For years, I’ve openly admitted that my favorite word in the world of communication and presentations is “structure.” Structure is the antidote to communication chaos. It’s mainly thanks to structure that we can be effective speakers. But what does “structure” really mean? What kind exactly? How do we use it?
The word “structure” comes from Latin. It means “construction,” “arrangement,” or “way of building.” In communication, structure helps us build a coherent message. I like to compare structure to the spine. You don’t see it at first glance, but it’s essential—it holds the entire “body” together in one solid piece.
Without structure, we’re doomed to chaos. How many times have we listened to speakers who ramble aimlessly, jumping from thought to thought with no direction? That’s what happens when a speaker relies too much on their improvisation skills. Unfortunately, improvisation in communication often leads to confusion. The cure is structure—a predesigned framework or pattern into which we fit our content, making the message concise, clear, and focused.
In this sense, communication resembles mathematics: just as we plug data into formulas to get correct results, in communication we plug our message into the right frameworks—structures—to achieve better outcomes.
So which structures work best? There are plenty of them in communication. Below are a few selected examples.
The image above is part of our training presentation. If you’d like to learn the most effective structures and practice using them in everyday business situations, check out our presentation skills training or business communication training.
However, not all the structures shown above should be used. If you try to apply all of them, you’ll get lost—I guarantee it. It’s better to choose a few “your own,” ones that fit you and match the types of messages you most often deliver.
Two are the most important: from general to specific, and from problem to solution. Mastering these two will give you the confidence to handle business communication at least well.
Piotr Garlej
