I would like to seek some advice on how to be concise and adopting pyramid principal “consistently” through the case.
A bit background: I always adopt the pyramid principal in the conclusion, however I find that my communication along the case is not concise and sharp enough, and I'm not always consistently communicating in a “top down” style.
In my interview today, the interview kept on interrupting me when I explained through the idea by asking me “what else”? Also, when I explained through the logic, he also interrupted and asked me so what are the things you want to look at? I feel that I might be over-explaining a bit as sometimes I wanted to show the clear reasoning behind, but I have gone into too detail.
Any suggestions on how to practice to be concise, instead of over explaining (giving too much example, linking to self-experience too much, illustrating too much, etc)? Appreciate it!