Customer Reviews

The Minto Pyramid Principle: Logic in Writing, Thinking, & Problem Solving

5 star:		(29)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The Pyramid Principle aims to introduce the reader to a better way of communication. Is it successful. Here's the answer....

Based on the premise of a 'pyramid structure' to organise thoughts the basic format introduced is:
Situation - what's the situation; Complication - what makes the situation less than the ideal and Answer - how we're going to fix it (and supporting evidence continuing down the pyramid structure.)

If you feel a natural affinity with the above then it's probably because we all naturally tend to work through a linear cause-effect-response framework.

The remainder of the book develops the above framework - including some rather poor choices for examples (GK Chesterton and pigs????). as the audience for this is likely to be more the business professional or college student the lack of research into more solid examples is frustrating and a poor effort from the editorial team behind the book.

Will this book make your ideas 'jump off the page and into the reader's mind' as the author suggests? That depends on how logical your flow of thought already is. If you examine the proposed structure and look for it in literature, songs, advertsing, etc - you'll find the Minto model pretty much a standard format of our communication already.

There would be no hesitation in recommending this book if you can find it at a reasonable price. I rummaged around a second hand bookstore and picked mine up for $12. 4 out of 5 based on that price.

At a local price of $100 it's a book of greater tragedy than Hamlet. You just cannot find that kind of value in a book that's better summarised in several pages and well constructed examples than what's in this publication. Given that I read the third edition and the section on presenting your report still seems to suggest typographics better suited to the '70s is shameful.

I have been blown away by the effect this book has had not only on my writing and presentation development, but the structure of my thinking. Minto's insistence on specific, definite patterns of logical analysis, while taking some effort to grasp, leads to analysis that is deeper, more penetrating and more complete than typical fuzzyheaded thinking & writing.

Example: Where before I might have thought I was finished with a logical argument, Minto gives me tools for realizing that not only is my argument incomplete, but showing which direction to go to fill it in, and how to analyze it to see if it is really a proper logical framework.

There are lot of examples to work through, and they deserve your repeat attention. I am keeping the book handy until I fully grok the whole thing; I continue to take a look at specific chapters and examples as I am writing, performing analyses and developing diagnostic frameworks (I am an Internet strategy consultant for a large Internet consulting firm).

Although Ernst & Young and McKinsey use this book extensively, and I noticed it is one of the top reads in the Booz-Allen purchase circle, I think it has far wider applicability than for consultants. Anyone who has to think, present or write clearly about a domain of knowledge will benefit enormously from an understanding of the principals elucidated by Minto.

Finally, for those who are Greg Bear fans, I feel I am finally getting a glimpse of what 'talsit' might mean (hint: Read the Eon series to see what I mean. It's a great series, and he's a great writer.)

I've been in management consulting for four years have have met several consultants who swear by this book. Many firms purchase this book for their new consultants and incorporate it in their training.

Unfortunately, I have not met a single consultant who has been able to accurately describe or apply the concepts in the book! Most consultants who swear by the Minto Principle are actually not applying it, but rather applying a simplified (mis)-interpretation of the Principle. Also, even professional communication experts that my consulting firm employed could not apply the Principle in their training program in a consistent and logical fashion.

I agree with the reader from Hong Kong. The Minto Principle is extremely hard to learn, which I think lessens its value to the average reader. This is not to say that it does not work. However, I think you would be better off simply using the principles of good writing you should have learned in school. (Contrary to what some consulting partners want to believe, there is nothing intrinsically special about business writing that requires new skills.)

The book has gotten a lot of mileage out of the McKinsey mystique (it must be good because it was written by a former McKinsey consultant and is used by McKinsey). Many consultants expound the Minto Principle to make themselves seem superior (i.e. they are using a McKinsey concept). Save your money. The book is not worth anywhere near its $95 price. At best, it's a $11.95 paperback.

Barbara Minto has written a very solid reference with a clear focus on how to present your ideas in a way, which will allow others to follow your thinking.

The book is mainly directed towards those who write about complex issues or prepare important decision papers (MBA's, lawyers, etc.). However, many, many people could improve their writing markedly by picking up on Minto's ideas.

The book itself is very focused. There are two main sections: a) how to focus on core issues and b) how to best organise your ideas for others to understand.

Even though the writing is clear and the examples are excellent it is not an easy book to master. You have read it, try it, read it, try it, etc. Still, you will see improvements from day one.

The sections are excellent in every aspect, but some readers may find they are still missing some bits and pieces on the side. I at least felt it was very useful to know how to combine the Pyramid Principle with other high-end writing methods. Like when Barbara Mint in one sentence (correctly) warns against bloating out with very controversial ideas at once - the reader either has to take her word for it - or know some basics about storytelling. On the other hand it helps keep the book short.

I teach communications to senior professionals and can confidently say, that the value added of improving your writing form is much higher than improving your writing style. This is what this book is all about. So, if you write a lot of reports, memo's, proposals etc. Minto may help improve your writing improve by leaps - even when you're good already!

The 1996 edition is a VERY significant upgrade/expansion of the 1987 edition, of which the English editions available on this site are all reprints.

The English version of the 1996 edition is only available directly from Minto, http://www.barbaraminto.com/book.htm.

I am a bit baffled by the high-ranking reviews and lavish praise given to this book. While it certainly presents a sound approach to clear writing, there is nothing "revolutionary" about it. I suspect that people who think so never had a good English teacher nor an introductory logic course. In fact, its coverage of logic (despite the impression its title might give) is really quite superficial. If you're thinking about getting this book to learn about "logic in thinking," you would be much better served by something like Irving Copi's _Introduction to Logic_. The value of this book is that it succinctly applies a little dose of logic to the problem of how to write clearly. If that's all you're interested in, then this book's for you.

A final comment. This book is based on what I believe to be a false premise. In the beginning of Part I, the author asserts that "the mind automatically sorts information into...pyramidal groupings" and that information "is easier to comprehend if it arrives presorted into its pyramid." From this she concludes that "every written document should be deliberately structured to form a pyramid of ideas." Well, maybe. The problem, I think, is with her first premise. Does the mind *really* group information into pyramids? In short or straightforward documents, this is probably so. But with longer or much more complicated documents, I doubt it. Take a really serious document like Microsoft's _Analyzing Requirements and Defining Solution Architectures_ -- over 700 pages including the index. The writing in this book uses something akin to Minto's pyramidal groupings part of the time. But these are its weakest moments. What makes the book come to life is its presentation of a running story, told in story form, of a group of people implementing the Microsoft Solution Framework. This, then, is a counter-example to Minto's thesis: *not* every document should be structured like a pyramid of ideas. Why? Because the mind does *not* always group information into pyramids, and to think so is a gross oversimplification. What I'm saying is this: Take Minto's writing advice for what it's worth (which is a lot), but don't follow it blindly when you face a real-world business communications problem. This is not the be-all and end-all communications solution it touts itself to be.

My advice is: avoid this book. Although it has certain usefulness, it can actually undermine your ability to think and write effectively.

1. As the reader from Los Angeles pointed out, the whole book is based on the premise that "the mind automatically sorts information into...pyramidal groupings" and that information "is easier to comprehend if it arrives presorted into its pyramid." However, the author didn't give any scientific evidence to support this claim. With some reading in the cognitive science field, my understanding is (more knowledgeable readers can correct me on this), how our mind works is so complicated that no one has actually figured it out. I will be surprised to see any cognitive scientist will assert that the only way our mind works with information is to automatically sort them into pyramidal groups. My personal experience is, sometimes we do, sometimes we don't and sometimes we just can't. When you force issues into pyramidal groupings when you shouldn't, the result can be non-effective and confusing. I think the fact that this book itself is hard to comprehend and its principle is difficult to apply, is a result of the author's artificial pyramidal grouping.

2. Even though pyramidal grouping can work well in some circumstances, the author's attempt to make it an all-comprehending principle forced her to make endless amendment in circumstances its usefulness is questionable. The end result is unnecessary complication of its application. This makes the book far less useful and practical than a basic writing or logic book.

3. Even if the premise of pyramidal grouping is true, even if you can actually apply the principle, it will not necessarily make you an effective communicator. As an owner of a small consulting firm, my experience is that, having your ideas UNDERSTOOD is a totally different thing from having your ideas ACCEPTED. You can make your case perfectly logic and clear, but that dose not necessarily mean people will interested in or accept it. The only way to effectively communicate with other people, is to actively engage their interests, speak/write from their pre-knowledge and perception. That means sometimes you will have to purposefully speak/write in a non-pyramidal way even when the issues can be perfectly organized into pyramidal groupings.

Given the high ranking this book gets on this site, many people will certainly disagree with my review. However, I challenge those who gave this book high marks to enlist their ACTUAL improvements, such as more constructive ideas generated, higher acceptance rates of their work, etc, by actually USING this principle, and benchmark these results against those achieved by reading basic writing and logic advice book.

That said, if you are reading this book in order to get ideas to improve your consulting practice, as I was, this book can be insightful if you look into WHY this whole "pyramidal grouping" thing can be so popular and get such high ranking. My feeling is, with its broad promise, seemingly logical and useful advice, occasional usefulness, it's kind like anti-impotent pill for the paralyzing intellectual problem of how to think and write effectively. I surely wish I could have been the author of such a pill. Geez, the reason I wrote such a length, negative review can well because I'm jealous.

I read the Pyramid Principle in 1995 and dutifully trained myself to use it, with a little help from a class with Ms. Minto.

The hardest part was realizing that the Pyramid Principle isn't about forcing your current writing into Minto's structure; it's having the courage to tear your argument apart and recraft it if you can't support it in a properly constructed pyramid.

It took effort and practice to master, but it was well worth it. My writing has been widely published, and my articles are often praised for their clarity. The clarity comes from Minto, plain and simple.

Seven years ago I reviewed this book, as follows:

It's your choice; build a rubble pile or a pyramid..., November 29, 1997

Ms. Minto's book is a classic example of a gem in the rough. Yes, it isn't visually impressive, and yes it is well worth using. Note that I said using, not reading. You won't realize the value of the methods Ms. Minto presents if you don't try them out; repeatedly.

My suggestion? Go to the chapters that contain examples first, and read them thoroughly. Then find a short report or memo you find particularly opaque, and read the book cover to cover, occasionally referring to your example. Finally, go back to those sections of The Pyramid Principle that apply to the example you found and start re-working it per Ms. Minto's methods.

When you're done, do it again, with another piece. Then re-read the book at least once a year. It's worth it.

Anyone can build a jumbled pile of stones. It takes time and practice to build an orderly structure that will stand on its own merits. The Pyramid Principle will help you become a verbal architect. I think it is well worth using!

---

I stand by my previous reviewm with the following proviso:

There is value to find here, but you must be a hard-rock miner to get to it. This is a book that provides techniques to use, not just read. If you're not willing to practice, to swing your pick again and again until you strike paydirt, then go find something easier.

I've used this book again and again and it never fails to yield up some new insight. It's simply the best book in its field. It's particularly good, of course, on structure; it gives you a way in to virtually every business communication. It has a very stringent rationale and fairly tough samples to go with it. Toward the end it mentions 'images' - I'd like this aspect of business writing to be dealt with in far greater depth. I haven't yet seen the 1996 edition, but I'll try to get a copy.