Thursday, October 29, 2009

Presenting your case - in that twisted Advocacy Style

Last week, we spoke about ways to lead (or mislead) an audience using the Advocacy model of communication by presenting certain kinds of evidence in a biased way. This week, I will continue with this.

Exaggerated graphs – An easy way to shade information to support your perspective is to create graphs with exaggerated scales. Let’s say that I have the following productivity data for a given operation:



Let’s say I want to paint the picture that our productivity has been consistent. I would scale the graph so the three lines land in about the same place. Mathematical proof of consistency


What if I wanted to point out how inconsistent we are, using the same data? I only need to change the scale.



This operation needs help – they are all over the place! Same data, different scale.


“All” and “Some” - The words “All” and “Some” are tricky to use, and you should avoid them when you can. If the OTHER side uses them, try to exploit their use. For example, you shouldn’t say “All of our customers are happy with our new product.” The other side only needs to find one or two that are willing to say an unflattering thing and, if they present it strongly enough, you will lose your credibility. If you use the word “Some” in the same way ( “Some of our customers are happy with our new product”) your statement invites criticism. If the other side uses it, you would CERTAINLY say “I hope we aren’t trying to build a business by making just SOME customers happy!!!” It’s best to not use “All” or “Some” and let the OTHER side make that mistake.

Slopes and Heaps – at sometime in your career, you will hear someone talk about how “first you allow this, then you accept that, and soon you will have all KINDS of trouble!” These statements are referred to as “Slippery Slopes” or “Heaps”. If your opponent uses the argument that once we allow certain things to happen, then we will be powerless to stop it, think about what they are saying. Is there REALLY no way to give a one-time allowance on something that is a small concession and good for the business? Why can’t we make an exception if it is the right thing to do? Why can’t we reserve the right to say “no” next time if THAT is appropriate? There are few slippery slopes that can’t be addressed with common sense, and there is no rule that says we can’t de-prioritize consistency if it makes sense for the business. By the way, a “Slippery Slope” is one on which once you start climbing down, you may not be able to climb back up to where you began.

The use of the word “Heap” comes from a problem of defining a Heap. For instance, if you put one grain of sand on the floor, is it a heap? Most would say no. Two grains make a heap? Again, no. 100,000 grains make a heap? You bet – and a big one. Ok, so how many grains exactly did it take to make the heap? In other words, at which exact number would one less be NOT a heap and one more BECOME a heap? This is a pretty common approach to dealing with arguments like “At what point does my attendance become significant”, “At what point does a cell cluster become a fetus”, or “At what point is a man considered bald”?

Continuum “The Golden Mean” - When faced with presenting a somewhat extreme position, it is best to find a way to make it seem more moderate. For instance, let’s say you favored prison time for first time shoplifters (I HOPE you can see that as an extreme position!). You might present it as “Some people want to just let these law breakers off with a little probation, and others want to institute capital punishment for them. I favor the more moderate position of incarceration. This is a serious problem, but those other approaches are excessive and extreme”. All you have to do is find one nut that thinks we ought to institute capital punishment for shop lifters, and you will have presented the moderate view. People LOVE the moderate view.

Next week, I'll post a few final thoughts about PRESENTING your case, and start into some ways to ATTACK the OTHER guy's case!


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Monday, October 19, 2009

Job Postings on Pathfinder Communicators

I have added some job links to the Pathfinder Communicator newsfeed. Just go here and check out the communication news from Harvard or select the "Jobs" tab and visit some San Diego job boards.
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Using the Advocacy Model to Present Evidence

As I have described before, the Advocacy model is what is used when a work discussion is viewed as a contest and one side is trying to “win”. I feel an obligation to insert the following statement: I think the advocacy model is what is wrong with business communication and I only bring it up here because it is as important for business people to be able to identify what is wrong as what is right. The advocacy model should almost never be used in business, but it frequently is, just because the inquiry model is not well understood by most business people. The Pathfinder Mission is to help change that.

In the advocacy model, the general rule for presenting evidence is: only present evidence that supports your position OR that undermines the opposing position. This makes perfect sense if you are viewing the discussion as a contest. So if there is evidence that would undermine your own position, you would NOT present it in an advocacy discussion, but you WOULD in a collaborative discussion because you would want to build a perspective with the least downside, so you have to include the downside in the “information pool”.

One kind of evidence that is normally presented in a discussion is statistical information. The first attribute of statistical information that you should be ready to discuss is its source. For your perspective, you should try to use information from a well-known source OR one that you can describe as a generally accepted source. Conversely, if your counterpart presents statistical information, attack the validity of the source.

You can ask questions about was the data taken from a suitable range of samples, or were the samples taken randomly. If they answer in the negative or that they don’t know, you can be dismissive of the data because it is not well-developed. Be advised that even among professional statisticians, there is disagreement upon what constitutes an adequately random sample. If they answer in the affirmative, then you can ask them how they know that because that information is rarely supplied with the data. If they prepared the data themselves, then ask if they are a degreed statistician. If they say yes, then ask them if they are a professional statistician.

You get the idea.

Another attribute of statistical data is the notion of the “Average” value. The idea of an “Average” value actually can apply to any one of three different concepts: the “arithmetic mean” (what most of us think of when we say average), the mode (the number that occurs mostly frequently in a group of numbers), and the median (the number from which half the numbers are larger and half the numbers are smaller).

Let’s say you gave the following set of numbers: 19, 25, 25, 30, 60, 80, and 95. The Mean is 47. The Mode is 25. The Median is 30. The minimum is “as few as 19”. The maximum is “as many as 95”. Which number best supports your position?

If the opposing position makes claims based on the "average", ask questions about the data set and use the answers to show how they are trying to be deceptive.

You go into an electronics store that is selling a toaster, normally priced at $30 but this week is $15. You see a television in the same store that sells in other stores for $1000. In this store it is in the same ball park at $985. Let’s say you want to advocate that store to someone. Certainly you could say “I went to the XYZ store and saw a toaster for half off. I also saw a TV at similar savings.” Certainly the $15 off the TV is similar to the $15 dollars off the toaster, right?

The key question to ask is what do they mean by similar savings: percentage-wise or dollar value? You can make differences seem smaller or larger than they really are just by expressing them as percentages or as values.

Next week, I will present more on how the advocacy model twists evidence and how to deal with it.


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Advocacy and getting people on your side

As promised, this week is about the communication style known as “Advocacy” (as opposed to “Inquiry”). Advocacy in this context is taken to mean a communication “contest” in which one side tries to cause their perspective to be adopted, sometimes by whatever means necessary, and not the act of acting as someone’s advocate. Obviously, one can act as an advocate in a very noble way. Advocacy as a communication style can be performed in a productive way as well, but is often not. It can often involve 1) Logical fallacy that is intended to mislead, 2) incomplete or exaggerated evidence that is meant to, in the words of Socrates, “make the weak appear strong and the strong appear weak” and, 3) use rhetoric to lead others to conclusions that are not supported by logic or evidence.

Why am I talking about this? Well, because it often practiced in the workplace just as I have described above. It is important that we recognize it and know how to compete. That is, to know when the logic is flawed and how to get it back on track; to know how to weigh and judge evidence; and to know when rhetoric is being used instead of facts and be able to steer things back to less biased state.

As I mentioned last week, Advocacy concentrates on three areas:
1) Presenting a perspective
2) Attacking a competing perspective
3) Defending your perspective

Let’s talk about presenting your perspective. Make sure you state your perspective (or that your counterpart states their perspective) in a way that can be CLEARLY evaluated. For instance, let’s say your counterpart says that “When we do things that disappoint the customer, it makes us look bad. We should try not to do those things”. You need to respond that OBVIOUSLY it is in our best interest not to disappoint the customer. The statement isn’t specific enough for us to really even discuss. What do we MEAN by disappoint? What kind of things specifically are we talking about?

If you are in the Advocacy mode and wish to stay there, then you may want to say something that implies your counterpart is a bit naïve, and that “while they seem to have a grasp on the obvious, they should think a little more about their position before bringing up something so broad.” If you wish to get out of the advocacy mode and move into inquiry (which I will always recommend), you would want to ask them questions like “What makes you think so? Tell me more about… How do you know that? Is there any data you can share?”

It is common for an Advocacy argument to start with an ‘emotional appeal’. Now, these are seldom useful if stated in some overwrought fashion, so they are generally stated as if they are common knowledge, and as such they are accepted without question. THIS IS THE MOST COMMON WAY TO GET PEOPLE ON YOUR SIDE IN AN ADVOCACY SITUATION. There are about 20 such appeals. Here are a few types:
Appeal to consequences – “If we don’t lower prices, we are going to lose customers”
Appeal to fear – “And if we stop driving SUV’s, then the terrorists have already won.”
Appeal to flattery – "Surely a man as smart as you can see this is a brilliant proposal."
Appeal to tradition – “We have always done it this way”
Appeal to novelty – “Let me show you how people are doing it now. This is the latest way to do it”
Appeal to popularity – “This is how EVERYONE is doing it”
Appeal to authority – “This is how experts do it”

You can learn more about them here.

For instance, if I wanted to use an Appeal to Consequences, my statement could be that “our customers frequently get angry when we ship late to them, and they call us to complain and threaten to find other suppliers.” This strikes most of us believable; many in the room would accept it and move to finding ways to improvement shipment performance. But is it TRUE? Does it really happen as I stated? Have there been late shipments? Have there been calls from THOSE customers? How many? When?

If you are in the Advocacy mode and wish to stay there, then you may want to counter an emotional appeal in a way that 1) undermines your opposition and 2) shows that the thing they call a problem is really a symptom of something desirable. For example, if your counterpart uses an appeal to consequences that says “if we don’t improve our shipment performance, our customers will all leave”, then you counter it with a BIGGER appeal to consequence and use it as the reason that we MUST not worry about shipping performance. You might say “If you had done your homework, you’d know that the reason for the slight delay in shipments is the result of the HUGELY SUCCESSFUL COST CUTTING PROGRAM we recently implemented. While causing minor inconvenience to a few customers, we have increased profits dramatically, without adding people or capital equipment! The profits will help fund more research and development to get MORE customers than ever. This glitch in shipments is a small price to pay for what this means to our future!” This is very much like the response that salesmen give when you say “I can’t afford it” and they say “you can’t afford NOT to have it!”

If you wish to get out of the Advocacy mode and move into inquiry (which I will always recommend), you would want to ask them questions like “What makes you think so? Tell me more about… How do you know that? Is there any data you can share?”

To move to the collaborative, “inquiry” mode all you ever need to do is to counter these emotional appeals with logical appeals – asking for and testing facts. A logical appeal, done persistently and with skill, will usually make an emotional appeal look a bit hysterical and draw support to find the facts.

We are just scratching the surface on the subject of advocacy. I will talk more about the Presenting your case. This time we talked about sizing your perspective and getting people on your side. Next time, I will talk a little about 1) Presenting facts and 2) Presenting a Strong Conclusion.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Sunday, October 4, 2009

January Classes

Don't forget to sign up for the Next High Performance Communication class starting January 22, 2010 More information on THAT here and here. Call for more information - 858-245-9802.


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Practicing Advocacy

I have said many times on these pages that there are TWO types of conflict to handle during a critical discussion; Affective conflict (i.e. personality clashes or cultural conflict) and Cognitive conflict (disagreement about a topic). For example, let’s say you are involved in a discussion with someone about which sport is superior – baseball or football. You go back and forth, explaining your position on YOUR favorite sport and the other person does the same.

IF you find yourself disagreeing based on the EVIDENCE that is presented, then you are likely engaged in a COGNITIVE disagreement – that is, you are unpersuaded by the facts under discussion. If, however, you are in one of those situations in which can’t be persuaded by ANYTHING the other side says because you don’t like or can’t trust them, you are experiencing an AFFECTIVE disagreement. Your inability to accept the other point of view is based on the PRESENTER and not the facts.

You will certainly find yourself dealing with both kinds of conflict, and mastering them both is important to being a good communicator. I have dedicated many of the articles I have written to dealing with AFFECTIVE conflict, and have developed and published the model that I call THE SCORE in order to help you deal with it. There are TWO models for COGNITIVE conflict. One is a collaborative model that I call Inductive Inquiry (or “SPIRAL” model). One that I have NOT shared is a model for conducting ADVOCACY.

I have spent a lot of time writing about Advocacy vs. Collaboration, and have said that Advocacy is the model with which we are most familiar. That is one reason that I have concentrated on teaching the COLLABORATIVE model – the fact that it isn’t generally understood. The other reason is that, between the two models, the COLLABORATIVE model is generally the most appropriate in business. It is the best one for developing solutions and getting answers when the information to base good decisions on are hard to find or not well vetted.

There ARE good times to use an Advocacy model, though, and I am going to dedicate the next few newsletters to discussing them.

Advocacy means just what you think it does. You ADVOCATE a given perspective over any competing perspectives. This means you are ready to persuade people to adopt this perspective over other perspectives, and defend it from competing perspectives. It also means you will publically demonstrate that competing perspectives to be inferior in some important characteristics. This CAN be done collaboratively, but it generally is not – it is generally done as contest to see what idea gets adopted.

When would we use such a model?

- In a command and control situation when we must all conform to a given course of action and “buy-in” isn’t a big consideration.

- When there is one “expert” on the topic and other opinions are not really competitive because they are not credible (they lack expertise).

-In an emergency when something must be done immediately and there is a single person in charge.

Like I said, these situations indicate suboptimal business conditions, but I know for a fact that the Advocacy model is used frequently. Fortunately, once you are trained a little, you will be far better equipped to participate in these discussions than many who feel that Advocacy is the best model to use. In fact, students that become competent in Advocacy generally find that others are very willing to begin collaborating with them rather than just get shut down!

Over the next few weeks, I will cover all of the elements of the Advocacy model. For this week, I will describe them.

1) Presenting a perspective
     - Developing a strong perspective
     - Getting others on your side
     - Presenting facts
     - Presenting a Strong Conclusion

2) Attacking a competing perspective
     - Gauging the opinions of others in order to create a productive attack
     - Attacking the evidence
     - Attacking the conclusion

3) Defending your perspective
     - Defending evidence
     - Defending your conclusion
     - Going in for the kill
     - Saving face

As we move through the elements above over the next few weeks, you will learn how to make your perspective look like the only logical choice and expose weaknesses in any opposition. In the event that you are attacked, you learn to defend. In the case that you are overcome by a competing perspective, you will learn to save face.


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication