How do seemingly powerful people analyze the problem?

Structural thinking to analyze problems

When I was interviewing, the interviewer asked me this question:

If you are an operation manager, at a major node of a major project, there is a very important member of your team who suddenly wants to announce his resignation. His departure will inevitably cause the project to not be completed as expected. What will you do at this time? ?

Okay, let's stop here first. If you were me at the time, how would you answer?

You can stop here and think for a minute...

Although I have never had the experience of dealing with this kind of problem, I just turned my eyes and got it into my mind.....


I answered like this:

Regarding the issue you mentioned, I will deal with it from two aspects. The first aspect is to stay and the second aspect is to go.

So what does it mean to stay?

It is to try everything possible to keep him here!

I will find him as soon as possible or through other means, starting from both his own and external reasons, to understand the real reason for his sudden resignation, and to solve the difficulties for him as much as possible, and to make targeted strategic adjustments.

When I find out the reason for his resignation, I will also retain him from two aspects. First, I will impress him from a rational point of view and talk about his own interests, such as emphasizing rewards after the completion of the project, career development, and so on.

Secondly, impress him from the emotional side, such as the people who mobilized all the doors to keep him, so emotional and rational are both sides of the attack, the human heart is always fleshy, as long as it is not a huge contradiction, who can do so unfeeling?

Of course, while doing "retention" work, I will also embark on the Plan B plan to prepare for this plan, ready for the worst situation at any time, such as urgently looking for someone who can contact him for work, and seeking cross-departmental Cooperate to minimize the loss~

......

I remember very clearly that after my mouth-to-mouth sex, I could clearly feel the surprised look of HR~

Afterwards, the interviewer told me that she actually designed a trap behind this case to wait for the interviewer.

She said: Even if the interviewer came up with a plan to retain people, she would still ask: "No matter what method you use, but he still leaves, what will you do at this time?"

But my answer, the analytical thinking I came up with, did not wait for her to ask this question, and blocked the whole problem.


1. Analyze the problem and confirm the problem first

What does that mean?

In other words, before we analyze any problem, we must clarify what problem we want to solve and what the ultimate goal of this problem is, so as to see the essence of the problem through the phenomenon!

Going back to the interview scenario above: the problem to be solved is obviously not the problem of who leaves the job, but the problem of someone's resignation, which affects the progress of the project. As long as the progress of the project can be guaranteed, even if someone leaves the job. It's all trivial, so that the progress of the project is not affected is our ultimate goal.

With this goal, you will not be crooked! !

Well, when the real problem to be solved is clear, we will proceed to the next step of analysis.

2. Analyze the constituent elements of the problem

Ok, after clarifying the problem and goal, then we have to analyze the structure of the problem. The structure of the problem is obvious: because the interviewer has already said that this person will directly affect the project, so he constitutes the problem key point.

However, if your thinking just stays here, your thinking is leaky, that is, it is not meticulous, and it will fall into the trap of HR later! !

Why do you say this?

Because the whole thing must have two results.

The first one is: can keep his situation

The second is: the situation that can't stay

In reality, if you only consider the former in your thinking, and after wasting a lot of time and energy on him, the other party will finally say goodbye to you. It is estimated that you will be dumbfounded in an instant.

At this time, if you look for remedial measures, it will further delay the progress of the project. Therefore, we must consider all the circumstances and be careful in thinking and not leaking, so as to make the crisis invisible! ! !

So how to achieve careful thinking and construct strong structural thinking?

To answer this question, we must introduce the famous MECE principle.


3. When dismembering the problem, use MECE to exhaust the structure.

So what is the MECE law?

MECE rule: full name Mutually Exclusive Collectively Exhaustive

MECE is the core concept proposed by the famous McKinsey consultant "Barbara Minto" in her book "Pyramid Principle".

That is to say, for a major topic, it can be classified without overlapping and without omission.

If you use MECE to review it, you will soon find that your structure has loopholes. You only considered how to keep him, and you ignore it. What will happen if he insists on leaving~

In this way, your thoughts will have two flowers, and you can naturally come to the complete structure of the whole problem, namely: what will happen if you keep it, and what will happen if you don't.

Leave a comment