30

Dimension II: The Ways of Articulating Logic

As mentioned, the second dimension in inferring your analytical skills lies in how you articulate your thoughts, logic, and reasoning. In this case, I am not referring to a high degree of fluency with language. Rather, it is the substance of what you communicate, the logic and reasoning you present. The previous “Incompetent Management” example demonstrates that such articulation indeed plays a role in how knowledge and analytical thinking are inferred. This chapter provides a broader, more detailed description of all the various ways to achieve such desired outcomes through more “effective” articulation.

There are various ways of articulating the logic of (A) leads to (B). For the sake of an example, let’s assume that (A) leads to (B) is a mini common wisdom that everybody is likely to accept. One way to articulate it is simply to state that (A) leads to (B), note that everyone is in agreement, and stop there. Do so and you will be thought of as a solid thinker and one who is able to logically influence others. However, by taking a different approach and articulating the full, logical decision-tree, and using framing, priorities, alternatives, trade-offs, and so on to explain how you arrived at your conclusions, people will give you credit for being a deep, analytical, and insightful thinker. In other words: The more you frame the total picture and then frame the specific issue within it, define the variables with more precise interpretations, place boundaries, and describe the logic and decision-tree that led you to your conclusions, the more credit for analytical skills you’ll receive.

Add to your conclusions how best to influence specific outcomes based on specific logical branches of the decision-tree, and you will be given even more credit and go even further in differentiating yourself. Add to this the third dimension of analytical skills—the methodology that leads to sound analyses (to which section VII: “A Sound Methodology for Business Analyses,” is devoted)—and you will likely outshine most.

Here, too, there are simple “tricks” that can be used to achieve the desired outcome. Each of the tricks will influence how your analytical skills are perceived; in combination, they are even more powerful. The tricks are pretty straightforward to understand and use. They are not really “tricks,” but rather part of a very sound logical thinking process. But, as with the simple statement of the (A) leads to (B) example, pointing out the full logic and analyses buys you much more than simply communicating the final conclusions. It is more impressive and, more importantly, will yield better outcomes. Following are the “tricks.”

When possible and appropriate, show the trade-offs. Most, if not all, alternatives have some kind of trade-offs. Sometimes, the term “pros and cons” is used instead of “trade-offs.” Evaluating these trade-offs is an intrinsic part of reaching conclusions and recommendations. Oftentimes, people communicate the conclusions and decide not to talk about the trade-offs. They might think the conclusions are obvious or believe that it is a waste of time to bring up any trade-offs.

What they lose is a great opportunity to impress others in the room. By skipping the analyses and trade-offs and only articulating the final conclusions, they will only receive credit for being solid thinkers. But adding the trade-off analyses will result in appreciation for their analytical skills, depth of thinking, and thoroughness of logic. In some cases, it might not be appropriate to discuss the trade-offs for one reason or another, so use your judgment.

Framing the problem or issue and describing the methodology to be used to reach conclusions is always impressive. This refers to the idea of restating the problem or issue that needs to be resolved in a way that helps give it more clarity and therefore points in a clearer way to the type of analyses or methodology that might be required to resolve it. It also happens to be an effective technique to help shape a discussion and convince people to accept your conclusions and recommendations. You will not just be more convincing and reduce the likelihood that others will disagree with you, you will also receive great credit for being very logical and a deep thinker.

Frame the complete picture before focusing on the relevant items for consideration. This is similar to framing the problem above, with the same logic and benefits, but is slightly different. Actually, framing the problem may be a subset of framing the complete picture.

You first elevate the perspective and describe the totality of the picture and how the specific problem you want to resolve fits within that picture. Then you zero in on the relevant parts that need to be addressed. The relevant parts could be the specific problem that needed to be resolved in the first place.

To illustrate the application of these tricks, I make use of the tough interview question I talked about earlier in the book that was presented to a friend, who told me he had no idea as to how to respond, and neither did I. The interviewer asked, “How would you go about determining how many manholes there are in the United States?” (Remember, in those days, there was no internet, no Google Earth, no accessible repository of any publicly available data.) Although at the time I had no idea how to properly respond to this question, I can think of numerous responses now. Please take a moment and think about how you would respond to the interviewer’s question; it will help you better understand what I’m trying to point out to you in this chapter.

Now, one potential answer would be something like this: “Some federal government department such as a bureau of statistics might have the data, so all I need to do is call them to get the appropriate data. Should the federal government not have the data, then I will try state-level departments. If they, too, don’t have the data, then I will call municipal-level offices. Asking enough questions of enough officials should lead to the right answer.”

Here is another possible response: “I would use sampling and statistical analyses to determine the answer. We will probably need four different samplings: large and dense cities, smaller and less dense cities, suburban areas, and rural areas. We can canvas a block of 8 × 8 streets in a big city and count the manholes. We can count how many such blocks exist in the city. Then it becomes a matter of extrapolation. We can do the same for the small cities, suburban areas, and rural areas. Add them all up, and we get a decent estimate of the number of manholes in the United States.”

One more potential answer could be: “I will use sampling and statistical analyses to determine the answer. I will first find a large architectural company specializing in city planning and find out from them which variables they use to calculate how many manholes there should be in big cities, smaller cities, suburban areas, and rural areas. Once I know the variables, I can then use the same variables in my sampling and extrapolate from there.”

Which of the three answers is more logical in your view? How would you rate the different answers, if you were the interviewer? How would you rate the answers relative to one another?

Now, let’s use the various “tricks” to see how different the answer may appear to be. Notice that I will not change any of the details from the answers provided above. All I’ll do is give a broader perspective and frame the various options to create a methodology that enables me to narrow down the options, provide details when needed, and show some trade-offs. I will use the top-down approach and interweave the “tricks” as appropriate. Here is the resultant answer:

Off the top of my head, I can think of four ways by which we might be able to determine the answer. The four alternatives are driven by whether the data are recorded somewhere within the governmental structure or not. If the data are not available, then we will need to generate it from scratch. The only way to do so is by using sampling and statistical analyses to arrive at a reasonable approximation.

There are therefore four separate options that might be available to us to get the answer. They reflect four separate assumptions as to how the data on manholes can be obtained. The first assumption would be that some department at the federal government has this data. The second assumption is based on the supposition that the federal government doesn’t have this data, but each state does keep track of such data. The third assumption is that neither the federal nor state-level departments have data, but that municipalities might have the data. The fourth assumption is based on the supposition that nobody keeps track of the number of manholes, and the data do not exist or cannot be found.

Clearly, the fastest, the easiest, and perhaps the most accurate data would come from the federal government. The next fastest solution would come from the states. The municipalities would be more challenging because of how many phone calls may be involved and the complexity of collecting all of the data. The fourth option, which is using various sampling and statistical analyses, should also be relatively easy, but the accuracy of the answer may be suspect.

Under the first three assumptions, that the data are housed in a bureau at federal, state, or municipal departments, the methodology used in obtaining the answer is simple and straightforward, which is to make as many phone calls as you need to locate the data. Start at the federal level, because it might be the most efficient method. If the data are not available, next try the state level, and if unsuccessful there, try the municipalities. Assuming that none has the numbers, or that it would be impossible to track the number down, then we proceed with the fourth assumption, where we need to conduct sampling and statistical analyses.

At first glance, and using common sense, I can see four different geographies that will need to be sampled, representing four different population densities. Here I’m assuming that the number of manholes is correlated to the density of the population, which makes sense to me. The four population densities, in my mind, are big cities; smaller, secondary cities; suburban areas; and rural areas.

We can select a representative block of 8 × 8 streets and physically count the number of manholes. Then, based on the number of square miles of streets, we can extrapolate the number of manholes in the big cities. The assumption here is that all big cities are somewhat similar in the way they are planned. To the extent that they are not, then our results may be distorted. We can correct such a distortion, but the sampling will involve doing it for each city separately, thus making the whole process much more cumbersome and complex.

We can use the same kind of methodology for sampling and extrapolating in the secondary cities and suburban and rural areas. I would recommend we try various different variables to extrapolate from. One is based on the number of streets. Another potentially could be calculating the number of manholes per the population base in the sampling area and then extrapolating based on the total population. Another could be using the geographical size of the sampling area versus the geographical footprint of the city as a whole. We do the same for secondary cities, suburban, and rural areas.

Now, there might be a shortcut possible, as well as a way to get a better list of correlating variables, which I would try first. I’d contact civil engineering companies that specialize in urban planning. They should know exactly how they go about determining where and how many manholes to put in the blueprints. They can tell us which variables they use for their blueprints in each of the different population density areas. Clearly, the statistical analyses and extrapolations will be much more accurate if we use those variables in our own samplings.

Now assume you were the interviewer; how would you have reacted to this answer? I hope you would have been much more impressed. If so, I close my case!

You have probably noticed that the above “tricks” are used throughout the book. As I stated, they are not really “tricks,” but rather part of a very sound, progressive, logical process. This process does influence others when you are making a case for something. There is one additional benefit.

When you frame the issue/problem and use either the top-down or the bottom-up approach, you ensure that you cover in a more logically methodical way all the elements that need to be considered when analyzing an issue/problem. In other words, you will end up with a thought process that is more well rounded and much deeper. This is the real reason why people are so impressed when exposed to it.

Back to the original topic of this section of how to interview well: We’ve just covered the analytical skills criteria and are ready to move on to the remainder of the factors, which are the “liabilities” that can kill a job offer, regardless of your analytical skills. As you will see next, there is a single piece of advice I give regarding such “liabilities”—avoid them as best you can! I will next discuss how to do so effectively.