3 ms·
This tells me you are either an executive who has forgotten how much work it takes to convince you and your peers that a solution actually works or you are an e
by exotree 6y ago
This tells me you are either an executive who has forgotten how much work it takes to convince you and your peers that a solution actually works or you are an employee who has not had the experience needed to report up to an executive.
Executives who typically want “conclusion first” for “time savings” often use up the same amount of time or more “backing through the needed explanation.” Does that mean you shouldn’t aim to be succinct? No. You should have talking points prepared. But OP is mostly on the nose. This sort of demand for conclusion sans explanation only to go back over what you would’ve explained anyways is usually driven by external stress.
- wolfram74 6y agoExactly, I've felt sometimes when presenting a counter intuitive conclusion that starting with a result that violates initial impressions ends up requiring /more/ supporting evidence than starting with several less controversial facts that when combined result in a controversial fact, like that mercury is the closest planet to the earth (for certain definitions of closest)
- sukilot 6y ago"often using the same time or more" means often saving time when the whole shpiel isn't needed, which is the point. Time management ia important when your time is highly valuable with opportunity cost.
- paulsutter 6y agoI stand by my post. Been doing this for 40 years.
- nostromo95 6y agoThe point of conclusion-first isn’t necessarily to save time, it’s so I (as an executive) can pressure-test / place into context all of your ensuing explanation because I know what your end-point is. This isn’t unique to business...academic papers have abstracts that do this; math proofs have the statement they’re proving up-front.
- nostromo95 6y agoReally this is just the scientific method.