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

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

Book Review "Blunder: Why Smart People Make Bad Decisions"

I just finished a great book called “Blunder: Why Smart People Make Bad Decisions” by Zachary Shore. The book was a terrific historical study of both bad and good decisions and the differences between them. The author has a doctorate in Modern History from Oxford and performed postdoctoral research at Harvard’s Olin Institute for Strategic Studies. He teaches at the Naval Postgraduate School.

Dr. Shore uses numerous examples from history and politics and a very engaging writing style to demonstrate that the key to good results is good decision making, and that good communication underlies those decisions.

Dr. Shore indicates that Failure to Collaborate is a recurring theme in bad decisions, and that one reason that people fail to collaborate is their fear of being perceived as weak. This is related to what I call in the Pathfinder classes “The Kindergarten Model” of communication, in which we point out that the school system in North America tends to promote individual achievement over team achievement. You may remember the “advocacy versus inquiry” models that we discuss, that detail the key characteristics of a collaborative discussion and how we describe the mechanics of critical discussions in detail.

Another reason that smart people make bad decisions, according to Dr Shore, is over-simplification of cause and under-analysis of analogies. In other words, bad decisions result when we fail to recognize all the factors that contribute to a situation and try to attribute events in a complex system to just a few factors. The act of thoroughly analyzing the causal chain of events can surface subtle differences between the way things appear and the way they actually are that drive us to new ways of looking at them. This is accomplished by the “Critical Discussion” model we use at Pathfinder.

Lastly, I’ll mention that the Dr. Shore makes a great point that curiosity and empathy (characteristically absent in he advocacy model) are key ingredients for the best decisions made throughout history. And predictably, their absence from the decision-making process nearly always contributes to regrettable conclusion.

Verdict? I would highly recommend this book to any of you that are serious in your study of decision making. AND I would recommend you sign up for the summer round of Pathfinder Communication Public Workshops that I will be announcing in Three Weeks.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

A BIG Lesson

At this point in this series (started 12/29/2008) we have begun discuss ways to unilaterally lead conversation AWAY from unproductive advocacy debates and towards a collaborative flow of ideas that serve a mutual purpose. We are in the process of learning to direct collaborative discussions even as we participate in them. It seems a little unsettling, because it requires the practice of actually helping our counterparts strengthen their positions and finding flaws in our own, but that is the way it may go when you value the RESULT and the RELATIONSHIP more than “winning” an argument.

The most frequently asked question of me? “How do I do this when emotions are running high?” The message from last time was to build collaboration by building safety. This time, more details – ‘nuts and bolts’ stuff – both about building safety and trust AND how to keep emotions from interfering. I say “keep emotions from interfering” rather than “conduct a discussion without emotions” for good reason. Sometimes, the discussion IS about emotions. Sometimes, the trouble we have in speaking with each other IS mainly emotional. So we have to talk about them; we just don’t have to get swept away by them.

Let’s start with unilaterally building safety and trust. Why do we care if our counterpart feels safe in a discussion? We have all seen people bullied into doing someone else’s will, right? IT WORKS! So why not learn how to fillet your counterpart’s perspective, embarrass and humiliate them until they concede your position?

BECAUSE IT IS NOT ABOUT YOUR POSITION ANYMORE. It never was. It is about getting all the information out on the table. ALL of it (some of which is partially in your counterpart’s head). You want it given to you with willing assent. You want it given to you because you are going to do the right thing with it; something both of you want done and to do it right, we all have to know exactly what we are dealing with and we all have to participate willingly in a discussion about what the information means.

We already talked about how to sort through the CONTENT of the conversation (9/26 – 12/29) to challenge the data as a group. Now we are talking about CONDUCTING that conversation so that people will share and participate fully. So we need make a specific set of things known in every conversation we have. We need to live it and breathe it so that we are credible when we do. When asked, we need to know just what to say about any of the following items so we need to understand them thoroughly. I will now present about 20 concepts that you will come to know as your TOOLBOX in unilaterally conducting a collaborative critical discussion. I will give you the basics today, and refer back to them over the course of this series.

Defensiveness – This is why we care about safety. If the participants in a conversation feel adequately safe, they won’t feel defensive. If anyone, including you, starts to feel defensive the collaborative part of the discussion is over until YOU (the communications guy) restores safety.

Purpose – There are many purposes for having discussions, but the purposes for having COLLABORATIVE discussions are simple 1) to understand someone else’s point of view; 2) to express your OWN point of view (or facilitate someone else in doing so; 3) to work through differences (gaps) between each other’s perspectives.

Mutual Purpose – Mutual purpose is more specific than the purpose of the conversation (see “Purpose”). Mutual Purpose is what you stand to gain from fulfilling the purpose. For example, the purpose of a given conversation is to understand the other person’s perspective on a given issue. The Mutual Purpose at work might be that understanding their point of view may improve a relationship that you both care about, or that it may fill gaps in your knowledge of something that will help the company you both work for. If we don’t work for the same company, our Mutual Purpose may be celebrate their expertise or develop a relationship based on their credibility. You and your counterpart stand to gain if the Mutual Purpose is achieved and it is important that you learn to identify it and how to communicate it to your counterparts so that you are actively working together to achieve it.

Respect – Four kinds of respect at work in collaboration and they are unilateral – your counterpart does NOT have to share them. 1) Respect for content – you respect that the thing you are talking about is worth talking about and that, since it is natural for people to have different perspectives on most things, respect that your current understanding of the content is ALWAYS just a starting place and that your mind could be changed at any moment IF you are successful in finding a piece of mind changing information. 2) Respect for process – you respect the fact that Plato and Aristotle argued over the principles contained in these lessons and that Aristotle and countless great minds since have refined them to the state they are in now. That most of the time, if we follow the principles of communication that we are learning, we will come to the very best answer. That advocacy is NOT the best way to resolve business issues, but collaboration yields better decisions and preserves and promotes good relationships. 3) Respect for counterpart – you respect that the counterpart (in the absence of diagnosed mental illness) is a rational human being and is doing their best to stay with you in the collaboration. The difficulties they seem to have are simply differences which they lack the skills to overcome but YOU POSSESS. You maintain curiosity about their perspective and you NEVER assume that they are malicious in their intention unless you have strong evidence. You treat them as if their ideas COULD be exactly correct, because you can’t determine otherwise until you fully understand them. 4) Respect for self – You respect that you are intelligent and have skills in communication that others desperately need. You share them. You don’t allow yourself to bully or be bullied, manipulate or be manipulated, judge or be judged. When your counterpart violates these rules, you address it with compassion understanding that they don’t know any other way, or they would use it.

Openness – Openness is the state in which you believe that your counterpart might be right and you might be wrong even if nothing you have heard YET indicates it. You are willing to be persuaded; even hopeful to be persuaded because if you are, it means you didn’t bail out too soon but held on until the ONE important piece of information was finally put into the collaborative “pot”.

Empathy – The state in which you are trying hard to see things from your counterpart’s perspective, even describing things that they haven’t mentioned that support their perspective. You recognize that they have a right to feel the way they do, even if you feel differently.

Curiosity – The state in which you continue to ask questions about why your counterpart holds a given belief until you understand why as fully as you can.

Presence – The state in which you are not distracted from the discussion, either by things going on around you, by the voice in your head, or by your desire to interrupt.

Engagement – The state in which you are really invested in your counterpart – you want nothing more than for all the information to be surfaced and a GREAT informed decision to be made.

Depth – The state in which you show willingness to ask – respectfully and humbly – about things beneath the surface (feelings, beliefs) that may be important to understanding each other.

Humility – Humility is the natural position to assume when you approach a discussion with curiosity, empathy, openness, and respect because you realize that you are FALLIBLE and could very well be wrong until you have used your skills to elicit all of the needed information. The opposite of arrogance, this is KEY in promoting safety.

Tentativeness – Like Humility, this is a state that promotes safety because it shows that you are not completely sure and are anxious to change your mind if you are changing it for good reason – that your mind is not made up until all of the information is available and has been vetted.

Recognizing unexpressed emotions – For now, we will say that like the three primary colors, there are three primary emotions (Fear, Anger, & Embarrassment) that people feel when threatened. Which ones, in what mix and proportion, to what degree, and how they are expressed vary due to the many variables that make us who we are as individuals. They are frequently expressed in collaborative critical discussions (withdrawal, name-calling, sarcasm, personal attacks, crying) when the sense of safety is removed. Learning to recognize them and use them as triggers to step out of the content conversation and into a safety creating conversation will be discussed in one or even two special newsletters.

Subverting Safety – There are things that you will learn how to suppress but your counterparts will do to you (either on purpose or because they are feeling emotional) that can throw a conversation into a tailspin. When your counterpart does these things, you may become defensive; you must first forgive them and then start rebuilding safety for YOURSELF. These things include:
***Judgment (You’re just saying that to hurt me! You always try to hurt me)
***Insincerity (I would never lie to you)
***Manipulation (You should go ask him and then tell me what he says)
***Threats (if you don’t, I’ll make it tough on you)
***Competition (Your idea will never win if you tell everyone about it’s weaknesses)
***Raising Voices – Many times, people raise their voice in a conversation as a signal that they don’t believe you are hearing them. Frequently they are right; while they are talking, you are not listening but waiting for them stop so you can say something. At that time, it is a great idea to NOT raise your voice in retaliation, but instead to pause and acknowledge that your mind has been racing to keep up with theirs. Repeat back what you think their position is an a respectful way, asking them to tell you if you have it right and if not, to clarify their position.

This may seem like a lot for one newsletter, but I am having a little surgery done and I am not positive that I will be able to write next Sunday night. I will be writing again soon, though – forgive me missing a week. Take the time to catch up.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Getting to Collaboration

Last week, I said we were going to learn to conduct both Advocacy discussions and “Hard” Collaborative discussions with the aim of converting them to “Soft” Collaborative discussions. We want to do this because a “Soft” collaborative discussions are 1) most useful in getting input from all participants and, 2) least destructive (most supportive) of the relationships with the people involved. I also mentioned that we are going to learn to do this unilaterally, meaning we will be the only one in the discussion that is consciously guiding it towards this end. If there is someone that is helping, so much the better – but we won’t count on it because we can’t.

To begin with, recognize that doing this is a form of “leading from within” – leading without being a formal leader. In this effort, our objective as the leader is singular; get all the information on the topic out on the table so that we can examine it, critique it, and use it to make the best possible decision. The difficult part in doing this is that, for more reasons than we can count, people are reluctant to share information unless they feel it is safe to do so. Our main job, therefore, is to create safety. If we fail to do that, the people with whom we are speaking will not be able to share.

We have been trained since kindergarten in NOT sharing information, and we have received NO training in creating safety, so the odds are stacked against us UNTIL we learn how to create and maintain an environment in which people feel safe. Fortunately, there are lots of easy techniques to do it. The most important thing is to develop your own personal mindset that seeks to be collaborative and supports others in doing so. In this series, I will describe in detail what that mindset consists of and how to express it.

Not today though. Today, there are just a few things that I want you to get your head wrapped around; things that challenge the way you look at participating in these discussions.

It is a process of guiding people through the model for content exchange that we discussed in the last series of newsletters (9/26/2008 – 12/29/2008). Remember that in that model, we start by understanding and making clear what the controversy is about (we make the resolution explicit). Then we make (and ask for) claims, raise issues, offer evidence, and supply and weigh inference. So how will we lead from within? We will behave as if they know the model, and when they fail to perform as the model would dictate (e.g., they fail to ask for evidence) then we will do it for them. I know it sounds crazy, but it will start to become clear in a moment.

First, I want you to understand the objective of the collaborative conversation. There are 3 acceptable objectives for these conversations; 1) to understand the other person’s point of view (this should ALWAYS be your primary objective), 2) to express your point of view to the other person so that they understand it, and 3) to troubleshoot or come to a mutual understanding about something (in which case we have to do the first two).

The exchange is not complex, but it is different than usual because it is about building safety FIRST. We want to understand the other person’s perspective. We want to be curious about it. We want to understand it the way an interviewer wants to understand the inner thoughts of a politician or celebrity – NOT to compare them with ours, but to understand THEM - fully. We want to ask questions (remember the 3 ways to formulate issues?). We want to offer thoughts that support their perspective (to offer supporting evidence and strengthen inferences). We then may want to express OUR perspective. We will follow the rules for exchanging content and offer evidence and inference. We will ask them about the weaknesses in OUR idea. We will ensure that they understand our position. We will then discuss the differences in our two perspectives. We will talk a lot about this technique over the next few weeks, but for now understand that we will build safety and trust.

To illustrate how we know that this objective is achieved, I want you to recall a time when you took a position that you were CONFIDENT was right. You felt very sure that you are on the right side of the issue, and then you found a piece of information that indicated you were wrong. I want you to remember that as clearly as you can, in that it is very instructive in learning how to conduct a collaborative discussion. You are on a hunt for THAT piece of information – “What would indicate that we are on the wrong track? How can we find it? Let’s look everywhere for it”. This is the purpose for raising issues, questioning inference, evaluating evidence, all of it – because we want to know if we are on the wrong track and get OFF of it as soon as we can. We want that “A-HA” moment as soon and as often as we can get it. Once we exhaust those pieces of information, we can be on the right track. You may recall that this is the opposite of an Advocacy discussion, in which we hide information that subverts our position. Here we want to subvert ALL positions as soon as we can and get to the one that is most sound. Then we have a collective win.

I also want you to remember that, until you got that piece of information, your analysis of all the other data led you to a wrong conclusion. In other words, that you are fallible. If you can remember that, then you can accept that it is appropriate to be tentative and humble, rather than arrogant or even bold. When you are in a collaborative discussion, there can be lots of wrong positions. Since you are trying to build safety, you have to make it possible for someone to be wrong and not lose face. You need to make it possible for someone to disagree. Boldness and arrogance work against that – tentativeness and humility work in favor. There is a lot to building safety that we will cover in the coming weeks, but this is the starting place.

In closing for this week, I want you to remember is that it is NOT a requirement that we settle an issue in one conversation. I can’t tell you the number of times I sit in a meeting with 10 minutes left and someone raises an interesting, but complex, issue. The natural inclination is to try to settle it in the time remaining in that meeting. Fight that urge. Recognize that it is unlikely to reach an adequately vetted position and properly supported decision on anything of complexity in one conversation. Fight the urge to shortcut the process. It needn’t take a long time, either. My experience is that I have seen more harm caused by discussing too little than delays caused by discussing too much.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Inference #4 – Analogies

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

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

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

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

She says “Why did you pick screwdrivers?”

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

She says “Why do you think so?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Inference #3 – Sign

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

- Is the degree from a reputable college?

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

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

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

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Inference #2 – Cause

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Inference #1 - Example

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

What Makes You Say That?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Aristotle’s Issues

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

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

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

1 - Claim of Fact – presented as a plain factual statement like “Far more kids are engaged in cheating in school than the teachers think”

2 - Claim of Definition – presented to offer a definition or characterization like “The kid wasn’t cheating; he was just harmlessly cutting a corner”

3 - Claim of Quality – presented to make a value judgment about something like “Those teachers are incompetent”

4 - Claim of Policy – presented as a suggested course of action like “They should allow the kids to work together and share ideas like they’ll have to in the workplace”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, you know a lot more about questioning claims made by people; how to categorize those claims, and how to define the key issues needed to resolve them. As always, you need to practice these techniques as often as possible until you are doing so automatically. It is critical that you practice when the stakes are low so that you are comfortable if the stakes are raised.

Next we will learn how to answer issues and by extension, learn what to expect for answers when someone else is responding to your questions.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Learning to Identify the Resolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We’ll discuss more next week.

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Decisions, Decisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Defensiveness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Advocacy

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

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

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

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

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

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication

Conducting a Critical Discussion

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

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

Presumption and Burden of Proof

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

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

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

Burden of Proving Assertions

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

Burden of Rejoinder

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

Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication