what your reader is truly interested in.
Take this example: “We should employ any candidate who can read. Candidate A can read. Therefore, we should hire Candidate A.” From the reader’s perspective, the traditional premise-premise-conclusion structure keeps the most compelling information until the end. In contrast, recommendations often benefit from the reverse order: “We should hire Candidate A, because we need someone who can read, and he fits the bill.”
However, while deductive reasoning is a straightforward and fluid process, it’s not always the best tool for complex arguments that require multiple layers of justification to support your premises.
For instance, if you’re trying to justify the primary conclusion of a complex document through deduction, your first premise will likely have several layers of justification beneath it. The reader will have to wade through these layers just to reach the second premise, making your deduction challenging to follow.
The Art of Inductive Reasoning: Making Sense of Similarities
When deduction falls short, it’s time to bring in its more imaginative cousin: induction. This form of reasoning involves drawing conclusions from a collection of similar ideas. Think of it as grouping “Reasons for…” or “Parts of…” together.
Take, for instance, the statement “Einstein was a genius.” You could back this up with “Researched relativity,” “Explored gravity,” and “Delved into the cosmological constant.” This is induction at work.
However, induction doesn’t come with a clear-cut order for presenting your supporting points, unlike deduction. The trick here is to let the source of your grouping guide the sequence.
Consider a scenario where you’re dealing with parts of a whole, say, the divisions of a company. The logical way to order them would be based on their structure, akin to an organizational chart. Here, you’d employ the MECE (Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive) principle. This ensures that there’s no overlap between divisions, and together, they cover the entire organization.
On the other hand, if your grouping involves recommended actions, the sequence should follow the order of execution. For instance, if your summary statement is “Hire new assistant,” the logical order would be: “Advertise job, interview candidates, make hiring decision.”
Lastly, when items are grouped based on a shared characteristic, the order should reflect the intensity of that characteristic. For example, if you’re classifying objects by weight, start with the heaviest and work your way down. This approach keeps your reasoning clear, intuitive, and compelling.
Defining problems clearly is a staple of business writing.
Often, the solutions aren’t glaringly obvious (if they were, we wouldn’t be having this conversation). A systematic approach to problem-solving can be your secret weapon.
Start by defining the problem in terms that are as clear as daylight; for instance, “Our factory is losing three precious hours of operation daily; how do we rectify this?” Then, pinpoint the exact location of the issue; for instance, “The hiccup isn’t with the staff or the raw materials, but the machinery; they’re failing us daily.” The third step is to delve into the root cause of the problem; for instance, “The maintenance crew lacks adequate training.” This analysis will pave the way for potential solutions; for instance, “Let’s make supervisors accountable for training, or let’s outsource the training.”
A handy tool for executing this problem-solving strategy is the logic tree. Think of a logic tree as a simplified diagram of interconnected relationships that branch out from left to right.
Consider a tree that represents financial structures; let’s call it a profit tree. The word “Profit” would be the tree’s trunk, branching out into two main branches labeled “Sales” and “Costs.”
The “Costs” branch would then bifurcate into “Fixed costs” and “Variable costs,” which would further split into more detailed sub-factors. Eventually, you’ll reach a level of detail where the problems and their origins become clear as day; for instance, you might discover that dwindling profits are due to the soaring costs of certain materials.
Craft Suggestions with the Intended Outcome in Mind
You’ve cracked the code to your reader’s dilemma. Now, it’s your turn to inspire them to act. But what’s the best way to present your suggestions persuasively?
In essence, when offering a suggestion, you’re proposing a course of action designed to yield a specific outcome. Therefore, you should arrange your actions around the outcome you’re targeting and depict the outcome so vividly that you can later determine if it has been realized.
Let’s take a scenario where the reader aims to boost profits. A poorly framed suggestion might look like this:
**
Inspect elements:
- Scrutinize factory efficiency.
- Evaluate customer satisfaction.
Enhance training:
- Boost factory staff training.
- Amplify sales training.
**
This structure is plagued by two primary issues:
Firstly, while the actions grouped together share a superficial resemblance, they aren’t organized around the outcomes they’re intended to generate.
Secondly, the anticipated outcomes should be explicit enough to assess whether they have been realized or not. Therefore, a much more lucid and persuasive structure would be:
**
Boost sales by 5% in the upcoming quarter:
- Evaluate customer satisfaction.
- Amplify sales training.
Reduce production costs by 2% in the upcoming quarter:
- Scrutinize factory efficiency.
- Boost factory staff training.
**
Now, the actions are organized under the outcomes they aim to generate (i.e., boosting sales and reducing production costs), making it easier to evaluate later whether the intended outcomes have been achieved.
Make your key points crystal clear within the first 30 seconds of reading.
Every piece of writing should kick off with a succinct introduction that does two things: it hooks the reader’s attention and lays the groundwork for the issue at hand.
The most effective way to captivate your reader and focus their attention on your content is to frame the introduction as a narrative. Start by painting a picture of the current scenario, then introduce a twist, and finally propose a solution.
The scenario is the widely accepted status quo; for instance, “ArgonEx is contemplating new mining investments in Austria.” The twist is a change in the scenario, usually a challenge; for example, “ArgonEx is finding it tough to penetrate this new market.” Both the scenario and the twist should resonate with the reader, making them nod in agreement with your assertions.
The twist should spark a question in the reader’s mind; something like, “So, what’s the next move?” While the body of your content will provide a detailed answer to this question, it’s crucial to give your reader a snapshot of your thought process within the first half-minute of engaging with your content.
So, lay out your primary argument and your key supporting points right in the introduction:
“(Main point) ArgonEx should break into the Austrian market by taking over an existing player because (1) mining permits are seldom issued to foreign firms, (2) local mining companies are up for grabs at bargain prices, and (3) rivals have racked up massive losses attempting to penetrate similar markets solo.”
Harness Headings and Formatting to Unveil Your Pyramid Structure
Navigating your reader through your pyramid hierarchy requires a clear roadmap. And what better way to do this than through the strategic use of headings?
Headings are the go-to tool for indicating the various levels and clusters of ideas. As you delve deeper into the pyramid, use progressively indented headings. Large corporations and government bodies often employ decimal numbers (1, 1.1, 1.1.1) to accentuate the structure.
Here’s a quick illustration:
Document Title
Here, you’ll lay out the introduction, main argument, and the key points of the main sections.
1. Primary Section
Introduce the group of headings and the main points you’ll be discussing.
1.1. Initial Subsection
This subsection is supported by the following numbered paragraphs.
1.1.1. Evidence supporting the initial subsection message
1.1.2. Additional supporting data
1.2. Subsequent Subsections
2. Secondary Section
2.1. Initial Subsection
2.2. Subsequent Subsection
Remember, readers often skim through headings. So, don’t rely on them to convey the entire idea. Keep them succinct, encapsulating only the crux of the following idea.
If headings feel too stiff or formal, consider underlining the main point and supporting points within the text.
For shorter messages like emails, simple indents can effectively convey the structure. Here’s an example:
**
For our Monday call, I’ll need the following data on Japan:
- Sales figures
- Expense reports
- Market trends
**
Maintain a seamless flow with clear transitions between argument clusters.
Even the most meticulously crafted pyramid structure can fall flat if your reader can’t keep pace with it.
Navigating the various sections and subsections of the pyramid can be a labyrinthine task, potentially leaving your reader lost in the maze. Therefore, it’s crucial to signal when you’re shifting gears. One strategy is to hark back to the previous section as you embark on a new one.
Imagine you’ve devoted an entire chapter to substantiate the claim, “ArgonEx is drowning in inventory,” and you’re about to pivot to the issue of inefficient logistics. You could kick off the next chapter with, “On top of an overstocked inventory, ArgonEx is grappling with subpar logistical processes.” This alerts the reader that you’ve ventured into a fresh sub-segment of the pyramid.
If a chapter is particularly dense or taxing, it might be wise to wrap up with a concise recap of its key takeaways before proceeding. This ensures your reader is mentally primed and ready for the next chapter.
If your document is brimming with recommendations, consider rounding it off with a straightforward, practical “Next steps” section. This refocuses your reader’s attention on the actionable tasks at hand.
Conclusions
The core insight from this book is the importance of meticulous thought organization before diving into writing.
What’s the best way to structure your thoughts for a written piece?
- Help your reader by arranging your thoughts in a pyramid-like structure before you start writing.
- Construct your pyramid: cluster related ideas and summarize them with a single statement.
- Justifying statements: employ deduction to draw conclusions from a series of premises.
- Justifying statements: utilize induction to infer conclusions from a set of similar elements.
How to craft impactful recommendations?
- For creating recommendations, tackle problems systematically and visualize them using logic trees.
- Frame recommendations around the impact they are designed to create.
How to translate your planned structure into words?
- Use the introduction to convey your main points within the first 30 seconds of reading.
- Employ headings and formatting to visually represent your pyramid structure in the text.
- Ensure smooth transitions between argument clusters to keep the reader engaged.
