Elements of Persuasion #2

Last week, we touched on two very important activities involved in persuasion – establishing credibility and aligning with your counterpart’s values. This week, I’d like to talk a little bit about how to help them use their own thinking to stay open to new perspectives.


A very difficult part of being persuasive is helping a person appreciate your perspective. If we could do something to make that happen, to keep the other person in a frame of mind that helps them remain receptive to the logical and emotional elements we present, we would have a much better chance of helping them understand our perspective and perhaps to adopt it. It is important to allow the person to use their own thinking process to connect with your perspective. It is not enough to tell them how to feel; it is important to help them feel it.

Here are some things to think about if you have an issue that you consider serious and are having trouble persuading others to share that feeling:

• Discussions that end up with determining a course of action usually start by discussing a symptom and moving to a problem. Usually, we start talking about a symptom of the problem first (because we see symptoms first). We might say that the company has a problem because sales are down. Then as we discuss it further, we’ll find that low sales are a symptom. The real problem is that the company isn’t profitable. That is the real problem here. “Sales are down” is not really broad enough to do much about (except sell more). The reason low sales are a problem is the effect on profit. Profitability can be addressed a few different ways. It is best to frame the problem in such a way that there are a variety of ways to solve it. Over time, I have found that framing the problem this way encourages many more ideas.

• The next thing I talk about is NOT the potential solutions, but the impact that the problem presents. I do this for several reasons, and here are two: first, it gives us an estimate of the size of the problem – the weight of it. If it has little impact on us, then it is a smaller problem. Secondly, it makes the issue fr more real to have a realistic discussion of how it harms us. Before anyone decides we aren’t going to do anything about it at this time, I like to remind them that we all said it carried a certain impact. Are we willing to live with it? Usually, if we have discussed it openly and fully (and I try to make sure we really explore impact), we look at things very carefully before moving on. Impact of not being sufficiently profitable, for instance, is that we don’t have money for training or internal research and development, or other important things.

• I then move to eventual consequence. This is the impact to us if we don’t do anything. For instance, if we don’t do anything about our profitability, and don’t train our people or do sufficient research and development, we will certainly become less competitive and will likely go out of business. I like to let everyone that can do something about the problem participate in the “Impact and Consequences” discussion so that things can be very real. This has a strong emotional charge to it.

• There is a phenomenon called “Avoidance of Regret” that is a very strong motivator. People don’t like to feel regret, that they made a bad choice and now have to suffer (or cause others that they care about to suffer) the consequences. People will usually take a proactive course IF THEY TRULY FEEL that regret is a likely consequence of taking a reactive course. The trouble is getting them to feel it. I have found that asking them to imagine how they will feel if things turn out in that regrettable state is powerful. I say straight forwardly “Before we decide, I want you to think for a moment about how you will feel if you decide to do nothing about this situation now, and in a few months the thing we believe will happen comes to pass and we find ourselves in a non-competitive position with dire consequences. How will you feel about the choice you made today to do nothing?” If I have done the above steps well, and made everything transparent to all involved, they will usually be persuaded to be proactive.


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Persuasion Fundamentals - Credibility and Alignment with Values

Last week, I started a new series – this one on Persuasion. I wrote about two categories of elements for persuasion (Logical and Emotional) and this week, we’ll talk about a few of the emotional elements because those are the ones that most of us have the trouble with.

The emotional elements of an argument are the ones that are beyond the facts of the issue; they are the ones that make things “ring true”, seem right, and cause us to adopt ideas beyond (and sometimes even in spite of) plain data.

The first element of persuasion that reaches past the data is the speaker’s credibility. Credibility is so vital to all forms of business communication that I write about it often. Regular readers of this newsletter have heard me cover it many times. You can search this blog for the word “credibility” or just go here to refresh your memory.

The second element of persuasion has to do with creating an argument that aligns with your counterpart’s values, if possible. I see this as the fundamental persuasive skill because it is very difficult to persuade someone to take a course that runs counter to an existing and deeply held value. Persuading someone to do so is seldom possible unless there is no alternative, or by violating the one value in order to support one that is even more important. It becomes critical to us then to present our perspective in a way that aligns with the values of the other person. This means we must make a deeper effort to understand their interest, position, and underlying values concerning the topic. This takes practice with listening, but is not difficult.

Let’s define some terms here.

• By “interest”, I mean what you (or your counterpart) want to happen.
• By position, I mean how you want to accomplish it.
• By underlying value, I mean the personal principle that guides your thinking.

I can best show you by example:

Pete, the Director of Quality and my boss, bursts into my office and says “You are going to have fire Jason, the software tester. That guy has totally screwed us up with XYZ, Incorporated! He passed software that had bugs in it and now they are threatening to cancel our contract.”

So far, Pete has:

1. Clearly identified his position – He wants to solve the problem by firing Jason.

2. Implied his interest – He wants to prevent this from happening again.

3. Implied the underlying value guiding his thinking – He values protecting our business.

Being a persuasive guy, I know I need to understand just what Pete is after a lot better than I do, and I think he needs to understand the more about the situation too, so I ask questions. (Note - If you are a new subscriber, start reading the blog starting in May of 2010 to catch up on how we work through this kind of conversation).

I say “Pete, clearly you’re upset and in order to help, I need to understand a little better. You are saying that some defective software was shipped to XYZ, Inc and they want to cancel the contract. Have we spoken to them about how to make it right?”

Pete says “The program manager is on the phone with them now. All I know is that we are on thin ice with them. If they don’t want to cancel the contract now, they will next time.”

I can see from this that Pete had “imagined” some of what was happening, and had been overly dramatic, maybe to make a point. Sometimes this is very persuasive, but not the way Pete just did it. I’ll talk to him about it later, but not now. Not until we hear from the program manager and know where we stand with the customer.

I need to understand what Pete wants to have done. I think I know what Pete really wants. He really wants me to assure that this doesn’t happen again. Initially, firing Jason might have seemed like a way to do that. I believe he also wants to make things right with the customer. So I will ask him about his interest.

I say “Before we hear back from the program manager, I want you to know that I am with you. I know we can’t be successful without satisfying our customers.” Pete answers “Happy customers are important, and my boss needs to know he can count on us to do our part in assuring we have them.” I say “You’re right. The bosses have to know we are capable and serious about keeping the customer satisfied.”

So Pete has two interests; happy customers, and having the trust of his boss. And I feel his underlying principle might be trust. He wants to be trusted by his customers and his boss, and he wants to know he can trust his employees.

I did a little investigating of my own and found that Jason performed the test procedure properly, but we had used a newer operating system than the customer uses. The program manager reported that the customer is indeed upset about receiving a bad shipment, and said that they need a fully corrected version ASAP. After the technical team came to understand just what the bugs were, we committed to doing it within five days, and the customer said that was fine. They never said anything about cancelling the contract.

I met with Pete and told him that the problem wasn’t one with Jason – that Jason had performed well and that the questionable part of the process was in how we selected the test platform. I told him that I would review just how the customer’s operating system was missed when selecting the test platform, and start making the necessary procedural adjustments. I also assured him that the new version would be revised and retested on an appropriate test platform. Pete didn’t bring up the idea of firing Jason again.

Summary

Until I knew what Pete’s Interest and Values were, I didn’t try to persuade him to take a different position. Why? Because if I make him defend his position, it will be harder to get him to change it later. The more staunchly a person defends a position, the more difficult it is for them to change it because it makes them appear inconsistent. So I didn’t make him tell me that firing Jason was the right thing to do over and over. I didn’t really say anything about it until I understood what had happened, understood that Pete’s saw this as a trust issue, and could advise him that we were fixing it from a “trust” perspective – that is until I could show him that he could trust Jason. I also showed him that he could NOT trust the current process, and took responsibility for “repairing” its trustworthiness. If I am credible in Pete's eyes, this should make him feel like the issue is being fully addressed

By addressing the issue from the perspective of Pete’s “interests”, he can accept that we have taken the right approach. If we had done exactly the same things without acknowledging that it was a trust problem, he may never have fully accepted that the issue was resolved in a way that was “good for him”. That’s the importance of aligning values.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Persuasion Boot Camp

This week, we’ll start a series on Persuasion. The purpose will be to help you become more persuasive at those times you need to be. There are lots of different ideas about what it means to “be persuasive”, so we’ll start with what it is and what it isn’t.


Let’s start with a definition that says to persuade is to "induce to believe by appealing to reason or understanding”. This definition indicates that if I persuade you, I am somehow using reason to do so. That’s good to remember, but not always the case. The same definition allows me to appeal to your understanding of something and use that to induce you. This needn’t be a purely logical appeal, so that means that we can use emotion as well.

Some of my clients have said that they don’t think they can be persuasive because those with authority can veto their ideas, which can make them feel powerless, and even angry or humiliated. What I can attest to is that there are different kinds of power that are used in business. There is the authoritative power about which they are talking, and there is also the power that comes from expertise. I know that many times, the power of expertise can cause someone with a great deal of authority to change their mind about something. There is also the power of charisma. We see this from informal leaders that may not have direct authority over us, and may not be experts, but they can inspire us and cause us to do things we normally wouldn’t believe that we could do. That is certainly persuasion at work!

The power to persuade combines these and can often "level the playing field" in so far as getting your ideas in play. Done right, your persuasion will create the support that you need to implement the idea ("buy-in") as you go.

Many of my clients have felt at one time or another that logic was the main force at work in business persuasion (usually early in their careers). As time goes on, they witness idea after idea, backed by impeccable logic, failing to persuade those at which the ideas are aimed. This causes great disappointment and confusion in many business people, as it did with me, but now I am glad for it because it supplies me with such a wealth of clients!

The answer is that logic is quite important in persuasion, but it isn’t enough. In fact, it is just a little more than the bare necessity. The emotional element is richer and bigger than most of us ever imagine. For our first lesson, I will cover that aspect of persuasion.

A logical argument (about which I have just finished a series of newsletters) is at its best a series of statements well-supported by sound evidence. Logic, when delivered well, is persuasive because the statements and evidence are consistent with a conclusion that we can accept. They may not, however, cause someone to change their mind about some long held belief. Nor will logic alone cause someone to act. Nor will it cause them to respond if they don't know they should care about the issue. That is where the emotional component comes in.

When I describe the “emotional” components of persuasion the first time, almost everyone gets a little distracted by the word. They start to think about someone being hysterical, or crying, or angry, storming and fuming to get their way. That is generally NOT persuasive, especially in a business setting and certainly not what I mean.

Think of these elements of persuasion that are NOT strictly “logical”:

The persuasiveness of credibility. Someone you feel is credible is more likely to be persuasive than someone you feel is not credible.

An argument that aligns with one’s values. We have all heard that we need to consider the “what’s in it for me (WIIFM)” factor when we are trying to persuade someone. That is because most people value their self-interest pretty highly. We will learn to connect with other beliefs and values as well, and get the same kind of persuasive result over the next few weeks.

An argument that is imaginatively and emotionally appealing. That is, an argument that we make to persuade someone in which we create something they can picture in their minds and anticipate the enjoyment of experiencing it.

An argument that uses language that someone finds particularly appealing and is persuaded by it based on the choice of words and the feelings they inspire.

An argument made at the right moment in time to have maximum persuasive effect.

An argument that creates in another person the desire to act in a timely manner.

As we can see, the elements of persuasion that are NOT logic based are rich and essential (and many). Yet, when we fail to be persuasive we seem to go back to examine our logic, as if a little more evidence is the only thing that would “induce someone” to accept that which we wanted them to accept. It is as if when the car fails to start, we start our diagnosis by checking the tire pressure. Maybe that’s because the only tool we have is a tire gauge!

Over the next few weeks, I will share with you those things that we find most persuasive in an effort to help you begin to help percolate better ideas thorough your company and even get others to act on them. For now, just recognize that while the facts are important, they are only a fraction of the elements important to good persuasion and be open to learning more about the emotional elements.


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Final Words on Inference

We have been talking about the SPIRAL model since May, and this is the last installment on that. I have to thank you all for the emails on this topic. There is a lot to it, and you have clearly been paying attention judging from your excellent and insightful questions. I urge you to ask them IN THE BLOG, which will allow me to answer them there so that all can benefit. I will always answer emails, though and they are the best way to get an answer on a sensitive subject.

This time, we will address the two last types of inferences that we will cover: Analogy and Narrative. We have been covering the inferences from strongest (most desirable) to weakest, and so far have discussed inference from Example, from Cause, and from Correlation (also called Inference from Sign).

Analogies are a kind of comparison. We use them to compare a complex or unfamiliar concept that we want the listener to understand to a concept with which they are already familiar. The hope is that the listener will come to understand the unfamiliar concept by accepting that it is comparable to the familiar one. That acceptance of comparability is how we connect the evidence to the original claim, which is the purpose of an inference. Here is a quick example:

Our claim is – Nuclear reactors are very safe.

Our evidence is – the number of nuclear accidents since the beginning of the nuclear age compared with other kinds of accidents (like household).

Our Inference – A FAR larger number of accidents happen in American homes EACH MINUTE than the number of nuclear accidents that have happened since the beginning of the nuclear age.

Here we have used an analogy without actually stating something like “We can measure safety for nuclear reactors just as we measure household safety – by the number of accidents.”

Clearly this is a bad comparison – and a bad analogy. The potential impact of a SINGLE nuclear accident is many times higher than household accidents that occur in an entire year. One kind of “accident” does not compare with another kind of “accident”, even though they are both called “accidents”.

The test for a good analogy is simple “Do essential similarities outweigh essential differences?” Are there essential differences in the things being compared (in this case, household accidents and nuclear accidents)? When you read through the example, you may have “felt” there was something wrong with the argument but couldn’t put your finger on it. It is the essential difference between the two kinds of accidents that probably made you feel that. If you DIDN’T think anything was wrong with the argument, then you can see how you can buy into a bad argument by an analogy.

Analogies are weak because, at best, they are just comparisons of resemblances between things. You cannot “see” an analogy like you can see an example. You cannot test an analogy, like you can test a causal inference. You cannot measure an analogy, like you can measure a correlation. Still they are stronger than our last inference – Narratives.

A narrative is a story. It is designed to draw the listener in and give support to a claim by offering the listener with the opportunity to accept the story as adequate support for my claim if, and only if, the story is plausible.

Let’s say your claim is that “Hard work benefits those who engage in it” – and you offered as inference a narrative. We have all heard the fable of the Ant and the Grasshopper (if you haven’t, go here). It ends with the idea that “Just as the ant that works hard and doesn’t stop to play like the foolish grasshopper will be carried through lean times on the results of his hard work, you too will benefit by not resting while there is still work to be done.”

The story seems plausible – someone that works would likely be better off in hard times than someone that wouldn’t. The story is coherent. That is, all the pieces of it make sense with each other – nothing is inherently contradictory or counter-intuitive. The characterizations are consistent – the grasshopper doesn’t do anything strangely out of character, nor does the ant. And finally, the story resonates with us. It appeals to my sense of fairness that a hard-working person (or insect) should be rewarded for their effort.

And, these are the tests of a good narrative:

• Is the narrative plausible?

• Is the narrative coherent?

• Are characterizations consistent?

• Does the narrative have resonance?

You will find it very hard to convince someone of anything that is very important if all you have to offer is story. How about if I offered testimonials from a few hardworking people (or foolish grasshopper types) as examples? Or if I could demonstrate how hard work “causes” success? Or if I could show statistics indicating how hard workers do better in hard times? Or if I could compare the results of hard work and the results of leisure and draw an analogy with a relationship that you are very familiar with so that you could clearly understand it? Those inferences (again, from strongest to weakest, Example, Cause, Correlation, and Analogy) are all stronger.

If you are doing the talking, pick the strongest one you can. If you are doing the listening, test them as I have indicated. If you are refuting, use the strongest inference that you can AND ask why the other side hasn’t used stronger inferences to support THEIR side. Listeners will presume it is because there isn't any strong reason to support the other side.

Congratulations! This newsletter will be the last one on the SPIRAL model of critical discussions for a while. The topic for the NEXT series will be Persuasion. We will start on the fundamentals of persuasion next time!


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Inferences of Cause and Correlation

Last time we spoke about the strongest kind of inference; one of example. The reason it is potentially the strongest is because by definition, an example exists. Sometimes we ask people to use reason alone to create an inference (that is, to connect evidence to a claim). Given the choice, evidence is more compelling if it can be viewed as something that exists to directly support the claim instead of something that can be reasoned to support the claim.

This time, we’ll talk about two more inferences; inference of Cause and inference of Correlation. Causal inference describes the instance when one thing causes another. That is one thing (like a rainstorm) causes another (like a flood) to happen. Note that many things can cause a flood, one of them being a rainstorm. Many, many times things that CAN cause others to happen are NOT the cause in a given instance. Let’s say that your sales manager says that “sales are terrible right now because of the economy.” You can look through your company information and see sales are indeed down, and you can look in the paper and see that the economy is in trouble. Both those things are happening.

However, is there any proof (valid causal inference) that the economic problems CAUSED the low sales? In our example, not yet.

In order to show that the economy is responsible for our sales dip, we would have to ask:

-Are there other things that could cause low sales?
-Have any of them happened?
-If so, how do we know it is not one of those?

If the only thing that can cause low sales is the economy AND we now that the economy is floundering, then we can accept the inference because there is nothing else that can cause the phenomenon of low sales. Intuitively, though, we know there are more things, for instance:

-Product quality issues
-Competition and Disruptive technologies
-Poor customer service
-Poor sales staff performance

Knowing that there are alternative causes doesn’t tell us that the economy isn’t the cause, but it does tell us that it COULD be something else. One would need to look at the alternative causes and analyze their contribution (if any) to the issue of low sales before one could really accept the causal inference of poor economy to low sales.
For this reason, cause is difficult to analyze thoroughly in a fast paced business environment and thorough analysis is sometimes not done in favor of dealing with the suspected cause. This is sometimes referred to as “jumping to solutions” and often can worsen the symptoms.

In our case, let’s say that the economy did affect our customers, but also a competitor had released a competing product with a few features that the customers liked and we were having a customer service problem as well. Reacting as if the problem was purely one of economics (and therefore would go away when the economy picks up) could have very serious consequences to our business. This is the fallacy of false cause.

In testing casual inferences, it is critical to determine that one thing indeed influences another, and isn’t merely being attributed. For instance, the “economy vs. sales levels” question that I raised above is too complex to be so simply explained away. Sales level 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 sales levels 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 sales levels to a single cause, then you need to be able to at least give some reasoning as to why the drop shouldn’t be attributed to any other 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 the economy can cause sales levels to drop, so can poor customer support. If customer service was unsatisfactory to the point that customers started looking for other suppliers, it may not be the economy that caused your sales levels to go.

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 have 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. Just because the shack burned down after Johnny was seen near
it doesn’t mean that Johnny is guilty of burning it down. Nor does it mean he is innocent.

- Appeal from Ignorance – (Well, if the economy DIDN’T cause sales levels to drop, 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.

Correlation differs from cause in that does NOT try to explain a relationship between two things like cause does (one thing CAUSES another). It merely
describes that two things tend to occur with each other. Correlation is called “Inference of Sign” for this reason – it says that one thing is a SIGN of another, without explaining the relationship.

My favorite example of this is the relationship of college degrees to competence. If a person has a college degree in a given subject, we accept it as a sign that they have expertise in the subject. Is it certain that they do? No. Are there other things that can account for expertise? Yes? However, when all things are considered, a college degree is a SIGN of expertise in that subject. We aren’t trying to explain the relationship. That is trying to say that college degrees CAUSE people to be competent. We are just expressing that one thing (competence) tends to accompany another (a degree) and that we can count on that relationship holding within certain limits.

How do we test correlative inference? 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

Inference of Example

We have spent the Summer of 2010 walking through Critical Discussions. We started talking about Claims, moved on to Questioning Claims, and just finished Answering Claims with Evidence is the last newsletter.


Now we are completing the last leg of our journey on Critical Discussions; we will talk about how to evaluate evidence with respect to the claim it is supposed to support. That is, we will examine how a speaker “connects” the evidence to the claim. This is called inference, and it is a VERY important part of the discussion.

There are 6 different types of inference (from strongest “connection” to weakest):

 

1. Example
2. Cause
3. Correlation
4. Analogy
5. Narrative
6. Form

I will discuss each of these in turn.

 

EXAMPLE – When making an “Inference of Example”, the speaker makes a claim and then offers evidence that he/she describes as an EXAMPLE that supports the claim. For instance, I might make a claim of fact that say that all people from England have red hair. In order to support the claim I would show you an Englishman with red hair and say “See? There is an Englishman and he has red hair!” Obviously, this inference is fallacious because we all know that there are blonde, brunette, and bald Englishmen as well. But what if I made the claim about a swan? What if I said all swans are white? Or that all Pandas are black and white? Or that most of our customers are happy? How would you test it?

 

There is one characteristic to look for when testing an example; is the example described truly representative of the population it is purported to represent. Here are a few things to examine when presented with an example:

 

• Has the speaker rushed to a hasty generalization? That is, a case in which there are too few examples, and generalizing that to be representative of the whole class. Is the sample random? Do they represent an appropriate diversity given the range of choices within that population?

 

• Has the speaker offered an overwhelming exception? That is, have they said something that is true, but it is true because they have placed an excessive number of restrictions on the underlying population. For instance, "All Americans are useless at foreign languages. Ok, I'll make an exception for those who live in multi-ethnic neighborhoods, have parents who speak a foreign language, are naturally gifted in languages, have lived abroad or who went to a school with a good foreign language program, but the rest are absolutely useless at foreign languages." By restricting the population to just the few that have had no real opportunity to practice foreign language, the speaker has set up an Overwhelming Exception. The example he gives is restricted to the point that it is no longer representative of the underlying population.

 

• Has the speaker used misleading vividness? That is, have they constructed an example that appeals mainly because of a strong effect it has on the listener’s emotions. For instance “Golf is a very dangerous sport. I know a fellow that was golfing and was run over by a golf cart, badly breaking both legs and leaving him crippled and unable to support his poor family. He eventually was divorced and lost his mind!” In this case, the speaker has used strong, vivid terms to make it seem that golf should be considered very dangerous, as dangerous as skydiving. The experience of the unfortunate man he speaks of is not representative of a significant number of golfing experiences and doesn’t really support the definition of golf as a dangerous sport.

 

• Has the speaker used a special pleading? That is, an interpretation of the facts that indicates that the usual logic is somehow inappropriate and this case is somehow special. For instance, one man shoots and kills another. Our speaker says “We admit that this man shot and killed another, but he did so in self-defense.” Self-defense is a situation that we as a society have agreed serves as a special pleading for kidding – the usual logic (killing must be punished) doesn’t apply in cases of self defense. I often hear this when I claim that 15% of our recent shipments were rejected by customers and I hear the production manager’s “special pleadings” for each shipment. (“Bad info from sales; Design problem; Customer changed mind and is using production defects as an excuse”).

 

It is important to assure that the example is representative and that if there are counterexamples (Englishmen with BLACK hair), they are few.

 

Examples are the strongest type of inference because, if they are truly representative of the underlying population, they are proof as opposed to conjecture. They exist in the real world and can be examined and analyzed. This is not true of some inference types which we will examine later.

 

 

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

 

Final Words on Making Great Evidence

In the last two newsletters, we've talked about Credibility and Social Consensus as evidence to answer questions that are asked about claims made in the course of a work discussion. FINALLY we are going to talk about the third and final category of evidence. REAL evidence, that is to say Objective Evidence, means evidence that can be examined and reviewed. Something tangible like data, numbers, testimony, physical articles all qualify as objective evidence. By the way, it doesn’t mean that the evidence itself is objective in content, just that it is tangible (an object) and can be examined by more than one examiner.


Objective evidence is often meant to represent something; that is to serve as an example. Sometimes, a sample will be offered to (like a cracker with cheese on it in a supermarket) and it is offered as objective evidence that this cheese and cracker is representative of the cheese and crackers YOU’LL enjoy if you buy the product. We all know that sometimes this is true and sometimes not. Objective evidence should be subjected to tests in order to determine its validity. Tests for objective evidence are:

• Are the examples representative? OR, were they selected to show certain desirable characteristics?
• From a large enough range? OR, taken from just a few places in the population?
• Are they selected randomly? OR, do they all come from a specific place in the population?
• Is the sample size large enough? OR, were just a few samples taken?
• Are there counterexamples? THAT IS, are there a meaningful number of samples that show opposite characteristics?
• Are the statistics properly prepared? THAT IS, using standard (or logical) statistical techniques?
• Are the objects and testimony authentic? OR, are they fraudulent or modified?

So now we have covered the three kinds of evidence. Let’s talk a little more on how to weigh it. Generally, evidence reported first-hand (by an involved party) is better than second-hand (by a party that was not personally involved, but heard something from someone that was). That doesn’t mean that first-hand evidence is always right or second-hand always wrong, just that GENERALLY, one is better than the other. Also, opinions offered by an expert are GENERALLY better than those of a layperson. The six grades of evidence are as follows (lowest to highest):

1. Assertion (a personal opinion is not very strong by itself)
2. Common Knowledge or Stipulation (meaning there is social consensus regarding an opinion)
3. Lay Opinion (if a reasoned conclusion, meaning there has been some reasoned analysis and there is some credible backing)
4. Expert Opinion or Consensus of Lay Opinion (Expert opinions are backed by the expert’s credibility. A consensus of reasoned conclusions by multiple lay people is as good)
5. An Empirical Study or Consensus of Expert Opinion
6. Consensus of Studies

Now we know how to make a claim, ask the important questions, what evidence to expect to be offered, and how to test it and weight it. It is very important to know that the evidence brought to a discussion is good enough to consider.

Often though, even though the evidence is good evidence (the numbers are right and add up, or the testimony is truthful), it doesn’t actually support the claim. This is one of the biggest problems in these kinds of discussions. Someone says that “sales are down because the economy is bad” and then presents a bunch of evidence that proves the economy is bad, but never actually proves that the economy is why sales are bad.

Next we will talk about the various ways to determine how well the evidence supports the claim, and learn how to make our arguments more robust and “unbreakable”.


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Using Social Consensus as Evidence

Last time we talked about the first of the three kinds of evidence – one’s credibility. I received lots of emails divided into two themes, so I’ll start by answering those for all of you that might have had similar questions.

Yes – credibility is technically a kind of evidence, although I agree that you would have had to take some technical communication courses in order to know that. The reason that it is counted as such is that the purpose of evidence is to support a claim, and an individual’s credibility can often do that. Many times in face to face communication, the speaker’s credibility ALONE is enough to support the claim. The engineer stands up in a meeting and describes why a particular technical approach is superior to another. If I feel his credibility is strong (based on the criteria that I wrote about last time), I may accept his solution without asking for anything else. If it is a matter of vital importance I may ask them how they arrived at their conclusion and, if their process and sources were credible to me, I may accept his conclusion with no other discussion. So credibility alone is used to support some claims and that is why it counts as evidence.

Also, while it is important to assess the credibility of others, it is also important to set the bar at the right height for the topic. The criticality of the outcome usually determines that. In a life or death situation, we need more assurance than if we were making a less serious decision, and so the level of credibility can be relaxed. Interestingly, if a group of listeners are disposed to particular point of view, and the speaker’s point of view supports them, the speaker’s credibility may go unquestioned and rated by the listeners to be very high even though it was never assessed. In other words, if he agrees with us, he must be right. Very dangerous variant on what is called “Confirmation Bias”.

This time I am going to talking about a second kind of evidence- Social Consensus. These are things that we all agree to and require no further support. They are where many conversations go bad, because there are precious few places you can go to find a list of things that we all agree to! So how do you know if a claim is acceptable by social consensus or not?

Well, the first thing we determine is if we have we agreed to it before. If the people in the discussion decided, for instance, that we would allow project managers to fulfill certain responsibilities and they have been doing it without objection then there is some social consensus that those responsibilities are theirs unless we want to question it. In other words, if someone claims that the engineers were doing something that the project managers are supposed to do and the question was “How do we know that the project managers are supposed to do that?”, our evidence could be that there has been a general consensus that it is their job.

Note that this doesn’t mean that we have to continue that way – we can come to a new agreement at any time. All we are saying is that the way we know that the task in question is to be performed by project managers is that there has been a consensus among us that we will handle things that way.

Beware of social consensus! Many things that we believe are universally accepted are NOT. Questioning these is vitally important. Some examples of claims that some may think are generally accepted and are not are:

1 – Democracy is better than non-democracy
2 – People are basically bad
3 – People are basically good
4 – The environment is more important than industry
5 – The current economy is the cause for low sales

You can make your own list by writing down those things that YOU think are generally accepted and asking your friends and coworkers if they agree or not. This is an interesting task because that is the "society" that you are likely trying to understand. If it is like my workplace, you will find that it is very diverse with people from many varying backgrounds. It brings to mind an old saying about "opinions" and their....ummmm... ubiquity.

You will find that most of the things you think are generally true in your business – the things you base your decisions on – are not always as generally accepted as you thought. Some of the most challenging and beneficial discussions are those that bring that to light.

Generally, what constitutes common knowledge are the most simple and non-controversial of facts:
24 hours in a day; seven days in a week; ‘A’ precedes ‘B’ in the alphabet; Los Angeles is in California, 2+2=4. These are all things we generally agree to and would likely never be challenged

Care needs to be taken, though, regarding accepting things that are NOT so “universally known” without some backing. The speaker’s credibility is one of those things; the other will be our topic next time – Objective Evidence


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Next Speaking Engagement

I will be speaking to Tech America at their Operations Roundtable on August 11 at 7am. the event is held at:
HME (HM Electronics)
14110 Stowe Drive
Poway, CA 92064-7147

The topic is "Productive Business Communications with THE SCORE - Building Great Working Relationships"

for more info, http://www.techamerica.org/operations-roundtable


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Assessing a Speaker's Credibility

What are we looking for when we question a claim during a critical conversation?

We are looking for some kind of credible backing to support the claim. We ll call it evidence, support, backing, or validation as we go through these next few newsletters, but it s all the same thing - reasons. That is why we call it "reasoning".

The first place we look for backing is with the speaker. Are they credible? In order to answer the question, let's review the elements of credibility:

• Competence - are they generally capable in their areas of expertise.
• Trustworthiness - do they have competing interests or opposing beliefs that could cause them to emphasize or de-emphasize important information or lead you toward or away from an objective discussion?
• Good Will - are they disposed favorably to your organization?
• Dynamism - a speaker's body language can indicate their engagement. Are they engaged (vs. passive)?
• Eyewitness Access to information - are they relaying facts about things that they have actually seen?
• Background and Training - are they adequately credentialed and knowledgeable in the topic at hand?
• Good track record - do they have a history of coming to well-reasoned conclusions? Getting successful results?

In looking at these items, the uninitiated tend to believe that these are all or nothing kinds of qualifications. That is, either a person is trustworthy or not, competent or not, or has a good track record or not. I would debate that, but not here because I don't need to. All I have to remember are these two things:

• We have the responsibility to determine the other party's credibility. Decisions made with credible data tend to yield better results.
• It doesn t have to be perfect. In other words, we can t require expert level credibility as prerequisite to speaking on a subject.

I don't have a degree in meteorology, but I can still make a claim about tomorrow's weather. Why should you believe me when I do? Ask me! "What makes you say that?" is a simple question that can be used to inquire about my evidence.

If I say that "I heard it on the news" then you may be satisfied. I got the information from a recognized authoritative source.

If you feel that I may not be accurately reporting what I heard (for whatever reason) and it is important, you may double check. It doesn't matter if i was mistaken, or if i was trying to mislead you. Double checking will take care of the question regarding the correctness of the data.

If I say "I heard it from a friend" then the source may be less credible. If this is an important issue, then you may ask for more information like "how does your friend know?", or "Is your friend a meteorologist?"

If I say that "I am an amateur meteorologist with a weather station at home that I use to generate my own forecasts." , you may ask questions that help you understand my level of expertise and track record ("Where did you get the equipment (determine the level of commitment)?", "How long have you been doing it?",  or "How accurate are you compared to the National Weather service?") .

These questions don t have to be asked in a rapid fire interviewer fashion. They can be friendly and conversational. The purpose is to come to understand where the speaker's credibility on the topic may be lacking and more information is needed. The more important the information is with respect to the discussion at hand, of course, the more rigorous this process tends to be. It is not necessary for all evidence to be "iron clad" or "air tight". the more important the issue is, and the more critical the individual evidence is to the issue, the more we may press for solid evidence.

Note that if you are the speaker, you will become recognized as credible by anticipating these kinds of questions. Being prepared for this will make your perspective more believable and adoptable because YOU are more credible.

Next time, we will discuss Social Consensus (common knowledge, shared beliefs) as a form of evidence and how to analyze it.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Speaking July 23 in Rancho Bernardo

I will be speaking at the Project Management Institute's breakfast meeting at Coco's locates at 16759 Bernardo Center Dr in Rancho Bernardo on Friday, July 23 at 7:30 am. Great bunch of people. I will be speaking on creating Bipartisanship (getting on the same page).

I make this announcement because when I fail to, I get mail indicating that people want to come see me but they never know where I am speaking. So here you go.
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Answering Questions

In the last newsletters we have come to understand that, in a critical conversation, one side makes claims and the other side asks questions about the claims. The purpose for this seesaw is to generate understanding about each side’s perspective. The role of claimant and inquirer change places throughout the conversation until, ideally, there is a clear understanding of the available perspectives and a resolution is reached. Following the model I have been writing about recently will help you not only to come to understand other perspectives, but to prepare yourself before you present a new idea. Prepare you to understand what questions are likely to be put to you, and to respond with credible and solid information.


The purpose of the next few newsletters will be to help categorize the three types of supporting evidence that are used to justify claims just as we categorized the four kinds of claims that can be made. Most people, including myself, have experienced some degree of nervousness when being asked for justification of a certain point of view, but being asked for it is certainly to be expected and, in fact, to be encouraged in order to promote a full understanding of one’s perspective. By developing these evidence categories, I hope to focus the way you look at the types of responses for which you would ask for or would be asked. This will reduce the difficulty in preparing for or responding to instances when you either need to ask for clarification, or may be asked to supply it. Being prepared is an important aspect of maintaining a confident attitude.

For now I want you to adopt a certain attitude about the questions that you ask, or are asked, that relate to a critical conversation. I want you to view them as requests. They are requests for further information regarding a claim being made. They are not attacks, or tricks, or attempts ot make you look foolish (not that they can’t be, but I want you to lose the attitude that they are). Just view them as unbiased requests that are either relevant to resolving the matter at hand or not. Further, recognize that even if they answer is obvious to you, it may not be to the person asking. So give them the benefit of the doubt and answer it as if they truly need the answer to understand your perspective.

Finally, for this week, view them as requests for one of three specific kinds of information:

1) Information that you have because of your expertise and credibility

2) Information that you have because you possess some kind of tangible item (data, statistics, photographs, recordings, printed material, etc) that they don’t have and making It available to them will increase their understanding.

3) Information that is common knowledge, but that they somehow are unaware of or fail to connect with the issue at hand.

Your job is to respond to their request with one of these types of information. We will go into detail next time.


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

3rd Quarter Public Speaking Engagements

>I will be speaking at a 30 minute clinic at the ASQ monthly meeting on July 13 at 5pm. It is held in Sorrento Valley here. The topic is "Tips for Giving Feedback to the Boss". More information on the ASQ web site here. This meeting is FREE for all (unless you want dinner). Make sure to RSVP here.

>I will be speaking at the TechAmerica "Operations Roundtable"meeting on August 11 at 7:30 - 9:00 am. Details are here. Location is:

HM Electronics, Inc.
14110 Stowe Drive
Poway, CA 92064


>I will be at Inland Net in Poway on September 1 at 8am. Location and Details are here

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Evaluating a Proposed Course of Action

This is the last posting on the topic of “what questions should I ask?”. As you may remember, I started this thread on May 23 to cover the four kinds of claims people can make in a logical conversation and the kinds of questions to ask about each kind of claim in order to logically evaluate it. The fourth kind of claim is a Claim of Policy, and is what I’ll cover today.


A Claim of Policy is made when a person is prescribing a course of action. These claims usually contain statements like “we should” or “we ought” or “we need to”. You get the idea – the claim is describing something we should do.

As usual, we always ask “is it relevant?”, “what does the claim mean?”, and once we fully understand the meaning, we again ask “is it relevant?”. If we feel we need to explore the logic of the claim, we will need to ask questions in six categories. Policy claims have the most categories because determining a course of action has more variables than the three other types of claims (fact, definition, and value).

Question #1 - What is the problem?

We need to understand why we are changing or course of action, or adopting one. Ask questions about what the problem is; what are the symptoms, what makes them problematic. Do NOT begin discussing solutions until you have agreement on what the problem is. That is a very common mistake.


Question #2 - How big is the problem?

The answers to this category of questions will help us prioritize and frame discussions on just how much resource we should spend discussing, debating, and addressing the problem. You can see that a problem that inconveniences a few people should consume less time and effort than one than could potentially stop your business from providing important services. It is therefore important to have a general agreement on the impact of the problem and its eventual consequences.


Question #3 - What is causing the problem?

Knowing what causes the problem is very helpful in knowing what to do about it. Unfortunately, many times we can’t be sure what the exact cause because causation can be very difficult to determine. In fact, there are special logical tests for determining causation, and I will discuss those in a future series. For right now, just know that you DON’T have to agree on the cause, but you should all be AWARE that you don’t agree on the cause. As many classic logical missteps can be traced back to false certainty as to doing nothing WAITING to become certain. Both need to be watched carefully.


Question #4 - What should be done to correct the problem?

At last, we are ready to talk about what to do about the problem. Note that in many conversations, this is the first question people start with. In this model it is the fourth. The three that precede it are key agreements that we must reach if we are to determine a solution.


Question #5 - How well does the proposal solve the problem?

Is the proposed solution a quick fix? A certain fix? What if we are wrong about the cause; does it still work? What contingencies should we allow for?


Question #6 - Will the action create other benefits or harm?

Here we go! What are the potential side effects of the proposed solution, both positive and negative? Will we be able to parlay this into a bigger win if we do it in a different way? Will we be exposed to a different danger if we adopt the proposed solution? How can we monitor it so that it doesn’t surprise us?

In the last month we have covered the basics of questioning claims. When claims are questioned, the next thing that should happen is that the claimant offers evidence to support the claim. This in not “courtroom” evidence, because we managers don’t argue in courtrooms (I hope!).

In the next series, I’ll discuss evidence. Specifically, I’ll discuss what kinds of evidence there are (just 3 different kinds) and how to rate their strength. You’ll find it comes in handy when people question YOUR claims, that you have already done the work to make them as bullet proof as possible.


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Speaking June 16 in San Diego

See you on Wednesday June 16 here. APICS in San Diego to talk a bit about THE SCORE.
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Definitions and Value

Last time, we talked about Claims of Fact and the salient issues to raise to settle them. Claims of Definition and Claims of Value (or quality) are related, so I will cover them together this week.


Definitions are very important in face-to-face communication. The easiest way to slip something by someone is to use non-standard definitions, and business is full of them. Even though we work in the same industry and even at the same company for years, we may not share the same definition for even routine activities. Document release, product launch, manufacturing plan are examples of common terms that we may not have a shared meaning for and differences can become quite significant.

A Claim of Definition is one in which the PURPOSE of the claim is to define something. In politics, we have examples that have been around for a long time. For instance, “Capital punishment is murder.” The PURPOSE of the claim is to define capital punishment. The term used as the definition has a specific meaning (the unlawful taking of a human life). If we allow the definition to go unquestioned, we are allowing that capital punishment is illegal. Another example from the political world is “A fetus is a human being”. If we allow that definition to stand, then it is logical to extend rights and privileges due every human being to every fetus. I am not trying to test your political viewpoint here; just illustrating that definitions have weight and meaning and should be clarified and shared.

When we say in our business that “a document is ready to release” or “the product is ready to launch” what constitutes readiness? What is a release? A launch? Does it matter if there are different definitions for those terms in this conversation? We ask 3 questions to evaluate a Claim of Definition.

• The first question we ask about a claim of definition is “Is it relevant if the term is defined?” If it doesn’t matter, then let it pass. If we need to know what it means, then this is a CRITICALLY important question. Don’t miss it.

• The second question we ask is “Is the definition fair?” That is, does it represent a biased point of view or not? Sometimes we might not like the definition, but if it is unbiased we need to consider it. For instance, in the case of “the product is ready to launch”, we may be listening to an engineer who means that “the design is complete” or a marketing manager describing that “the campaign is designed”. Both of these could be true, but the bias may lead us to believe that more has been done than is true

• The third question we ask is “How do we choose between competing definitions?”. You say the product is ready to launch, and I say it’s not. How do we choose? We may suggest that we defer to an authoritative source like a Systems Engineering definition, or a Project Management definition, or just a dictionary if it applies. We may agree that we need some criteria that define what “product launch” means to us. We may defer to the definition that the company president uses. Maybe we’ll ask our customers what would constitute readiness “is the training ready yet?” Whatever method we use to make the choice, the choice needs to be made.

I can’t overemphasize the importance of clear and common definitions.

A Claim of Value (aka A Claim of Quality) is one in which the claim compares two or more things with respect to their value or quality. In the political world, they sound like “Democracy is better than Socialism”, or “City government is unsatisfactory”, or “The environment is more important than industry”. These are examples in which we are comparing something to another, or attributing a quality to something. Frequently, the speaker is capitalizing on a general sentiment. You may feel city government is unsatisfactory for some reason, and I might mean something totally different. As long as I don’t get into the details, you will think we are on the same side. Similarly, someone may make the claim that "eating organic is better than not". By what measure... health? expense? status?

Business examples for this kind of claim are many; “Quality is more important than on-time delivery”, “Function is more important than form”, “Our service is very good”. These kind of claims are made regularly and are often un questioned. There are three questions for a Claim of Value.

• The first question is – “Which value should be used to evaluate the subject?” When we say Quality is more important than on-time delivery, do we mean from a financial perspective? From a customer relations perspective? From a cycle time perspective? If we can determine the point of view from which this is being evaluated, we have a good chance of simplifying the claim.

• The second question is – “What standards are used to measure competing values?” This is similar to the first question we ask in a Claim of Fact. Are we comparing this to customer needs? Industry norms? Military Standards? Our own business restrictions?

• The third question is – “Have those standards been met?” Whatever standards we settled on at the second question must be measurable to the degree that we can settle the question.

Imagine that someone says that “Our quality is good enough” and, when asked, the person means that or product always passes our own final inspection. Wouldn’t it seem that we might want another perspective before we accept the claim?

You need to ask the questions…..

Next time, we’ll talk about the last of the four claims – Claims of Policy. These are the most difficult, and the one’s we deal with most often – “What should we do….”


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Come See Me June 16th

Please note that you are invites to come see me speak at the San Diego APICS meeting on June 16. Go here for more information.
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Questions That Address Claims of Fact

We were talking about the inquiry model of communication, and how we use it to arrive at better decisions. I mentioned that one way this can start is with someone offering their perspective. We first ask ourselves if we see it as relevant to the topic under discussion. If we think it MIGHT be, we explore it further by asking questions about its meaning. Finally, once we are satisfied that we understand just what the other person means, we ask ourselves about its relevance AGAIN. If we find it relevant, then we move forward with more questions to understand our counterpart’s reasoning. That is, the reasons that they have for making the claim.


I mentioned the four types of claims last time (Claims of Fact, Claims of Definition, Claims of Value (or Quality), and Claims of Policy). The questions that we ask regarding our counterpart’s reasoning are specific to the type of claim they are so let’s start by learning to identify the types when we here them and then talk about the questions we develop.

Claims of Fact

This is just what it says; a speaker is claiming something is a fact. Examples in a business setting would be:

“Our sales slump seems to be over.”

“We are ready to start hiring again.”

“Despite what the competition is saying, our product is selling well and our customers are happy.”


A claim of fact may or may not end up being a fact, but we don’t know at this stage. We are going to investigate that. The defining characteristic for a claim of fact is that it is provable by fact or data. It is not an opinion, nor does it fall into any of the either 3 categories we shall discuss. These three statements are all presented as facts. The first two are very simple (more simple than most business statements) and the third has a bit more complexity.


As we mentioned, we would first determine if we thought the statement was relevant in context. Let’s say our context is this – we are trying to decide if we should postpone the expense of a new product launch and continue selling our current product, or if we should launch the new product to try to take market share from the competition. This is a complex topic, with lots of considerations. I am using it here as an example to illustrate how we would evaluate some of the claims that may come up.


We will say that all three of the above could be relevant, and will examine the “meaning” of them. I am pretty sure I understand the first one. I may ask “What do you mean by slump; was it just a minor drop off?”, but if I have been in the loop at the company I would probably already know that. I would want to be sure that those of us in the discussion had a common understanding of what the statement meant. After the speaker explains it, I would be satisfied that it is relevant and that I understand the meaning and would be ready to evaluate the logic behind the statement.


To evaluate the logic behind a Claim of Fact, the first questions one would ask would be based on “How would we know if the statement is true?” That is, what would be acceptable as data or facts to support it? I would ask a question like “What makes you say that?” indicating that I want some supporting data. The answer that comes back can vary wildly depending on many factors, but the important thing is for you to help the group come to an understanding of what they collectively are willing to accept as supporting data. Let’s say the response is “Our sales were at the forecast level until June of 2009, when they dropped off to only 85% of forecast. They have steadily risen back and have been at or above our forecast for the last quarter. I think that since we were running to forecast, dropped off but recovered, and have remained at expected values for a quarter, we can say that the slump is over.” If the speaker is credible, we may choose to accept that we have found the criteria that we all can accept and move on to the second question. But what if the response is “Our sales are tied to the economy, and the paper says the economy is turning around, so are sales will too.” This is a far more risky response, and one that not everyone might accept without further research. It borders on an opinion, pointing to some vague reference to “what the paper says”. It might not be enough for many of us, depending on the speaker’s credibility and the importance of the decision. If there are jobs on the line, I want more data.


Let’s say that the speaker’s reply is the first one – the one that described the drop and the subsequent steady increase, and that we choose to accept it as good criteria. Then it is time for the second questions, which are based on “Now that we agree on the criteria, can we agree that we have met it?” This set of questions would be posed about the forecasted values, (“Are the forecasted values we are now hitting the SAME values that were forecasted, or are we hitting some revised levels?”) and the recovery (“Is the recovery due to increased sales, or did we reduce price in order to increase volume and are now less profitable overall?).


You may be able to think of some other questions, but recognize that there are only TWO things you are trying to settle when addressing a claim of fact: 1) What criteria can we agree on to determine if the statement is true? and 2) Did we meet the criteria?


I know I said I would cover this is two parts, but I think it is going to take me 3 more.


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

What Questions are used in the Inquiry Method? (Part 1 of 2)

I had the pleasure of speaking at the International Project Management Institute Conference last week and I have to say that they are about the nicest people you could ever work with. I had a great morning there and want to thank all the many folks I worked with for making me feel so welcome.

After my talk (entitled "What Goes Wrong in Business Communication?"), a very savvy friend who shall remain nameless asked a perfect question. We had been speaking about the Inquiry method of communication, which is clearly all about asking questions. I had shown my “famous” SPIRAL model and in the interest of time did not go into any detail at all regarding the exactly how one knows what questions to ask in order to get a counterpart to substantiate a claim.

I've been trying to work out just how to explain this in the newsletter. In class it is easy; in the newsletter, we'll see.

The first part of the endeavor is to understand Claims. People make claims and, if we don't accept them, we ask questions to understand them better. We continue to ask questions until we understand them fully. That is the heart of Inquiry model. We don't make statements about claims; we ask questions. We don't say "You're wrong about that". Instead we ask "What makes you say that?” That is how we come to understand the other parties' perspective while preserving safety and trust.

For reference, let's identify the four kinds of claims: Claims of Fact, Claims of Definition, Claims of Value (or Quality), and Claims of Policy. I'll get into the details of each next time, so for now don't worry about that. Just know that there are some questions that you ask REGARDLESS of the type of claim, and some questions that are DEPENDANT on the type of claim. This week, I am focusing on the questions to ask regardless of the type of claim. There are two such questions - Relevance and Meaning.

First, before you start analyzing the data behind the claim, ask yourself if the thing being claimed is important. Is it relevant? If not - if it someone making a statement like "the red tie is prettier than the blue tie" - then don't bother. It is a temptation among my students to begin analyzing EVERYTHING once they learn how because it feels so good to get better at this new skill and I assure you that it is a quick way to become labeled as a nuisance. Don't become overly analytical just because you have started to develop the skill.

When questioning the relevance of the statement, I do so pretty directly (the method that suits me best). I remember of course to be mindful of creating safety and so I approach tentatively and humbly and say something like "I may be missing something. I am having trouble understanding how what you just said relates to the larger topic. Could you fill me in?" The risk is if the person takes it as a challenge. If they appear to, I might say something like "I don't want you to think I am challenging the relevance. I'm not. I am just trying to understand it." these methods are discussed in my blog entries containing THE SCORE. Just search the blog if you are curious about how to maintain safety in a critical discussion.

If you readily see that the statement is irrelevant, then just dismiss it as such and move on. If, however you can't dismiss a statement as irrelevant, then you need to ask the second question - what does the statement MEAN? This is not always easy, but it is always important for you and the others involved in discussing a relevant statement to share an understanding regarding its meaning.

What does the claim mean? The reason that this is so important is because MANY times, the discussion goes wrong because the listener ASSUMES that they know what the speaker means, or feels that they shouldn't question the meaning for fear of appearing either uninformed or presumptuous. Even worse, some speakers would make you feel that way specifically so you don't raise questions. Let's walk through the process for a claim of fact that may come up in a business setting. Let's say we are talking about producing a new model and someone makes the claim: "Eventually, all of our customers will switch over to our new product even if the price is a little higher."

I like to examine each key word and see if I can come to understand what the speaker means. In the sample sentence, I would ask questions like "When you say 'eventually', what kind of timeline are you suggesting? 5 years?"; "Do you think all of our customers will adopt the new product or do you mean the majority of them, as in more than half? Do you think more than 90%?"; "When you say the price will be a little higher, a little higher than what - our current price? The competition's price for an equivalent product? ; How much higher will the price be, do you think?”

I try to make sure I have a clear picture of the important aspects of their statement BEFORE I begin to analyze the underlying data. Otherwise, there is just too little to analyze. At the end of this discussion, I’d like to have a statement that is clear enough to me that I can believe we have a shared understanding. My closing question would be something like this. "So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that you expect that - more than 90% of our existing customers will stop using our current product and begin using our new model within 2 years of its launch even if the price is 30% higher than the price of our current product and 20% higher than our competitor's price for an equivalent product. Is that what you are saying?"

Note that what I have done is as questions about each of the aspects of the original statement that I did not understand, and tried to "plug in" the speaker's definition for each of those terms. I am not analyzing ANYTHING yet; just trying to understand exactly what the speaker means by their statement. Patience yields BIG rewards here. Trying to question a claim before you have a shared understanding of the meaning frequently leads to hurt feelings, destruction of trust, embarrassment, and other problems that are all avoided by coming to a clear and mutual understanding of the statement. It is interesting to note that about 40% of the time when I feel I understand just what the speaker means and ask them to confirm my interpretation of their statement just the way I did above, they respond by saying something like "No. I am saying it may take up to 3 years for 90% of them to switch; but 50% of them will in the first year". This means that even when I have asked all the questions, remained open minded and curious, and am just seeking to understand, I am still often wrong and need more clarification! If you don't go through this process, you will SELDOM be on the same page with the speaker.

Now that you have asked the Relevance question and the Meaning question, ask the Relevance question one more time; "Now that I have a clear understanding of what the speaker means, is the statement relevant in arriving a good decision?” If, with your new clarified understanding, you no longer see it as relevant then move on. If it is relevant, move on to understanding if the statement disintegrates under logical analysis.

We will study the questions used to study the logic of the four specific types of claims next time.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Speaking Engagements

Many of you know that I speak around the county regularly. Frequently I speak in “closed admittance” (university classes or company settings) to which I can’t invite anyone. I am exceptionally happy to speaking at two events in the near future to which I can invite you.

The first is on Friday, May 14 at the 7th annual Project Management Institute Conference in San Diego. I’ll be speaking from 9 am to 10 am, with other professionals on topics that are central to project management. Find out more about this fantastic conference at the PMI conference page.

Also, I will be speaking at the professional development meeting for the San Diego chapter of the APICS organization (the Association for Operations Management) on June 16 at 5:30 pm. You can find out more about this meeting and organization at the APICS meetings page their meetings page.

Both of these organizations are full of the kind of people we like to be around; people that want to improve themselves and their businesses, that strive for excellence, and get better results. I feel fortunate every time I am around them.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

The Two Minute Drill...PLUS

The reaction from the Two Minute Drill was pretty dramatic. I got dozens of emails and even some phone calls from people that were surprised at the experience that they had.

It became clear that when you stop to listen and understand the other person’s perspective, without prejudging or filtering their statements through your OWN perspective, they know it. They feel as if they are heard and often that opens them to YOUR perspective. This activity sets the stage for real collaboration.

Let’s add on to the experience now. This week, do the two minute drill again – listen to the other person’s point of view for two minutes. Don’t think about your own. Pretend you are a reporter and your purpose is just to understand exactly where the other person is coming from. Ask them questions about how they arrived at any conclusions that you don’t understand. You will be saying things like “what makes you say that?”, “tell me more about…”, and “how do you know that such-and-such is true”. It is important to ask these from a position of curiosity and not argumentativeness. This is difficult for almost all of us without practice.

So…practice!

This week, add the element of openness. Try to be open to adopting their position IF (and only if) you can come to agree with it. Ask the questions you need to understand how their perspective “works” and determine if it is all that different from yours, and if the differences matter. IT DOESN’T MATTER IF YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND OR NOT, SO LONG AS YOU DO IT FOR THE RIGHT REASON.

When I hear new information about a subject upon which I have already taken a position, sometimes I change my mind. What do YOU do?

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

2 Minute Drill

I have written over 100 articles for Pathfinder, just counting the ones that appear in the newsletter. Some of them have contained some very complex concepts.This one will be simple and straight forward. It will take two minutes of your time and will likely be the most enlightening two minutes you spend this week.

The very next time you find yourself in a situation in which you are in a disagreement with someone else, and it is NOT "life and death" that things go your way, make the choice to thoroughly investigate the other side in an unbiased way. The reason that i want you to do it the very next time is so that you will learn that you can do it EVERY time that you want to - there is no "special" conversation to do this. You can do it any time that you choose.

The way you do it is to STOP TALKING and begin listening. REALLY listen to what the other person is saying. the key is to STOP thinking about what your perspective is. Pretend that you don't have one. Pretend you are reporter and are just trying to fully understand what the OTHER person is saying. If the other person's plan isn't fully developed, ask questions about the gaps and observe how they fill them in. Are there aspects of the plan that are :"unknowable" now that they are speculating on? What do they base the speculation on? Ask them. Is there a flaw in there logic? Ask them about it.

You just need to do it for two minutes. The trick is that you can't mention your OWN point of view for those two minutes.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

I just noticed...101 Posts!

Thank you all for tuning in to my newsletter. Due to some things going on in real life, I have had to forego my usual consistency with the newsletters this year. Thanks for sticking with me.

Make sure you join the Pathfinder Communicators' group at Linked In. We offer a newsfeed from Harvard Business to keep you up on all things important regarding improving your face-to-face communication skills.

Go to The Pathfinder LinkedIn Group and check the News. Then join up to get the news automatically.


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

The Worst Vice

There is an old saying that “the worst vice is ADvice” and if you have ever tried giving some at the wrong time then you might agree. In our quest to help others solve problems, we can often overstep what is needed or wanted at the time.


Socrates developed a system of conducting discussions using questions and inquiry that we now call the Socratic Method. Obviously, HE didn’t call it that – we named it after him. He called it (in Greek) “The Midwife Method”. He saw using questions as vital in asking a person to explore their OWN point of view more fully, and in that way he was helping “give birth” to a new perspective. Further, the person answering the questions was actually committing to the final outcome as they were developing the new perspective because it was THEIR OWN perspective. How could they not buy into it?

So, back to the point regarding giving advice, this method is very useful in that you are not TELLING someone what to do, but asking them and they are answering. Their answers bind them to the conclusion because…well, because they are THEIR answers.

“I can’t get along with any of my coworkers. I probably ought to quit!” Think of all the ways to respond when you hear that coming from a friend. You could tell them all about work being about income and not friends, or that the economy is so rough right now that it is a bad time, or that they could try X,Y, or Z to be more likeable, or that they should indeed quit. Would you be helping them to do the best thing for them, or just telling them what YOU would do?

Mediators (well versed in the Socratic Method) use methods to help the person “give birth” to a fuller perspective.

1) Asking “what makes you say that?” This simple sentence asks the person to describe a deeper level of the topic – the rezoning behind the statement. They may not be aware of certain things themselves and saying them aloud with you causes them to have to look at them in a more objective way.

2) Paraphrasing – not parroting. A good mediator will rephrase a person’s word into a question (NOT merely repeating them) in order to prompt them for amplification of the subject, It has much the same effect as asking “what makes you say that

3) Saying “tell me more”. This is not a question, but it is a request for more information just like a question is, and prompts the same response. ?” Variations on this include “so what you are saying is…..” or “if I understand you correctly, you feel that….”

One of the big breakthroughs for me was 25 years ago, using these methods. I learned that USUALLY, when I said “so what you are saying is…..” they would respond with “No... What I mean to say is…” The reason I was struck by this was that it meant I was usually WORNG in my interpretation and if I hadn’t asked for the clarification, I would have been down the wrong road. This was even in cases in which I was SURE I was right. It would follow that if I had not asked for clarification, I would have been giving advice based on my misunderstanding, not much chance in being useful.

Using the inquiry method is a proven way to improve the likelihood of being helpful and getting buy in from those with which you are advising.


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

New Format

Let me know if you like the new format of the newsletter; every two weeks instead of weekly and shorter articles. This is where I share what I know and it is easy for me. I want it to be easy for you, too.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Framing Problems (continued)

Last time we spoke about framing a problem, and this article is a continuation of some of those ideas.
1 - If you are ever on the side of an argument in which you are promoting a position favoring material things (wealth, land, money) you will likely be shut down if the other side starts presenting their perspective as one based on values (security, dignity, control of one’s own destiny, etc.). If the other side is framing the conflict as one that is based on values, you need to make your position about rights.
Example - It is nearly impossible to gain full support with a statement like “corporate profit is more important than the environment”, but you may find there is more room for agreement with a position that says that “a person has a right to earn a living, and that right must be balanced against any effects that might be felt in the environment”.

2 – In many businesses, there sometimes exists an unspoken rule that ANY conflict is unhealthy, or abnormal. The single most important rule in an interdependent society (like the functions that make up a business) is the rule that we will speak up when things don’t seem right, and will be answered with a thoughtfully prepared response. This is the basic give-and-take that allows for improvement in organizations. It is important to know how to frame the questions so they elicit the kind of thoughtful response to which I refer. To know more about this, search this site for articles on THE SCORE, my method for conducting one’s self in those kinds of discussions.

Scoping errors are closely related to framing errors. Scoping errors are errors regarding who should be involved, what they think, and the context of the discussion. Take time up front to consider and seek input from any parties that are likely to have salient input AND those that will be affected by the outcome. This effort starts with identifying all of the things at issue in the discussion and the understanding that, as new issues are discovered in the course of discussion, one must re-examine the parties involved to assure that the right ones are added based on the new issues.

Keep a careful watch to make sure that all viable options are kept open. It is human nature to “mentally exclude” options that are not best for themselves. In doing this, you may exclude options that may be almost as good for you AND enable a plan that works for all the other participants as well. Hold off on excluding options until near the end of the solution selection process.

More on that next time.


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Framing the Discussion – first in a series

I am going to write the next few newsletters on the process of “framing” a conflict, it think, because it is tricky and some people underestimate the importance of it. If the frame is established properly upfront, it is easier to detect when the discussion wanders into irrelevant or unproductive territory. If all parties know the target, then all can tell when a shot goes astray.

First, for a definition, “Framing a Conflict” is the act of defining what the conflict is about and how it is being addressed. So there are two parts of the frame – the “what” part and the “how” part. Further, recognize that this is not done by just one party, but requires agreement among the interested parties involved. This factor makes it a little less of an “act” and more of a “process”. A collaborative one.

In a conversation in which the parties are seeking to resolve some sort of difference so that each can come away with something that they believe is of value (a negotiation), it is not unusual for a party to become so “anchored” to what they SAY they want, that they don’t recognize what they REALLY want.

For example – I may say that I want your commitment that you will reduce the price of the material that you sell to me by 5% for the next two years, and forget what I REALLY want is a reduction in the cost of the material you supply of 5% for the next two years.

Can you see the difference? In the first case, the only way my request can be satisfied is if you lower your price. In the second case, maybe there are more ways for you to reduce my cost of using your product (Can you warehouse it for me? Drop ship to my customers? Deliver it for free? Take over some of the forecasting for it?).

More next time…


Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Defining the Purpose for a Communication

A common problem for nearly everyone seeking to improve their communication skills is making assumptions about the PURPOSE of the communication at hand. Typically, we assume that our counterpart shares our understanding of the purpose for our discussion. Quite often they don't. Quite often they are curious as to what your purpose is. That curiosity can affect their perception of your objectivity. Left alone, this lack of clarity can undermine the discussion to the point that communication that WOULD have been successful is not, simply because we didn't understand the purpose. This often manifests itself with the phrase "Why are we even talking about this?", "I'm not sure what you are after here", or "Well why didn't you just SAY so!?".

 

The PURPOSE statement has two parts. It contains 1) the REASON for having the discussion at all AND 2) the mutual objective you and your counterpart wish to accomplish. In other words, it is a statement describing WHAT you wish to accomplish AND the mutual objective you both hope to gain via that accomplishment. The mutual objective (that which you both hope to gain) can be made explicit using the phrase "in order to".

 

For example, you might be discussing choices that your company faces in order to reach more customers. The purpose statement for such a discussion could be "we are discussing ways to reach more customers in order to increase revenue".

 

Typical phrases contained in the first part of the purpose statement focus on either 1) understanding each other's perspectives or 2) coming to an agreement or a decision and look like this:

 

• "Exploring perspectives regarding..."
• "Coming to a decision regarding...
• "Resolving our differences on..."

Phrases in the second part of the purpose statement (after the "in order to" phrase) depend on the issue at hand and are best (most engaging) if they contain something specific that both parties are very interested in accomplishing.

 

In our example, if one party was more interested in reaching more customers as a way of building customer loyalty than increasing revenue, we may rephrase the statement to "we are discussing ways to reach more customers in order to increase customer loyalty and revenue".

 

The most important aspect is that all parties involved feel that they understand what specifically is to be gained in the discussion AND that it is meaningful to them. Without this, it is difficult to get buy-in, engagement, and commitment. Practice how to formulate a compelling PURPOSE statement.

 

 

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication