I think the saying "people who speak clearly are smart" is only half true. I often wonder if the other half depends not on intelligence, but on the order in which you arrange your thoughts.
For example, consider people who get asked "What does this mean?" every time they report something.
They send a report, attach materials just in case, and then receive a reply from their boss: "So, what should we do?"
"Just sharing."
"The client seems angry."
"Let's just lower the price for now."
These all seem like normal reports. But when the recipient hears these three things, they still don't know what to do next.
Why doesn't it work? Because the recipient has to sort out for themselves where the facts end and the interpretation begins.
In consulting firms like McKinsey, there is a common framework called "Sky, Rain, Umbrella."
Look at the sky (Fact) Interpret that rain might fall (Interpretation) Take an umbrella (Action)
This is a framework for speaking by separating these three elements.
Moreover, the weather forecast that inspired this name has another "trick": precipitation probability. If it says 60%, it means that if you issued the same forecast 100 times, it would rain or snow more than 1mm about 60 times.
In other words, weather forecasts don't say "It will rain tomorrow." They say "There is a 60% chance of rain," adding a number to indicate how likely the prediction is.
This is exactly what makes a report "easy to understand."
Are the Sky (Fact), Rain (Interpretation + Confidence Level), and Umbrella (Desired Action) separated into distinct sentences?
Since this is about the "order" of arrangement rather than mental agility or education, anyone can start mimicking it today.
I also receive Slack reports daily, but if I'm careless, I find myself sending just "Sharing info."
The three examples at the beginning each lack one component.
① "Just sharing" = Only Sky
→ "Company A's document is 70% complete as of 5 PM. The rest is waiting for number verification, so it might slip to noon tomorrow (about 80%). Is it okay if I submit it by 3 PM tomorrow?"
The recipient only needs to answer "Yes" or "No" to the last sentence.
② "Client seems angry" = Only Rain
→ "We received two emails from the client asking for 'this week.' It reads as urgent, but maybe 50/50. Can I send them a progress update today?"
If the interpretation sounds like fact, the recipient starts by verifying "Are they really angry?"
③ "Let's lower the price" = Only Umbrella
→ "Two of the three companies we quoted last month rejected us due to price. We are probably 10% above market rate (based on only two data points). Can I try lowering the price by 10% for the next company?"
An umbrella without sky and rain forces the recipient to ask "Why?", adding extra friction.
Confidence levels don't need numbers; phrases like "almost certain," "probably (80%)," "50/50," or "just a guess" suffice. This alone allows the recipient to decide how much to trust and act upon.
What all three rewrites have in common is separating facts from interpretations and adding confidence levels only to the interpretations.
However, some people still write long reports even after separating them. I used to be one of them. I suspect the cause is "starting with the Sky."
I believe Sky-Rain-Umbrella is the order for speaking, not for thinking.
When thinking, reverse it: decide the Umbrella first.
Once you know "I want to ask if submission by 3 PM tomorrow is okay," you go back to find only the Sky facts needed for that decision.
This changes the Sky from something you "collect" to something you "select."
In example ①, since the Umbrella is "Can we submit by 3 PM tomorrow?", the only necessary Sky facts are "70% complete at 5 PM" and "waiting for number verification." How many hours were spent or internal debates are irrelevant to the recipient's "Yes or No," so they shouldn't be included.
I think the habit of "attaching materials just in case" happens because the Umbrella hasn't been decided yet. Since you don't know what's needed, you hand over everything.
Therefore, smart people's reports look short not because they are eloquent, but because they discard unnecessary Sky facts.
For example, regarding tool cost consultations:
・Listing all Sky facts:
→ "Attached is a table comparing features and prices of each tool. There seem to be unused seats."
・Selecting based on Umbrella:
→ "There are 3 unused seats. Can we cancel 3 seats starting next month?"
Conversely, reports listing all Sky facts appear thorough but actually dump the judgment of what matters onto the recipient.
That's why I always write "What are we deciding?" at the top of meeting agendas before adding details. I apply this same order to reports.
Even now, if I let my guard down, I start writing from the Sky and end up with long messages.
Well, raw intelligence is hard to change, but deciding the Umbrella first is something you can do in your next chat message.
Above all, practicing these small systems breaks the stagnation of growth and makes everyday work more enjoyable.
I also explain timely news and tips for tomorrow's work in a structured, easy-to-understand way.
https://x.com/smark_x/status/2099764073869307990
https://x.com/smark_x/status/2099383008537297309
- Overthinking and unable to take action
- Perfectionism or inefficiency causing constant time shortages
- Wanting to blame "lack of sense" when hitting walls
- Work isn't easier despite using AI
I have these traits myself, so I use "logical thinking" to systematize work and make it easier while dealing with these issues. I post daily, so please follow me. → @smark_x
