Monday, December 29, 2008

Applying the Lessons

(Note to new readers – Thanks for joining us. Since 9/26/2008, I have written a series of weekly newsletters regarding the model for critical discussions. Reading them will help you catch up on the basics).

The lessons learned in the last 3 months in this newsletter are most easily and appropriately applied first to ourselves. I cannot overstate the importance of taking every opportunity to examine my OWN claims, evidence, and inference before sharing them. Over time, this examination becomes a habit and is done very quickly (milliseconds) and to the great benefit of one’s credibility.

I stress here that you need to practice analyzing claims, issues, evidence, and inference in your own thoughts as a matter of course. The more you do, the easier it will be for you when you start using it to analyze the words of others. Twenty-five or so years ago, I practiced by reading books and analyzing the logic in them, much the same way that a grammar student might diagram sentences. I progressed very quickly when I began taking classes. Using the model that I have laid out over the last three months (a modification of a more complex structure called Toulmin’s model) will help you find gaps that you would not have seen before AND help you identify strong positions that you would have not been willing to support before. In other words, you will develop the skill to assess the position being presented by its merits and not solely its alignment with your own views. This is the purpose of Informal Logic – to help one develop a well-founded idea in the face of uncertainty. This is why it so improves our real day-to-day lives – because so little is certain.

At this point, almost all of the people I have taught say “This all sounds so easy, but the people I need to talk to won’t go for this! They are too (stubborn, mean, one-sided, difficult, smart, dumb, etc, etc, etc) to deal with in any kind of logic. What am I supposed to do when emotions come into play and someone gets angry?” I could go into a lengthy dissertation on the weakness of the above position, but I won’t (you should, though, just for practice).

Picture yourself faced with a difficult task – one for which you don’t have the skill. Maybe it is “to get from California to New York in 5 hours”. Could you do this on your own, without enlisting the skills of another adequately trained person? Probably not – unless you are a jet pilot.

Now, picture the person with whom it is “too difficult” to converse. The difficult task with which THEY are faced is to successfully get through a critical discussion with you and do so in a way that improves your relationship, rather than injure it. They can NOT get through this task without enlisting the skills of another adequately trained person. You are going to be that person – a “communication jet pilot”.

I know (from surveys conducted in 2008 with over 9,000 respondents) that 81% of people polled avoid having critical discussions because they fear they will end badly, with someone being angry. If you don’t hold these conversations, your choices are to:
- Accept the bad situations and their aftermath
OR
- Learn the skills required to master the conversations.
I know a lot of people that put off talking about the most important things in their lives (marriage issues, child issues, work issues) because they are afraid of what the other person might say or do. I also know that the more capable you are at having “relationship building” conversations around well-thought out content, the better your decisions will be in both the long and the short term. My belief is that you have already made the choice to improve your communication skills. You believe they can be learned and you are trying to learn them. I will do all that I can to teach you all that I know.

This brings us to the first nugget in this series about applying critical discussion and informal logic to business life.
In any conversation, there are always two things being exchanged: Content (the topic and supporting discussion) and Attitudes (everything else, including the baggage).

Think about the last few times that you got into a discussion which ended with you getting mad. Did you get mad about the content being exchanged (“If you say that man is the cause of global warming ONE MORE TIME I will never speak to you again!”) or because of the attitude being exchanged (“I can’t stand the way he acts! Like he knows EVERYTHING! He NEVER listens to what I say.”). My experience is that conversations end badly because we aren’t naturally skilled in dealing with attitudes (our own and others) when we speak about difficult things. We get distracted by things that don’t much matter AND we ignore things that are VERY important.

Just as we have spent the last few weeks dissecting and examining claims, issues, evidence, and inference we will spends the next few weeks examining attitudes in a conversation. How we interpret feelings and thoughts (our own and those of others) and act on that interpretation form the balance in the conversation. We will learn how to make that interpretation, to spot when things are getting out of balance, and how to bring them back into balance. To do this, we will dissect conversations to separate their components (content and attitude) and come to understand how to move forward together.

Some readers will remember the articles I posted in July and August regarding creating safety, being authentic, maintaining openness to ideas, using collaboration vs. advocacy to improve decisions, etc. These are the key to understanding the attitude components of a conversation and we will revisit them in a new light. We will learn how to recognize them and create them, just as we learned to analyze claims and create issues.

So, remember to practice analyzing YOUR OWN claims, issues, evidence, and inference as you go about your day and in your reading. Also, begin listening to conversations with the idea of identifying the differences in the ways that we exchange Content and the ways we exchange Attitudes.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Sunday, December 21, 2008

Inference - #5 (Narrative) and #6 (Form)

This is the LAST INSTALLMENT on inference, which finishes the introduction to the basic elements of critical discussion. Next up - how to hold critical discussions (and other delicate conversations) and NOT having it end with hurt feelings.

Let’s recap once more what we have learned in the weekly installments for September 26 to present:
1 – How to identify the main topic of the discussion (the resolution)
2 – How to identify the 4 types of Claims used to support the resolution (fact, definition, quality, policy)
3 – How to develop questions (issues) to request evidence to support claims
4 – How to identify the 3 types of Evidence used to support a claim (Objective, Social, and Credibility)
5 – How to identify the 6 different Inferences used to connect the evidence to the claim (Example, Cause, Sign, Analogy, Narrative, and Form)

That is a lot of information and I congratulate all of you that have steadily read and learned from the information offered. As you learn to put these concepts together, you will find yourself quickly gaining ground in getting to the core of controversies in which you are involved. Let’s go over the last two inferences – Narrative and Form, starting with Narrative.

The inference from Narrative is the inference in which I connect my evidence to the claim by telling a narrative (story) that is intended to describe how a situation will play out. The warrant for an inference from narrative is that “if real life unfolds in the same way the story does, we can expect the same result”. Fables are generally written this way, with a final conclusion called a moral.

We’ve all heard the fable about the Ant and the Grasshopper, in which the grasshopper plays all day and stores no food while the industrious ant builds a nest and creates a store of food. The grasshopper makes fun of the ant, because the ant never has any fun and seems to waste his life while the grasshopper parties every day. When hard times come, though, the grasshopper is in big trouble but the ant is in good shape because of his hard work and dedication.

So this is even more abstract than an analogy. We are not assigning roles of saying “you are like the ant and I am like the grasshopper” and thus drawing literal comparisons. We are making a broader comment about forgoing instant gratification in favor of security; of accepting personal responsibility for one’s future. More directly, we are saying “if you fail to plan for the future, you are likely to have problems when the unexpected strikes”.

Let’s say my child received a bad grade on a test and I asked them if they felt they had studied for it. The child says they hadn’t; they had chosen to watch a movie instead. I might make a claim of quality that it is better to study and secure a good future than to enjoy a movie and get a bad grade. I would offer as evidence the bad grade and the confession about the movie. Rather than say the bad grade was CAUSED by watching the movie, I might use the NARRATIVE of the Ant and the Grasshopper. Why? Because I really am not sure that the movie caused the bad grade. I know there are tests that you can study for intensely and still fail. That would defeat a causal inference. The narrative, though, would say “this kind of behavior has been associated with these results, and the outcome can be devastating”.

So why have children believed this fable for so long (since ancient Rome)? Why do we readily accept its’ moral and make it one of our core values? Because it passes the tests for a good narrative! Whenever you plan to use a narrative (or hear one) you should base its value on these four tests:

1 – Is the narrative believable – plausible? Do we believe that ants are industrious and grasshoppers are not? Do we believe that failure to plan for the future can end up badly?
2 – Is the narrative coherent? Does one thing lead to the next in an expected way? Is it consistent?
3 – Are the characters consistent in their behavior? Is the ant sometimes lazy and sometimes not?
4 – Does the narrative resonate with us? Does is it seem that we could see this play out, or that it would never really happen? Does it “just seem true” at a basic level? Can you relate?

The Inference from Form is a thorny one. It is used all the time, and is rarely questioned. It is based on the (false) idea that statements that are expressed like formal logic (mathematical logic) are automatically useful in informal logic (topics cast in language rather than numbers). Almost all business discussions are best analyzed with informal logic, due to their uncertain nature.

In formal logic, there is a form called Disjunctive Logic that says “either a or b”. Then we analyze the truth of “a” and make a decision about “b”. As an example “2+2 is either equal to 6 or it is equal to 4; it is not equal to 6; therefore it is equal to 4.” If the premise is correct (2+2 is either equal to 6 or 4) and the analysis is correct (it is not equal to 6) then the conclusion (therefore it is equal to 4) MUST be correct. That is the glory of formal logic – the answers are CERTAIN to be correct IF the premises are true and the FORM is correct.

But look at this inference from Form “either we will watch a movie tonight or we will read; we will not watch a movie tonight, therefore we will read”. In the case of 2+2 above, the choices were mutually exclusive – both couldn’t be correct. But we COULD watch a movie, or read, or do both, or do something else entirely. There is no reason to think that the two choices given were the only two or that we had to do either one. So if I say “tonight we can either watch a movie or read, and I don’t want to watch a movie”, you might think “then I guess we have to read” but would that be true? Of course not.

Another formal logic form is Conditional (if-then) like “if 3 is greater than 2, then 2 is not greater than 3” is always right because it is deductive. What if we make a non-mathematical argument in that same way? “If companies ship late, then they lose customers”; is that true? Really? It is expressed using the conditional form, but it isn’t always true. I buy books from Amazon all the time – there are very few times that I care even within a week when it gets to me.

We will explore more later. Let me wish you all a happy holiday. Next we will explore how to get through these discussions while preserving (and hopefully improving) our relationships.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Inference #4 – Analogies

Analogy is a pattern of inference that uses a familiar relationship as a basis of comparison to a relationship that is not as well understood. They are used frequently and can be very powerful, but it is important to remember that they rely on the degree of similarity between the two relationships (familiar vs. unfamiliar) that under examination.

There are two kinds of analogies that we will discuss: literal and figurative. A literal analogy is one in which we make a direct comparison between two things, and a figurative analogy is where we compare the relationship between two things to the relationship between two OTHER things to describe how one relationship is like another. I will explain both in the following, and I am sure that you probably use both kinds everyday already. The purpose of this message is to help you analyze their use as inferences, and help you better analyze them whether you are using one or you are talking to someone that is.

A “holiday appropriate” example of literal analogy would be used for gift buying. For instance, your friend’s son is on your shopping list and you are having a difficult time buying for him. You reason that you are not very familiar with your friend’s son, but know your friend fairly well. Your friend then is the “familiar relationship” in this analogy. You have never met your friend’s son, but you have heard your friend speak of him and know that they share a physical resemblance as well as some similar interests. Your relationship with the son is, therefore, the “less-familiar relationship”.

Your wife asks you what you got your friend’s son and you tell her – a set of screwdrivers.

She says “Why did you pick screwdrivers?”

You say “Because I thought he would appreciate them and get good use out of them.”

She says “Why do you think so?”

You say “He is a lot like his dad; same height, same weight, same eyes. And the father said they share many of the same interests like fishing and football. His dad is always busy fixing things and uses screwdrivers a lot. The son probably likes fixing things too, and could use the screwdrivers.”

The inference here is one of analogy – literal analogy. Dad likes fixing things, and the son is a lot like dad. Therefore, the son likes fixing things too.

I think we can begin to see where analogy can go wrong. The son may be very much like the dad in many respects, but may not share his love for fixing things. The fact that two things are alike in SOME respects doesn’t mean they are alike in ALL respects, nor does it mean they are alike in the respect that is under examination.

I am not sure that I can make the leap that the son likes fixing things just because the son shares SOME of the father’s interests, and the father likes fixing things. I would need more. Since the father said they share an interest in fishing, maybe I would try that. Why? Because that is an inference of EXAMPLE (fishing is an EXAMPLE of things that the son liked to do, based on a credible source – his father). The stronger inference is a better indicator.

The test for a good analogy (literal or figurative) is whether the essential similarities outweigh the essential differences in the characteristic under consideration. An analogy that fails the test is referred to as a “false analogy”.

A figurative analogy is on in which we are not so concerned about the things we are comparing, but the relationships between them.

For example, we have a friend that LOVES the Beatles and has every CD by them EXCEPT for one. We don’t know which one they don’t have and can’t find out before the holidays, so we decide to buy the ENTIRE COLLECTION of Beatles CD’s to make sure we get the one that our friend is missing. We tell our wife of our plan and she says “That’s like trying to kill a mosquito with a machine gun!”

Now, she is not comparing our friend to a mosquito or a CD to a mosquito or our friend to a machine gun or anything like that. She is comparing the relationship between needing one CD and buying the whole collection with the relationship between being troubled by a small thing and taking unnecessarily drastic measures to correct the trouble.

Notice that in the literal analogy, the things being compared (the father and son) are the same kinds of things (both are comparable people). In a literal analogy, the farther things get from being comparable, the more difficult it is to make analogous observations. “You are a man; Julius Caesar was a man. He liked his chariot. Therefore, you would like a chariot” is pretty far-fetched because you and Julius Caesar are not very similar as men. If the comparison was to be made between men, I would pick several others that were more comparable (your neighbor, brother, co-worker) and make it again. If it I didn’t seem to stand, I would reject it.

A great deal of advertising is based on the premise that, if advertisers find an actor with whom you identify, and can show that actor enjoying or benefitting from the use of the advertised product, that you will draw the analogy yourself and decide “The actor is like me; I am like me; The actor enjoys the that soda; Therefore, so will I”.

Next week, we will cover the last two analogies and recap the last three months worth of newsletters into a coherent lesson. You will all be brilliant in a week!

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Sunday, December 7, 2008

Inference #3 – Sign

We’ve covered a lot of ground since the Critical Discussions topic started on 9/26. You can go through the contents of this blog since then to refresh yourself. We have talked about:

- Developing a concise understanding of the controversy (resolution)
- Ways to formulate questions about the controversy (issues)
- The four kinds of Claims (Fact, Definition, Quality, Policy)
- The three kinds of Evidence used to support claims (Credibility, Social Consensus, and Objective)
- The six kinds of Inference to connect Evidence to Claim (Example, Cause, Sign, Analogy, Narrative, Form)

Please review the info posted since 9/26/2008. Also, I posted a pictorial of this model here for you to view. It may help explain the relationships

After we get through the next three inferences, we will be moving into some “How To” in more advanced territory. Namely, HOW to raise issues so that the discussions progress smoothly, even in tricky situations or with touchy topics; HOW to keep a discussion tracking, even when it is emotional; and HOW to remain collaborative, even when the other parties want to compete.

This week, we will talk in detail about the third strongest type of inference – Sign.

Recall that last week I wrote about Inference from Cause, in which a predictable relationship between two variables is asserted AND the relationship is described as one variable CAUSING a change in the other.

Inference from Sign is not as strong in that there is no intention to EXPLAIN the relationships - just to declare that the relationship exists. In other words, Inference from Sign occurs when the link between evidence and claim asserts a predictable relationship between variables WITHOUT accounting for it. This is also called a correlation; an observation is made that when one thing changes (students studying, for instance) and some other thing happens (getting good grades). Do we KNOW that studying causes good grades? If a student didn’t study would they still get good grades? A percentage of them would, and the strength of the correlation would be affected by other mitigating variables (what subject, the student’s familiarity with the subject, the success of the teacher in delivering the information WITHOUT study, etc.). We may not be able to show that students that study will necessarily get good grades because studying by itself is a CAUSE of good grades, but we CAN show that students that study get good grades. So an inference from sign says that “I can show that when one thing occurs, then another thing predictably happens, and that is enough to substantiate my claim”. Here is an example:

Tom – “I think I can prove to you that my marketing idea will work.”
Bob – “How are you going to prove it?”
Tom – “I hired an expert to look it over and she says it's great.”
Bob – “What makes her an expert?”
Tom – “She has a college degree.”

Tom’s claim – This marketing idea will work
Tom’s evidence – Expert opinion
Tom’s inference – A college degree is a sign of expertise

Let’s say that we agree that a college degree is a sign of expertise. Is that enough to uphold the claim? Not for me. Can you think of a few questions that Bob might add?

By this time, you should be thinking of the right questions to ask. When you use these methods, you should be anticipating the questions you may ask others and the questions you might be asked.

How about these questions:
- Has she rendered expert opinions before and been right?
- Has she rendered expert opinions before and been wrong?
- Are there other experts that agree with her?
- Are there other experts that disagree with her?
- Does she stand to gain from rendering a positive opinion?
- Does she stand to lose from rendering a negative opinion?
- Does she stand to gain from rendering a negative opinion?

These are all good questions. They ask about the credibility of the source and her bias (does she have a long history of being right?; are there other equivalent experts and will they back up her opinion or shoot it down; is she biased- saying what you want to hear to get paid? or is she doing the opposite and risking telling you what you don’t want to hear (thereby increasing her credibility)?

The questions are NOT aimed at the validity of the inference itself, though. To question an inference, you must question the INFERENCE. Questions about the inference ONLY ask "Has the evidence been properly linked to the claim?"

Questions aimed at the INFERENCE (a college degree is a sign of expertise) would be these:
- Do people without college degrees have sufficient expertise to render expert opinions? (If people without college degrees can render this kind of opinion, then her degree is not significant in this instance)
- Do people with college degrees generally have sufficient expertise to be able to render meaningful opinions about this kind of marketing question? (If people with college degrees usually do not have sufficient expertise to render a meaningful opinion, then her degree is not significant in this instance)

The first set of questions is about the source's CREDIBILITY and BIAS. You could ask all of them whether or not she has a degree.

If we question the inference and the result is that “Usually, a college degree is sufficient indication of expertise to render opinions in a matter like this”, THEN you can ask about credibility and bias. If not, why bother? That would be the time to find out if there is any other inference that she could provide - like maybe some Letters of Reference (another Inference from Sign) or maybe some samples of other marketing opinions she has rendered (inference of example - much stronger)?

If you accepted the college degree as a sign of expertise, there are two more questions that you would ask in this case (and in any case when the inference from sign is describing a sign of expertise):

- Is the degree of a sufficient level and in a relevant subject to render the opinion? (An associate’s degree in zoology is probably not sufficient for marketing opinions)

and

- Is the degree from a reputable college?

Also remember that this is not an Inference from Cause. No one is claiming that a college degree CAUSES you to be capable – it is just describing a correlation between college degrees and capability.

As with Cause, there are numerous mathematical methods used to show statistical correlation. Please search the internet for “statistical correlation” to see if those are what you need.

The classic tests for Inference from Sign are:
- Does the sign usually appear with the thing signified (ex: college degree and expertise)?
- Does the sign frequently appear without the thing signified (ex: college degree and incompetence)?
- Are there countersigns (absence of college degree and expertise)?
- Could the correlation be a coincidence?
- Is it really a causal relationship?

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Inference #2 – Cause

Note – this series started 9/26/2008 (or 350 B.C.E., in as much as it is a continuation of work started then).
The first of the six inferences was covered last week, when we started with the strongest inference – Inference of Example. It is the strongest because examples are in the real world. The next strongest inference is this week’s topic – Inference of Cause (or causal inference).

Causal inference indicates that one event has influence over another. It also indicated that the influence cannot be directly observed.
Causal inferences are used to:
- Predict events (Reducing the number of nuclear weapons causes a reduction in the likelihood that they will be used)
- Relate means to ends (Studying causes good grades)
- Explain paradoxes (What causes a candidate to get twice as many electoral votes as another if they only get 2% more of the popular vote?)
- Assign responsibility (What causes the proposition we thought would win to actually lose?)

For the sake of this article, I am not going to include the statistical methods that are available to explain causation, except in simple terms. They are powerful, and you should know them and use them if they are appropriate for the case with which you are concerned. There are many sources for that information and not many for the following, so I will devote this space to the lesser-known ways.

Let’s start with a work example: You claim “Well, I can expect to start having trouble with Sharon. “ Your co-worker asks “Why do you say that?” You answer “I just criticized her work.” And the co-worker asks “So why is that a problem?” and you say “Criticizing people’s work causes them to start trouble for you.”

In the case I created above, my claim (I expect trouble with Sharon) is supported by evidence (my criticism of her work) and connected via a causal inference (criticism of co-workers causes trouble). I am using it to predict future events. If my audience believes that criticism of co-workers usually causes trouble, they will accept my claim; if they don’t, they won’t accept the claim and I will have to convince them. Let’s explore how causal inferences should be evaluated, both before it is made and after. What are the reasonable evaluations for causal inferences like the following:
- Stock prices dropped because America is no longer an economic power.
- The river overran its banks due to the rain.
- Low birth weight reduces the likelihood of college admission.

Statistical approaches would have us experiment. We would hold all factors in two samples the same, and then vary one of them. If the output varies, then the factor we varied could be said to cause the variance. This is a method popularized by John Stuart Mills and is a great approach in a laboratory, but becomes impractical as we start to look at many business issues.

Rhetorical approaches would have us (in a first step) identify how some factor COULD be the cause and, in a second step, have us explain why it SHOULD BE CONSIDERED the cause. In the law, the first step is used to show means and opportunity, and the second step to show motive.

In testing casual inferences, it is critical to determine that one thing indeed influences another, and isn’t merely being attributed. For instance, the stock price question that I raised above is too complex to be so simply explained away. Stock prices rise and fall based on many things, and there most certainly are many factors that can cause price fluctuations. In fact, a strong argument can be made that stock prices frequently drop after a period when there has been too much speculation and the market needs to “normalize” in order to get healthy. So if you plan on attributing lowered stock prices to a single cause, then you need to prepare more than a single reason and bring lots of evidence.

One must evaluate whether there are multiple causes and not just one. For instance, while it is true that rain can cause a river to overrun its banks, so can a dam. If a car drove off the road and into the river on a rainy night, it may not be the rain that caused the river to overrun its banks. One must also remember that one cause can have multiple effects, for instance turning off the water main in order to stop a pipe from leaking and spilling water on the floor. It will work because there is certainly a causal relationship between the presence of water in the leaky pipe and water on the floor, but there are other effects that shutting the water main has that are perhaps unwanted.

One must evaluate whether there are common causes underlying the supposed cause and effect relationship. For example, I recently read that American babies with low birth weight tend not to grow up to go to college. Reading this, I immediately thought that a common cause underlying both conditions (low birth weight and failure to go to college) is poverty. In checking, I found that the author had misinterpreted some statistics and “bent them” to try to show why it is important for mother’s to try to achieve higher birth weights!

One must evaluate whether one is confusing temporality with causality. In other words, just because something happens BEFORE something else, doesn’t mean it is the CAUSE of it. Just because I correct someone’s work and later I start having trouble with them on the job doesn’t mean that the two events are causally related. It could be that, once I correct them, my attitude changes about them and they pick up my attitude. Or that the reason I am correcting them is that they are overwhelmed by the work and they would rather work somewhere else and eventually this starts to manifest as “trouble” to me.

There are many fallacies associated with causal inference. Here are two:
- The Post Hoc fallacy – (if something occurs BEFORE an event, then it means it CAUSED the event.) This fallacious thinking is used all the time. When you hear it, question it.
- Appeal from Ignorance – (Well, if the rain DIDN’T cause the river to overrun its banks, then what did?) This appeal is meant to put the listener in a position of either offering an alternate explanation or accepting the one offered. Remember there is a third choice – that something else caused the event and you don’t know what it is. You needn’t ever buckle to the appeal from ignorance.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Inference #1 - Example

Since we started this series on October 26, we have:
- Identified the underlying resolution in a controversy
- Categorized the resolution into one of four categories of claims
- Learned four ways to identify the issues that need to be addressed to support the resolution
- Learned what kind of evidence we can accept, and how to examine it

Today, we will begin to cover Inference – the connection between the evidence and the claim.

At first, it is not obvious that there is an inference at all. I mean, the evidence is either supportive of the claim or not, right? And if it supports the claim, it is good evidence and all good evidence is equally good, right? Well, no – not right. Allow me to explain.

The way that the evidence supports the claim is a very important factor in rating the strength of a position. There are six different inference types; from strongest to weakest they are: Example, Cause, Sign, Analogy, Narrative, and Form. Today, I will go over Inference of (or Inference from) Example.

Let’s say that I made a statement that “members of the National Association of Communicators (the NAC) generally ask intelligent questions”. This is a claim of fact and you all know what questions to ask (the last two newsletters were all about finding the right questions), so let’s talk about some different evidence I might offer and the difference in strength. Consider the following five evidence statements:

1-When I spoke to the NAC, I was asked many questions by one of the people that attended the meeting and they were all intelligent questions.

2-When I spoke to the NAC, I was asked questions by many of the people that attended the meeting and they were all intelligent questions.

3-After speaking to the NAC, I received email from many of the members that didn’t attend the meeting and they all asked intelligent questions.

4-After speaking to the NAC, I received email from each of the members that didn’t attend the meeting and they all asked intelligent questions.

5-After speaking to the NAC, I received email from each of the members of the NAC and they all asked intelligent questions.

These are all inferences of example meaning I have examples of actual questions being asked from actual members and (presuming that we agree on what an intelligent question is) we can review them. The inference of example is the strongest type of inference, but are they all of equal strength?

Evidence statement #1 shows that I was asked many intelligent questions when I spoke to the NAC, but is it enough evidence to show that “members of the National Association of Communicators (the NAC) generally ask intelligent questions” as I have claimed? Well, not on its own. It simply shows that ONE member asks intelligent questions. Can we agree to extend that generalization to all members? I think it would take more evidence to convince me.

Evidence statement #2 shows that I was asked many intelligent questions when I spoke to the NAC, and further that they came from many of the attending members. Is it enough evidence to show that “members of the National Association of Communicators (the NAC) generally ask intelligent questions”? Still, no. The statement only talks about members that attended the talk. Even if EVERY member that attended asked intelligent questions, it may be an insignificant percentage of all of the members. We would have to assure ourselves that the number and variety of attendees was representative of all the members – either by further examination of this evidence OR introduction of OTHER evidence. Maybe a few other speakers have found the same kind of intelligence when they spoke to the NAC. I think it would take more evidence to convince me.

Evidence statement #3 shows that I was asked many intelligent questions AFTER I spoke to the NAC, this time by some members that didn’t attend. Is it enough evidence to show that “members of the NAC generally ask intelligent questions”? I don’t know. The statement only talks about members that DID NOT attend the talk. It fails to be compelling evidence for the same reason #2 failed - it may be an insignificant percentage of all of the members. If coupled with #2, however, we have some compelling evidence – a sample of members that attended and a sample of those that didn’t attend asked exclusively intelligent questions. But if not coupled with #2, it would take more evidence to convince me. NOTE that the emails serve as DOCUMENTED evidence, which means that we no longer are relying on my credibility as evidence as we did in scenarios 1 and 2.

Evidence statement #4 shows that I was asked many intelligent questions AFTER I spoke to the NAC, this time by ALL of the members that didn’t attend. Is it enough evidence to show that “members of the NAC generally ask intelligent questions”? I don’t know. If it is a significant percentage of the membership (that is, if most members didn’t attend and are now emailing me intelligent questions), it is pretty sure that these NAC guys are a sharp bunch.

Evidence statement #5 shows that I was asked many intelligent questions AFTER I spoke to the NAC, this time by ALL of the members whether they attended or not. And the evidence is documented. This is locked up tight.

This is all about the inference of Example, in which I had examples of questions asked by NAC members. Early scenarios were less substantial and later ones were more so. In the first four scenarios, I was describing specific examples and asking whether or not we could reasonably draw a conclusion about the population that the examples came from. This is called generalization and there are two types - statistical generalization and anecdotal generalization. In both cases, the keys are representativeness, sample size, range of samples, and absence or present of counterexamples.

In the fifth scenario, where we had documented evidence of intelligent questions from ALL if the members, we needed no other evidence. In most cases, this is impossible. Seldom do we have this kind of complete enumeration because, long before we had received the email from each and every member, we would have inferred that they were all intelligent. Certainly in business, it is rare to know why every single customer buys your product either because it is not possible, or it is prohibitively expensive.

Another way to use examples is classification – that is making a statement about an individual based on their relationship to an accepted generalization. For instance, let’s say that after you have accepted that the members of the NAC ask intelligent questions, you run into a friend that mentions that he is a member of the NAC. Would it be appropriate to assume that he asks intelligent questions? Of course.

Two fallacies associated with inference by example the “Hasty Generalization” (Generalization or classification is made without enough data to support conclusion) and “Guilt by Association” (you associate with thieves, therefore you must be a thief). We will explore many logical fallacies in later articles.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Monday, November 17, 2008

What Makes You Say That?

Some of you have been practicing the last few techniques I’ve posted – GOOD FOR YOU. Communications is something that you practice frequently so that when you need it, you are confident in your abilities. One friend likened it to CPR in this way – if, when you need the skills, you have only an academic understanding and are under-practiced, you may choose not to use them for fear of doing it “wrong”. I suppose that is true, and I salute you that are practicing and sending me email.

A common question asked has been “What if one’s emotions boil over during a talk?” Some conversations can have a high emotional content, and by using the right skills the CONVERSATION needn’t become emotional – needn’t cause defensiveness. Right now, we are exploring the model for a straightforward business discussion and examining its parts and protocols as if neither side becomes emotional while the topic at hand is being discussed. In later lessons, once we have some mastery of these skills, we will examine how to conduct a more “charged” discussion.

So far, we have:
- Identified the underlying resolution in a controversy
- Categorized the resolution into one of four categories of claims
- Learned four ways to identify the issues that need to be addressed to support the resolution

Today we will learn what to do with those issues, and what work they are expected to do. We will be building on the examples we have been using all along (“Far more kids are engaged in cheating in school than the teachers think”). For the moment assume that the key questions (issues) can be asked straight out, without any “shaping” as we might if there were some emotional charge associated with them.

Let’s agree to a limited set of issues that would be required to support this claim.
- How many kids are engaged in cheating?
- How many kids do the teachers think are cheating?
- How many more would be “Far More” than teachers think?
- Are that many more kids cheating?

We would ask the claimant (that is the person making the claim) one of these questions and expect some kind of answer. The answer needs to be based on something and we call that basis “evidence”. There are three kinds of evidence that we will listen for; Objective Evidence, Social Consensus, and Credibility of the Speaker.

- Objective evidence is anything that can be examined further. Statistics, documents, testimony, opinions, and examples are all types of objective evidence. Evidence of this type can be examined and questioned until it is accepted.
- Social consensus is a belief that can act as a fact. Common knowledge, shared values, previously established facts, and stipulations are all types of social consensus. Evidence of this type must be agreed to by both sides before it has any real power.
- Credibility can substitute for evidence and we allow it to do so frequently. If the person has a good track record for being honest, is an authority on the subject, can point to a clear basis for their conclusion, does not have a bias or vested interest, and if other credible sources agree with them, it is very likely that they are credible.

Using our example, let’s imagine that we’ve asked the claimant “How many kids are engaged in cheating?” Let’s imagine that they respond with “Practically every single one of them”. We ask “how do you know that?” and their response is, “I just know it”. They are asking you to accept their credibility as evidence. So look back at the criteria for credibility; track record, expertise, clarity of basis, bias, etcetera. You would have to ask questions about those items before you could accept their credibility as evidence.

What if they would have responded differently? Let’s imagine that they respond with “Practically every single one of them”. We ask “how do you know that?” and their response is, “Everyone knows that”. They are now asking you to accept Social consensus as evidence. So look back at the criteria for social consensus; common knowledge, shared values, previously established facts, stipulations, etcetera. Did you stipulate (or are you willing to stipulate) that ‘practically every single student’ is cheating? If not, could you find it to be a widely held belief? Is it a previously established fact? If not, it isn’t suitable evidence and you would reject the claim pending stronger evidence.

Finally, let’s imagine that they respond with “Practically every single one of them”. We ask “how do you know that?” and their response is, “I have a survey here that shows it”. They are now asking you to accept statistics as evidence. This is a form of Objective evidence. So what does this mean? It means you can examine the data further if you wish. If you don’t accept it at face value, you should ask a few questions about the survey to see if it is relevant. Is it from the same population of students that we were originally talking about or a different population? Is it from a prison school located in Madagascar in 1760?? Is there a sufficient sample size and a sufficient variety and range of respondents? Can it be fact checked? Can the source data be reviewed?

These rules can be applied as stringently as is needed to guide the course of the discussion. For instance, if this was a discussion about something very risky (“should we launch the shuttle in cold weather?”), you would have a higher standard of evidence than for something that was low risk. If you have done some independent checking and you feel you know about how many students are cheating and the claimant has a similar number, you may accept it as Common Knowledge and move on. If your numbers are significantly different, you may accept their number based on their credibility or survey. Or you may reject it until a number is found that is mutually agreeable based in the evidence.

You should understand now that in order to engage in a critical discussion, the tools used are questions and answers. The answers are called ‘reasons’ and the process is called ‘reasoning’ – exchanging reasons back and forth until we can agree on one. You should also recognize that if YOU are the one making the claims, you would be well-advised to use the Topoi to analyze the issues surrounding your claims and be prepared with some compelling evidence. This is how you develop that good track record required for using your own credibility as evidence.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Monday, November 10, 2008

Aristotle’s Issues

In the last few weeks, we have gone over the following:
· Finding the resolution in a controversy
· Finding the issues inherent in the controversy (3 out of the 4 ways)
· The four types of claims that are made to answer the issues raised
The resolution and issues both ‘flow’ from the controversy, the claims flow from the issues and are analyzed to see if they support the resolution. Graphically, it looks like this:


I mentioned a fourth way to formulate the issues for a given controversy. This method was described by Aristotle. As I mentioned before, I always try to develop issues using two or more methods and this method (the Topoi) is the one I rely on most.

Topos is a Greek word for ‘place’. The plural is topoi and refers to ‘places in the mind’ where questions are kept. There is a story that goes with this, but for now just recognize that this is a method to formulate issues based on the type of claim being made. Again, the four types of claims are:

1 - Claim of Fact – presented as a plain factual statement like “Far more kids are engaged in cheating in school than the teachers think”
2 - Claim of Definition – presented to offer a definition or characterization like “The kid wasn’t cheating; he was just harmlessly cutting a corner”
3 - Claim of Quality – presented to make a value judgment about something like “Those teachers are incompetent”
4 - Claim of Policy – presented as a suggested course of action like “They should allow the kids to work together and share ideas like they’ll have to in the workplace”

For a claim of fact, there are two topoi; 1) ‘How would we know if the claim is true?’ and 2) ‘Have those conditions been met?’ So going to our example (“Far more kids are engaged in cheating in school than the teachers think”), some issues suggested by those topoi are: How many kids are engaged in cheating? How many kids do the teachers think are cheating? How many more would be “Far More” than teachers think, and are that many more cheating?

The degree to which you can answer those questions indicates the strength of your position. NOTE – (this is important) - It is usually NOT PRACTICAL (or even possible) to answer the issues with absolute proof. If it were possible, then there would NOT be a controversy! There are three kinds (and a few subtypes) and we will talk about how you weigh supporting evidence in the coming weeks. For now, just know that there is seldom “incontrovertible evidence” for anything that is controversial in business.

For a claim of definition, there are three topoi; 1) ‘Is the definition relevant?’, 2) ‘Is the definition fair?’, and 3) ‘How do we choose between competing definitions?’ So going to our example (“The kid wasn’t cheating; he was just harmlessly cutting a corner”), some issues suggested by those topoi are: Does it matter if we share a common understanding of what ‘cheating’ is? Is it important not to cheat in school? Is there a difference between ‘cheating’ and ‘cutting corners’? Would the activity that the kid was engaged in constitute what we consider cheating? How are ‘cheating’ and ‘cutting corners’ different? Can we agree on enough differences between ‘cheating’ and ‘cutting corners’ so that we can differentiate between them?

You may see why the topoi are my favorite method – it offers guidance in creating issues. This was always a problem for me when I started out in business. People would say something that didn’t seem quite right, but I never knew what to say to challenge them. Learning the topoi helped me a great deal.

A claim of quality is similar to a claim of definition. It is presumed, however, that we agree on the definition of the quality. If not, then we would handle it like a claim of definition until we agreed on the definition of the quality and then proceed. For a claim of quality, there are three topoi; 1) ‘Is the value true?’, 2) ‘Is the value generally relevant or specifically relevant?’, and 3) ‘How do we choose between competing values?’ So going to our example (“Those teachers are incompetent”), some issues suggested by those topoi are: How do we judge if the teachers meet our definition of incompetent? Are they incompetent in all things, some things, or just in some specific thing that may not be relevant to the resolution? If we characterized their incompetence as ‘stupidity’ or ‘laziness’, would we feel that those (competing) values better describe our perception of them?

Claims of policy are common in business, because we are constantly trying to correct problems or create opportunities. For a claim of policy, there are four topoi; 1) ‘Is there a problem (reason to change from the current state)?’, 2) ‘What is the problem?’, 3) ‘Does the proposal solve the problem?’, and 4) ‘Is the proposal better than the problem?’ So going to our example (“They should allow the kids to work together and share ideas like they’ll have to in the workplace”), some issues suggested by those topoi are: Is there a problem with kids competing? Is there a problem with kids competing in school differently than they will at work? Is competition the problem? Is there enough collaboration going on so that kids learn both working styles? Does allowing kids to collaborate keep them from cheating? Are there other impacts (expense, curriculum, facilities, teacher training, etc.) that would have to change in order to permit collaboration? Will it be worth it?

Now, you know a lot more about questioning claims made by people; how to categorize those claims, and how to define the key issues needed to resolve them. As always, you need to practice these techniques as often as possible until you are doing so automatically. It is critical that you practice when the stakes are low so that you are comfortable if the stakes are raised.
Next we will learn how to answer issues and by extension, learn what to expect for answers when someone else is responding to your questions.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Monday, November 3, 2008

We Have Issues

Last week, we started to explore some details in having a critical discussion. We talked about defining the resolution of the discussion (that is, the main claim) and expressing it. I asked you all to practice doing so. While I am certain you ALL practiced, I will cover what you may have encountered in a brief dialog before moving on to identifying issues (the questions that flow naturally and must be answered in fully exploring the resolution). Here goes:
Tom – “I am so upset with my kid. He got in trouble at school!”
Me – “Sorry to hear that. What was it about, if you don’t mind my asking?”
Tom – “He has a terrible history teacher. He tries hard, but can’t really follow all of the details for this class.”
Me – “So how did that get him in trouble?”
Tom – “He borrowed some ideas from another kid’s homework, just to get some ideas. They’re making a mountain out of a molehill.”
Me – “How did they know he did that?”
Tom – “Well, he copied the other kid’s words exactly! All the kid’s copy from each other – but he got caught”
Me – “So, you’re saying that what he did was alright?”
Tom – “No…of course not. I just don’t think he should be singled out”
Me – “So, you’re saying that he shouldn’t be punished?”
Tom – “No – I am just saying that cheating in school is common and punishing my kid won’t help”
Me – “So, you’re saying far more kids are engaged in cheating in school than the teachers think”
Tom – “That’s exactly right”

In this conversation I had to try three times to actually gain agreement on what the resolution is, but I finally made it. The resolution is “Far more kids are engaged in cheating in school than the teachers think” and that gives us a starting place for a critical discussion.
The first thing we may ask is: do we ourselves know this to be true? Do we KNOW with certainty that “Far more kids are engaged in cheating in school than the teachers think”? I DON’T know that so I may want to test the truth of that claim a bit. In order to test a claim, one must identify the issues underlying it.

The resolution is a special claim. I called it the “main claim” earlier. Even though it is the main claim in a controversy, it is still just a claim. There are four kinds of claims. That’s right – In all the controversies you have ever been involved in, there have only ever been four kinds of claims in play. Our resolution (“Far more kids are engaged in cheating in school than the teachers think”) is called a “claim of fact” – a statement one makes that is presented as a plain fact. We will examine all four kinds as we progress, but for now we will just define them:
1 - Claim of Fact – presented as a plain factual statement like “Far more kids are engaged in cheating in school than the teachers think”
2 - Claim of Definition – presented to offer a definition or characterization like “The kid wasn’t cheating; he was just harmlessly cutting a corner”
3 - Claim of Quality – presented to make a value judgment about something like “Those teachers are incompetent”
4 - Claim of Policy – presented as a suggested course of action like “They should allow the kids to work together and share ideas like they’ll have to in the workplace”

The underlying issues for each kind of claim can be found in four ways:
1 – Breaking down the key words and phrases in the claim, and asking questions about them
2 – Reviewing the context of the claim, rather than simply breaking down the phrases
3 – Reviewing all that we both agree on about the subject, and questioning that which we do NOT agree on
4 – Using an ancient model (called the Topoi) to determine the underlying questions based on the kind of claim being made.

We will illustrate method number one, two, and three in this article, with special attention to the fourth next time.

In breaking down key words or phrases, we would view the resolution in parts and ask questions about those parts. See the table below.















Key word or phrase


Issues


Far more kids

How many kids? How many more is “far more”?

are engaged in cheating in school

What do we mean by engaged in cheating? What does one
have to do to be “engaged in cheating”? What does it look like? What exactly
is “cheating” in school? Does this exclude cheating in other places? Is it
only in academic subjects, or can one cheat in art or physical education?

than the teachers think

Do we know how many kids the teachers think are
cheating? Are the teachers in a good position to know? What would make the teachers
think that kids are cheating?




If we were to examine the context, we might ask questions about the pressure put on kids to do well in school; the erosion of ethics in society in general; the temptation of a “quick fix” approach over longer term and deeper education strategy; or the incongruent emphasis between individual achievement in school and team achievement at work.

In reviewing all that we agree on within the topic, we might stipulate that kids do cheat and teachers can’t be certain as to how many do it, and that cheating means turning in work for credit for which you were not the original creator. We would still have discuss the teachers’ estimate of how many cheaters there are and how may cheaters there actually are, and would the difference in the two numbers qualify as “far more” or not.

When I review a claim I like to use at least two of the four methods, which ever seems more appropriate at the time, in order to make sure I have a good perspective of the resolution. Practice it this week – first, question until you have the resolution defined to the other party’s satisfaction and then develop all the salient issues you can. You don’t have to ask them all (I never do) but identify as many as you can and see if you can ask the most important ones. You will never be at a loss for something to ask about a claim again!

Next Week – the topoi!

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Learning to Identify the Resolution

A critical discussion is one in which something is being criticized – that is, evaluated from multiple perspectives for the purpose of coming to a shared understanding. These discussions are vital if we are to come to an agreement about the nature of something, or to agree upon a definition, or to agree on what should be done in a given situation. Fortunately for us, some of the great minds of the ages have put a good deal of thought into this process and have refined the process into something simple enough for me to understand and relate to you all. It is my intention to do this over the next few newsletters.

Let’s start with the model of a controversy. We start there because, if there is no controversy, we already have a shared understanding and have no use for critical discussion. However, if we choose to challenge presumption (reference my newsletter from August 31st), then we need to acknowledge controversy.

First we start with a simple statement describing a point of view (“Capital punishment is murder”, “We are products of our environment”, or “We should bail out Wall Street firms”). There is no thought at this time whether or not these statements are correct – they just represent one side of a controversy. It doesn’t matter if we believe them or not because in examining them, we are IMPARTIAL. We do NOT advocate a position. Rather, we assume only that they are issues complex enough to require analysis in order to be fully understood. This is challenge #1 and runs contrary to our training to “have the right answer”. We recognize here that we are seeking the answer and no more. This simple statement is called the “resolution”. It is not the ANSWER to the controversy (although it certainly could turn out to be); it is just the place we start our analysis.

So, when we begin feeling a disagreement brewing, we immediately try to formulate a resolution. We may ask “So, what you are saying is…..” and then express the statement a simply as possible in a neutral and temperate tone, and without adding charged language. If someone indicated that the Wall Street bail out was a reasonable course of action, your attempt to express that position as resolution would be expressed “So, what you are saying is we should bail out Wall Street firms?” and not “So, what you are saying is we should let the criminals on Wall Street off scot free?” The latter is clearly adding charged language that was not originally there. If possible, it is best to express a position without any charged language because it is more objectively analyzed.

I am going to close for now because it is critically important for you to understand just this much:

1. A critical discussion is one in which we are trying to explore various perspectives surrounding a given controversy.

2. A resolution is the principal claim to be explored in a controversy. It is a simple statement that expresses a point of view.

3. The resolution should be expressed in one or two simple sentences. If it cannot, then you should try to view the subject as multiple controversies to be resolved serially.

4. PRACTICE formulating resolutions for the next week. When you find yourself in a disagreement, ask the question “So, what you are saying is….?” to practice clarifying your understanding. Keep track of how many times the other party amends or adjusts the resolution. It is interesting to see that many times, we really didn’t understand just what the other party meant when we started our disagreement.

5. After you both agree on the resolution, refrain from expressing your opinion. Instead, ask them to tell you more about theirs. Simply say “What makes you say that?”, “What do you have to go on?”, “Tell me more” or whatever is natural and appropriate for you in the circumstance.

The reason I want you to do #4 and #5 is because it is important to practice when there is no great emotional load in the disagreement. If we practice the skills on a regular basis, we will have little problem calling on them when the stakes are a little higher. Get in the habit of clearly understanding the topic being discussed and exploring the other party’s position first.

We’ll discuss more next week.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Decisions, Decisions

Thank you all for being so loyal in reading the newsletters. There are almost 1,000 people reading them now and it is very gratifying for me to read the email you send in. Many of your emails would be of interest to others that read this blog. Feel free to leave them as comments. I always come back to answer any questions left in a comment, and you can be sure that if you are unclear on something here, you are not alone. If for any reason you feel your comment is sensitive, feel free to email it to me. I will not share anything that is emailed to me without your express permission.

The motto for Pathfinder Communication is “Better Communication, Better Decisions, Better Results”. I have dedicated most of the articles to communication. This one is about decisions.

There are generally four ways to make a decision in business, with minor variations depending upon which text you read. Here are the four:

1. Command (We are told what to do)
2. Consultation (We are asked for input before someone else decides)
3. Vote (Majority rules)
4. Consensus (Everyone agrees to a decision)

A Command decision is the kind that is typically handed down (“we need to work this weekend”) from a superior to a subordinate. It is distinguished by the fact that there is no give-and-take to between the superior and the subordinate in it formulation. That is its greatest weakness. Its greatest strength is the speed at which it can be made – instantly. It can be used where it is very unlikely that more information is going to influence the quality of the decision (if the boat is sinking, there is likely no amount of debate that will yield a decision other than “Abandon Ship!”). This is best for simple decisions needed quickly in which buy-in is not a great concern, or is automatic (like the sinking ship example).

In order to make a command decision a bit easier for a subordinate to accept, the decision maker should try to leave some elements flexible (what hours we will work this weekend, splitting shifts, bringing kids to work) and the subordinate should always ask which elements are flexible.

A Consultative decision is one in which the decision maker gathers ideas, evaluates the options, makes a choice, and then reports the decision. This is another way to arrive at a decision quickly and has the added strength of utilizing more than just the decision maker’s information. This is best when 1) the consequences of the decision will lie solely with the decision maker 2) buy in is not the highest priority 3) the problem is more complex; 4) the topic is not strictly in the decision maker’s field of expertise, and so on.

In deciding between a consultative or command decision, remember NOT to pretend you are consulting when you have already made up your mind. Likewise, do not use intimidation to drive a person to give you a certain opinion. The people with whom you consult will not feel valued if you do either of these things. Also, announce that you are consulting from the beginning so that others don’t feel that your decision has to include their point of view. They are just providing ideas and offering options – you are deciding.

Voting is a familiar way of making a decision, but not widely used in business. It is most likely to produce a good result when the team that is voting is responsible for the consequences of the decision, and when the team is well-versed in the differences between the options being voted on AND share a vision of what a desirable end result would be. It is important that all options are pre-screened so that they are all acceptable. That is, there is no option that any team member would not support if it were selected. Voting is a fast way to get a group decision on a subject with a few, roughly equivalent choices. Remember that after a vote, there are winners and losers. The losers should not be made to feel like outcasts for not agreeing with the majority opinion.

A Consensus decision is one in which everyone agrees to support the final decision. It is used for high stakes and complex issues. Consensus requires debate and, as a result, is not about everyone getting their 1st choice. It is about UNITING a group behind a decision and usually is the slowest of all of the methods. Its great strength is that all members of the group contribute to the collaboration and end up with an equal share of the responsibility for the consequences of a complex decision. Its great weakness is the relatively long time it takes and the high level of communication skills required to arrive at a consensus.

In the making of a consensus decision, there can be no “martyrs”; each consensus is independent and each participant in the final decision must participate actively in the collaboration. After a consensus decision is made, there can be no private post-decision lobbying, and no “I told you so”.

Who should be involved in making decisions? Just answer the following four questions:

1. Who has a stake?
- Don’t involve people that aren’t affected or don’t care
2. Who has information?
- Invite people with expertise or information
3. Who must agree?
- Those whose cooperation is beneficial and relevant
- You do NOT want influential people to be surprised by a decision and then be openly resistant
4. How many to involve?
- The minimum set to get a good decision and sufficient commitment

Finally, after the decision is made, understand the WWWF (Who, What, When, and Follow-up). Document a plan that is only as formal and complex as needed. Include interim follow-up actions so that as you implement the decision, you can see that it is unfolding as expected. Surprises in the implementation may be an indicator that the decision needs further consideration.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Monday, October 13, 2008

'Tis the Season

Lately, I have had more than the normal amount of difficult conversations at work and home, with peers, elderly parents, and impossible children. Let's see if I can recall the more grievous mistakes I have made in them:
1) Withdrawal - I recently had a conversation in which I felt sufficiently attacked that I chose to withdraw. That is, I chose to ignore my true feelings and just agree rather than try to share my side of the story. This is a fairly significant mistake because the relationship is one that is very important to me and by choosing not to tell my side, I am choosing not to make it better.

What should I have done?

I teach in the classes that the right thing to do is to take a break; to express that the conversation is very important and the issue must be addressed, but I really can't right now. I need to sort through what I think, separate it from what I feel, and talk more later. I really wish I would have followed my own advice.

2) Assumption - I have assumed that I knew a person's side of the story when i didn't. There was a subtle shift in language and BANG! I was engaged in a full scale verbal war without warning. In the end, we agreed with each other and worked through our differences, but this is a "rookie" mistake that I should never have made.

What should I have done?

I teach that you need to be, above all things, seeking to understand the other side. I let up for just a minute (long enough for my collaborator to process more information and change their opinion) and actually lost track of their position....in SECONDS. When I sensed the change in language, I should have asked "What makes you say that?" or "Tell me more" but I didn't. They had just gotten that piece of information that changes everything and I didn’t catch it.

3) Misjudging my collaborator - I engaged with someone that has a history of pure advocacy - seldom thinks through a conversation critically, and tends to keep score as "wins" and "losses" rather than "good decisions" and "poor decisions". I felt they were going into a situation only partially prepared and was questioning their strategy. I was dealt with as if I was attacking them. In this relationship, I am expected to offer this kind of input.

What should I have done?

This one was tricky. I teach that you need to have the right "purpose, position, and clarity" formulated when you begin, and I believe I did. I actually made two mistakes: a) tried to convince them of my position in one conversation (almost never happens) and b) tried to hold a critical discussion with someone not usually open to critical thinking. I needed to preface my remarks FAR more carefully, to build safety, and to be crystal clear that I was not challenging but trying to help. I could have done all of these things better.

So there are a few lessons here. First, we all make mistakes and need to look hard to learn from them. Second, the classes teach all we need to know to have great communication BUT you have to APPLY what you learn to get the benefit. Third, if you ever think that the other party is the ONLY contributor to your communication problems, think again - we almost ALWAYS have some hand in the problem AND the solution.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Monday, October 6, 2008

SO Many Differences

I am speaking on October 29th on the subject of “Working with Difficult People” and spent some time this weekend working on that presentation. If you have been to a Pathfinder class, you know that I teach that what makes people appear difficult are the differences between them, which I categorize loosely as Rules, Perceptions, Beliefs, Preferences, and Styles. It always surprises me (although it shouldn’t) at how little we believe these impact us. We acknowledge that there are differences, but feel most of them are trivial and really don’t interfere with our ability to communicate. I will say here for the first time that this is probably the single largest mistake we can make!

These differences may usually be small, but they invade our communication in such numbers that they quickly combine to overwhelm almost any serious discussion except for the most logical (for instance, discussions about math or science) and can cause us to lose sight of the facts. Here is what I mean – imagine that you and a sibling are sitting in a class with me. I ask you both to write ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a series of questions like this one:
1 – Is a sofa a piece of furniture?
2 – Is a chair a piece of furniture?
3 – Is a wooden stool a piece of furniture?
4 – Is a wooden cube a piece of furniture?
5– Is a wooden crate piece of furniture?
6 – Is a cardboard crate piece of furniture?
7 – Is a piece of cardboard a piece of furniture?

Around questions 4, 5, & 6 the concept of a piece of furniture is raised. You and a sibling may agree on this. Maybe not. Would you and all your peers at work match up? You and someone from another country?

Remember, this is a question about the concept of furniture – something we form very early; something very familiar and concrete. Are we all on the same page? How about with something a more abstract – would you expect that you and your peers agree on what comprises professional behavior? Freedom? Art? Business results? As the subject gets more abstract, the more radical the differences between people becomes. Even on fairly concrete things, we vary widely.

We also have differences in the way we think things will play out over time. If you have a general rule that "things usually work out for the best", your boss has a general rule that "what can go wrong, will", and your peer has the idea that "nothing we do is really important", do you think it might affect the way you approach projects and your impressions of each other's work?

These differences exist within nearly every concept that we hold. What I think is assertive leadership, you may feel is bullying. With so many differences it is difficult for me to see how we EVER get past them. The answer is, we usually don’t and many of us just “put up” with what goes on, believing that we are right and others wrong. The thing is, keeping score that way is pointless and counterproductive.

If you want to understand “Working with Difficult People”, recognize that they are only difficult until you understand them. I mean understand them in a way that they KNOW you understand them, which generally means you can explain their position TO THEM and have them say “Yeah….you got it!” If you do that, you have asked questions, listened carefully, let them talk, considered what they had to say, and repeated it back to them. You asked them to correct you if you had it wrong. You made their point of view important – not right or wrong, but important enough to work to understand.

If someone did that for you, how difficult would you be?

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Saturday, September 27, 2008

The Debates

If you have taken any classes thorough Pathfinder, you may remember me saying that this is the season for rhetoric and persuasive speech. As we enter the last 40 days before the election, things will reach a pitch. It will be fun to see what you remember from class. For instance:

· Can you restate the controversies in one to three simple sentences?

· To what issues would the topoi lead us in the various controversies? (example - for a claim of fact, the topoi would suggest the questions "How would we know if it is true?" and " Have those conditions been met?")

· Are the candidates meeting their burden (Burden of Proof, Burden of Supporting Assertions, Burden of Rejoinder)

· What kinds of claims are being made? (Fact, Definition, Quality, or Policy)

· What kinds of evidence are used? (Objective evidence, Credibility, or Social Consensus)

· What inferences are being drawn? (Example, Cause, Sign, Analogy, Narrative, or Form)

· Do they see value in having strong relationships, or do they believe that relationships get in the way of good communication?

· When they speak in the past tense, is it usually for blame? Present tense for values or duty? Future tense for choices?

Even though these debates will be about advocating positions instead of collaborating, see if you can tell which of the candidates are more likely to collaborate once elected. You can judge this by trying to detect which one tends to project that they have all of the answers, and which tends to project that they would likely draw opinions from other sources in order to arrive at the best possible decision.

NOTE – this forum is not a political forum and Pathfinder won’t endorse either candidate. The purpose of this article is to point out that the candidates debates and speeches use the same rules as business speech and can be helpful in illustrating concepts that you have learned in our classes or at my speaking engagements. Feel free to leave some comments.

Monday, September 15, 2008

Public Workshop 9/19 is full

Actually, the workshop isn't public - a local company booked the time for some training. So the 9/19 class is full. I am considering revamping my current classes (and adding some new ones) and making them available as Webinars. I attend Webinars all the time and love them. Please give me your thoughts or share some experiences so I can make them just the way you want them. Also, give me some general guidance - what subjects, what times and days, etc. Where are you having your communication issues at work these days?

either add your comment in the blog or email me at gregg.oliver@PathfinderCommunication.com


Thanks to all of you!



Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Defensiveness

Last time I wrote about Advocacy as an impediment to the logical give and take that distinguishes collaboration. I characterized it as a learned behavior, and one that can be partially or fully managed by a skilled communicator that recognizes it and knows how to steer a group around it. I also mentioned another impediment - Defensiveness. That is the subject this week.

First of all, I know it is a little obvious that these are learned behaviors. I mean, we are not born knowing how to communicate a position as an advocate. Our natural position (so I am lead to believe) is simply to want to do what is best for us, and we are not at all picky about being the author of the idea. Early in life, it seems that we become aware that what is often best for us is to be the author of good ideas. And not just a few, but a LOT. And we should have them frequently. And they should outstandingly productive and profitable. This is recognized as competitive advantage and one highly sought. We learn this in school – that we are rewarded for having the best ideas. This teaches us that it is wise to be able to advocate a position, and exclude others. There comes a time in everyone’s life when they are presenting their idea, sure that it is the right one, and we hear another one – a better one. If at that moment, you begin to support the better idea, or you choose to question it to see if it is really better, or you begin mixing the best parts of your idea with the best parts of theirs; CONGRATULATIONS! You are collaborating.

If (on the other hand) when faced with the better idea, you dismiss it, or discredit the person presenting it, or use half-truths to make your idea look better, or omit important unknowns about your idea to make it more likely to be accepted (and therein increase your competitive advantage), you are advocating.

Defensiveness is just as universal as Advocacy, but not nearly as simple. Defensiveness comes into play when some parties in the conversation feel that an open and authentic exchange of information is not safe. They begin to tailor their words and their level of participation because they feel a need to defend themselves from some threat, real or imagined.

So Defensiveness is the impediment to a collaboration resulting from a real or imagined lack of safety. What causes that?

The answer is that it depends on the individual, and I know that is a TERRIBLE answer so I will try to fix it. There are two general categories:
· Credibility – The person doesn’t feel safe because they perceive a problem with the credibility of someone in the collaboration. If someone thinks they are dealing with someone that isn’t credible, they often begin to censor what they say.
· Respect – The person doesn’t feel safe because they feel disrespected by or feel disrespect for someone in the collaboration. If someone feels they are being treated disrespectfully, or their dignity is being threatened, or that the person with whom they are dealing is unrespectable, they often begin to censor what they say.

These are the general categories, and their contents vary from person to person based on many things. I once worked with a person that kept me at arm’s length, never really sharing their thoughts on our business dealings with me. It was very uncomfortable for us both. After a series of talks about it, she admitted that she considered me unprofessional. I was very surprised. We had done a lot of good things together and I considered myself to be VERY professional in all if my dealings with her. After a few more conversations, she told me it was my appearance. My hair was long for her tastes, and I seldom (very, very seldom) ever wore a suit or even a tie. We had some conversations and eventually we agreed that I could be very effective in doing my job and would wear a tie on any occasion she felt would be enhanced by that level of “professionalism”. We further agreed that she would tell me when those occasions arose.

My point is that the root causes of Defensiveness in communication vary, but fall into a small number of general categories. In the next few newsletters, I will describe the most common things that underlie defensiveness and ways to create sufficient safety to overcome them.

This is very important because keeping Defensiveness under control is the way to keep collaboration productive.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Sunday, September 7, 2008

Advocacy

In communication, the single largest difficulty for nearly everyone comes when a critical discussion transforms from the logical "give and take" that I described in my last newsletter into something less productive. Two familiar forms of this are Advocacy and Defensiveness. I will talk about Advocacy today.

Advocacy is the situation where, instead of coolly examining alternatives, one or more participants begin advocating a single position to the exclusion of any other and are not open to modifying that position. To others in the discussion, it feels as if that participant has made up their mind and that the discussion has shifted from "mutually finding a best solution" to "defending a given idea as the best solution". This begins a polarization that is needed in the final decision making process, but is counterproductive before then. This is why it often "feels" that the discussion is over and it is time to decide before any one position is mutually acceptable. People will in fact say at this point that "I guess there is no sense in discussing this further; your mind appears to be made up".

The mindset of the advocate is based on years of conditioning that "the rewards accrue to the person that owns the best idea", like the smartest kid in school. It is very tempting to re-live the joy of being the one to have the best idea, because we have seen the individual rewarded for a good idea many more times than seeing a group rewarded for a GREAT idea. The job of collaboration is just that; producing GREAT ideas that are better than a single individual would produce and in less time. in other words, we are trained to advocate and be competitive rather than collaborative. In business, it is FAR better for the organization to be collaborative because we need the BEST ideas. So, the root of solving the advocacy issue is overcoming the conditioning that we have been immersed in since childhood.

The earlier you can spot advocacy in a conversation, the better, because you can deal with it before the advocate becomes so invested in a position that they can't change course without feeling weak or losing face (in their own mind). Here are two themes to employ in doing this:
· Trust - Ask the group (not singling out the advocate) to trust all the members and the process. That is, explicitly request that, even though it seems that we have mentioned an idea that COULD work, we trust that the people in the group and the process of inquiry COULD result in a better idea than any we currently have with little effort. Ask the group to stay open to being influenced and to try to be productive in creating and questioning all the ideas. If an advocacy begins to develop, ask the advocate to mention the downside of the position. This will help to keep their thinking fluid.
· Purpose - Ask the group to recall the purpose of the discussion; that is, to to create a great idea that has been thoroughly vetted through inquiry. This means we need all members to participate in the inquiry until we have found the idea with the best ratio of positive to negative points. Remind them that the purpose is NOT to "single-handedly" develop the great idea, but to contribute to its creation.

If you arrive at a point where one or more members feel that "their mind is made up", it is a good time to ask all involved for any downside risks associated the position and discuss if their manageability. If the downside risk is not manageable, the group needs to do more work or get some new perspectives.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Sunday, August 31, 2008

Conducting a Critical Discussion

For the last few weeks, I have elaborated on the elements of attitude that provide the best point of view from which to approach a discussion. Studying these elements and learning how to incorporate them authentically into your communication will help you remain collaborative and avoid falling into the advocacy trap. More on this in upcoming weeks. Now it's time to look at some of the elements critical to conducting the discussion.



Let's look at the instance in which you are challenging the status quo. In most businesses, the biggest threat is NOT the outside competition, but the status quo, so understanding this model is important.



Presumption and Burden of Proof


For our purposes, Status Quo means "the way things are". The status quo carries with it the presumption that things are like they are for a reason, and therefore there is no reason to change. Of course this is not always right, or we would never need to discuss it, but the fact is that in critical discussions the status quo carries this presumption. It is up to the person challenging the status quo to prove that things should change. This is called the "Burden of Proof".



So, the person supporting the status quo is said to have "presumption" and the person challenging the status quo bears the "burden of proof". The idea is that the challenger must have a good enough position to convince the other party that things should change. If they can't support such a position - can't dislodge the status quo, then things will stay as they are.



These two elements (presumption and burden of proof) are very important. In the case of a tie, the win goes to presumption. In some discussions, a great deal of effort goes into declaring presumption because, in the case of a close call, presumption wins. Sometimes, a good approach is to gain agreement that the status quo is flawed. If one can do that, our new approach only has to cause less harm and is we can prove that, we can then say that another approach is "worth a try". This works because we have short-circuited the presumption that the status quo is satisfactory, which is sometimes easier than gaining agreement that a new approach is clearly better.



Burden of Proving Assertions


In the course of a discussion, each side is going to make statements that support a position. Those statements are called assertions. After making an assertion, the other party can either accept the assertion as stated or can ask for data that backs up the assertion. This data is called evidence or proof. Asking for evidence needn't be more complicated than asking "What makes you think so?' or "Tell me more about...". The point is that unless you accept the other party's assertions (and sometimes even if you do) it is wise to ask for THEIR reasons for believing the way they do. This is very important in understanding their perspective fully.



Burden of Rejoinder


This is the responsibility to respond to the perspectives expressed by those that are challenging your perspective. If someone asks a question of you, asks for evidence, or in some other way is actively asking about your perspective, then you have a responsibility to reply in a way that addresses the question. And they owe the same to you. Stalling, withdrawing, attacking, sarcasm, and manipulation are typical way is which someone demonstrates failure to meet the burden of rejoinder. Knowing that these responses (and the underlying fallacies) is very helpful in judging the strength of a position.



Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Safety and Trust

There have been many times in our lives when we have wanted to say something, but elected not to. Afterwards, we may wish we had and ponder why we didn’t. Sometimes, we remember when we said something and wish we hadn’t, or a time when we blurted something that was harsher than we meant it to be, or the other person was offended even though we were “diplomatic”.

We feel like the other party will get mad. Or we don’t feel like it will help. Or we feel that the other person won’t understand. Or we feel they will say something that we don’t want to deal with.

You get the picture. We either worry that we will be “attacked” or we don’t trust that they will follow the direction of conversation that we want them to. In the final analysis, we don’t feel safe.

Feeling safe in the conversation is the most fundamental position. It allows us to start, and all parties constantly check their safety levels in formulating their statements. When someone becomes defensive, it is because they feel threatened – a.k.a. “not safe”. When someone becomes defensive, the productivity of the conversation falls to zero until you re-establish safety. Pretty simple to understand, but how do you do it?

The task is twofold; 1) to feel safe yourself and 2) create safety for others in the conversation. Why do YOU have to do it? Because they don’t know this stuff!

Making yourself feel safe takes practice and concentration. You have to stay curious, open, engaged, authentic, empathetic, present, and collaborative. You MUST believe that if you do that, the conversation CAN’T go anywhere you don’t want it to, because you AREN’T STEERING IT!

Take curiosity – if you are truly curious about the other party’s point of view, what exactly is it that will make you defensive? The answer is “nothing” because nothing they say is an attack – it is just their point of view, which is what you are seeking. Let’s say I ask someone a very unsafe question like “What do you think of my performance on the Jenson project?” If I am curious, and they say “Frankly I thought you could have done better.” I would naturally ask “How?” If I am not curious, I might have a different response. If I remain curious and ask how I might have done better, they might say “Well, at times you seemed a bit unprofessional when we were meeting with them.” Again, if I fall out of curiosity I might guess at what they mean and try to excuse myself, or I might just tell them they’re wrong, or I might attribute it to my style, or I might tell them that if they knew more about what I do they would understand, or I might tell them “that we will agree to disagree (yuck!)”. If I stay curious, they might tell me “Well, in many meetings you showed up late and several times without a tie!” AHA! Guess what? You just learned what the other person’s definition of professionalism is and how they apply it. YOU STAYED CURIOUS AND LEARNED SOMETHING ABOUT HOW OTHER PEOPLE DEFINE PROFESSIONALISM. It of course will be up to you to determine what you do with the information, but by staying curious is the only way to earn that option.


Making others feel safe should be thought of as making a safe environment for discussion. YOU have to be sensitive to the rhythm of the conversation and observant enough to see when the exchange isn’t going smoothly. The earlier you detect changes in the timbre of the exchange the easier it is to keep things safe. You can tell they are feeling unsafe if they start to withdraw (sarcasm, subject changing, or silence), attack (name-calling, controlling, anger), or begin to act as if you have diminished their dignity. At that moment, you should stop talking about the subject of the conversation, and try to talk about the way the conversation is being conducted (“What you just said makes me think that I may have said something offensive. I didn’t mean to say anything hurtful and if I did, I apologize”). Note – only apologize if it is warranted.


Some things to remember:


Focus on the deeper purpose that you both hope to achieve in the conversation. You hope to understand their side IN ORDER TO accomplish something that will benefit you both. Make sure you BOTH understand what that something and its benefit is. You may see one way solve a problem and the other party may have a totally different solution. You need to assure that you both are committed to solving the problem and agree on what it is. The mutual purpose will help carry you through the discomfort of the conflict over methods IF you explicitly state it. “I want to tell you that, even thought we differ on some of these details, I am delighted to be working with someone that is as passionate about solving problem x as I am.”


Don’t try to accomplish everything in one conversation. The healthiest way to work through things is generally in several small conversations. Difficult topics take some time to work through and the best way to allow the time is to hold several conversations rather than one or two long ones.


Be sensitive to other points of view. A good way to show this is to be tentative. “I may be wrong about this, but I think we should…” is less likely to put someone on the defensive than “Any schoolboy would easily see that we should….” Along those same lines, being humble is a great help. There is no need to hammer someone with your credentials after they have been established. Humility and tentativeness will automatically be part of your demeanor if you are practicing openness.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication