Why?
Because we just "understand" and haven't "used". Now, let's see how we use structural thinking in real life.
If you meet your boss in the elevator, the other person asks you, "How is your work recently?" At this time, even if you are fully prepared, you only have 30 to 60 seconds to answer. What should you do?
When Steve Jobs was CEO of Apple, all employees were afraid to take the elevator with him.
Once, Jobs asked an intern what he was doing in the elevator, and the latter replied that it was called product quality control. Then Jobs asked him, "Then why did you go downstairs? You should go back to work. "
At this time, if employees can seize the short 30 seconds of taking the elevator and tell the focus, progress and achievements of their work, Jobs will remember him and will probably promote him in the future. Just like the example just now, Jobs has lowered the scores for his interns.
The report should be "conclusion first".
Structural thinking emphasizes the expression order of "total first and then divided". When we report, we should first talk about our central idea and logical framework, and then have extra time to list the elements of the argument.
From the example of Steve Jobs, interns can answer: "I am doing product quality control, the goal is XXXX, the current progress is XXXX, and now I want to complete XXXX ..." If there is still time, let's talk about the details further, such as why we should set the goal completed last month, the goal set next month, the progress this week, the arrangement for next week and so on.
At the regular meeting of the company on the weekend, if the boss suddenly says to you, let's talk about the focus of next week's project. Although you are familiar with the project, you are not prepared to speak in advance. How to improvise and make the expression more logical?
To make the expression logical, we must first meet two points: conclusion and argument. What are your thoughts (conclusions) on the key points of next week's project? How did you come to this idea (conclusion)?
Imagine a table, which is supported by four legs. The desktop is your conclusion, and the leg is your argument. This means that any conclusion (desktop) is supported by several arguments (table legs).
The reason why we express confusion is often because the arguments (table feet) are not clear. At this time, you just need to remember the conclusion, and when you express it, you can piece together the scattered arguments in your mind through your own experience. I don't want to remember everything, but I want logic between the upper and lower levels.
By the end of the month, most companies will ask employees to make a work summary. How to make your work summary clear and not messy? The first thing to do is to classify the information and sort out the ideas.
The last thing the boss wants to see is that when employees report their work summary, they write a lot at sixes and sevens, and finally they still don't know what the key points are and whether they have missed anything.
For fragmented information, we sort out the collected information, delete useless or outdated information, and then classify it to make communication more efficient.
Taking year-end summary as an example, there are three common classification methods:
This kind of report can help us organize our thinking, clarify our thinking and not lose focus.
At the regular meeting of the company, at the negotiation table of customers, or when communicating between departments, we all hope to be persuasive. For those who are not good at "persuading" others, how to improve their persuasiveness? Let's talk about "logical expression" first.
The premise of convincing others is supported by objective data. Rather than telling the boss that he has "excellent work performance", it is better to say that he has "completed a certain project, gained the exposure of XX, and transformed XX active fans, which is more attractive and convincing than the increase of 10% in the same period last month". Similarly, when talking about cooperation with customers, don't say "our products/services/solutions can effectively solve your difficulties and pain points", but say "we can save you 30% of the expenses", and then take out rigorous data as support.
Through structural thinking, we can think clearly about the fragmentary and unsystematic content, understand it and form our own system; The logic of the process is very rigorous, orderly and more supported by data. Avoid inconsistencies or loopholes.