Building a Case & Arguing with Sophistication

Transcription

1 -Rogers, P. S. (2003) Teaching Note- Building a Case & Arguing with Sophistication It does not take too much business experience to learn that differences of opinion, indeed arguments, comprise important communications for management decision-making. Give me some valid reasons and maybe I ll consider your alternative. But, what evidence do you have to support that idea!? Why should we change anything? Our current approach will ultimately pull us through this. I think this problem will cure itself." These and other such remarks call for highly promotional responses or argumentation. The problem is, many managers have never studied argumentation and do not know how an argument is constructed. Instead, methods of argumentation are often learned informally, by observing others; therefore, arguments tend to evolve via intuition rather than via studied knowledge and deliberate planning. Knowing how to construct arguments and how different types of arguments tend work with receivers may raise the quality of the managerial discourse and, subsequently, of management decisions. With that in mind, the first question is: What are the components of an argument? Basic Components of an Argument In a now classic book, The Uses of Argument, rhetorician Stephen Toulmin (1954) described the structure of the argument, including components that hold to this day. According to Toulmin, an argument consists of three fundamental components: claim, data, and warrant (Figure 1). 1

2 Kinds of Claims A claim is a proposition, recommendation, or conclusion a manager wants others to accept or to adopt. Four kinds of claims include: fact, value, causation, and policy. Claims of fact posit the probability or truth of something as suggested in the following examples: Past fact: The sales training program has been too costly. Present fact: The current sales training program is too costly. Future fact: The current sales training program will become too costly within the next five years. Clearly, as the above suggest, so-called "facts" may be debatable. For instance, management may argue that their firm is profitable; stockholders may argue the opposite. Indeed, both may be argued as "true" using various analyses of accounting data and the like. Claims of value assert a judgement about a person, or institution, or program. A value claim might state, for example, that the sales training program either is detrimental or is beneficial for the company. Like a claim of fact, a claim of value can also be about the past, present, or future as shown below: Past value: Our accounting system has facilitated good communications with our key investors. Present value: Our current accounting system is detrimental to our investor relations program. Future value: Our accounting system will damage our investor relations program in the near future. Claims of causation deal with cause-and-effect relationships. Such claims posit the reasons for certain results or the possible consequence of a particular action. As illustrated in the examples below, the word "cause" or "caused" is often explicit or implicit in such claims: Past causation: High suppliers costs were the main cause of the failure to meet earnings projections. Present causation: Excessive spending on fuel is the reason for the current gloomy outlook on earnings. Future causation: Union pressure will bring about a lack of change in the reward-forperformance measures. 2

3 Claims of policy either affirm or deny that a particular course of action should be taken. Since managing involves causing or preventing change, policy claims comprise many management conversations and meetings. Since policy claims often include the verb "should" they are easy to compose and to spot as seen below: The Sales Training Program should be replaced with an apprenticeship-training program. A policy of hiring the best candidate, either internal or external, should be adopted at Waltman's. Claims of fact, value, and causation sometimes function as the subordinate claims that may be developed as arguments to support or to defeat proposed changes in policy. In this way, claims of fact, value, and causation function as subordinate contentions for policy claims. For example, the factual claim that "the internal candidate pool does not bring new knowledge into the company," or the value claim that "hiring only internal candidates is detrimental for the company," or the causal claim that "hiring from within causes internal stagnation," all could be developed as arguments to support a larger policy claim that the hiring policy should be changed to allow outside applicants. In summary, four kinds of claim statements are available for putting a debatable idea on the table. When a manager has policy-making power, a policy claim is readily used. When in a non-policy-making position, a manager may use claims of fact, value, and/or causation to suggest policy reexamination, particularly for early communications initiating discussion about the issue. Rules for claims Whatever type of claim a manager uses, three basic rules apply: (1) First, a claim statement must be perceived significant in order to stir sufficient interest. If no one believes the issue is relevant or critically important, there's little chance for further discussion. If the issue is viewed as important but not critical, it is likely to be tabled. Therefore, if the claim deals with an issue that others may dismiss in these ways, the significance of that claim must be explained. (2) Second, a claim statement should contain only one central idea. A claim statement that includes the little word and, probably includes two claims, not one. Clarity is improved if two claims are separated into two statements. (3) Third, a claim should also be free of emotionally loaded terms--e.g. "immoral," "socialistic." Suggesting what kind of, these adjectives should be removed to make the claim statement neutral and less emotionally charged. 3

4 Types of Data Support for claims comes in two forms, probative data and non-probative data. Probative data can pass tests of dependability; therefore, probative data are said to prove the truth of the claim. Expert testimony and numerical data can be verified through source checking and statistical tests, thus these data qualify as probative. When verified, such data become difficult to refute and are said to have probative force. Probative data alone may fail to convince receivers, however. Testimony after testimony and statistic after statistic can both overwhelm and bore. Therefore, most every claim should be supported with both probative and non-probative data. Non-probative data, by contrast, may not be seen to prove the truth of a claim. Non-probative data, however, may play the critical role of making a claim more appealing, more understandable, and more believable. Examples, comparisons and contrasts, and restatements are all forms of non-probative data. Clearly, hypothetical or actual examples alone are insufficient proof as they deal with only one instance. But examples can make probative testimony or statistics "come to life." Dealing with human needs, desires, and interests, examples may illustrate what the numbers actually mean for the organization, employees, and external stakeholders. Often novice managers assume that they have no personal experiences or observations that could be used as non-probative data in policy discussions or debates. With some thought, however, even a novice should be able to recall relevant personal experiences or observations of other situations that can be used as examples to elaborate, enliven, and convince. Comparison and contrast point out similarities and differences between ideas and experiences that are familiar to an audience. A literal comparison is between two things from the same class e.g. man with man, machine with machine. Whereas a figurative comparison is between two objects that fall into unlike classes e.g. "life" compared with a game of chess. And finally, another kind of non-probative data is restatement. Restatement is expressing an idea in another way or simply repeating it. In investor relations these are sometimes called "sound bytes" or memorable phrases that merit repetition because they are short and effectively summarize the argumentation as a whole. Nature of Warrant Warrants are statements, phrases (such as because of "given that," or since ), or explanations that associate the data and the claim. Warrants bridge from the claim to the data or vice versa. Warrants answer the question: How do these data support the claim? 4

5 For example, data showing that there was an increase in customer satisfaction shortly after a new sales training program was implemented is insufficient without a warrant explaining how the increase in customer satisfaction can be attributed to the sales training program. Many factors could have contributed to increased customer satisfaction. How can one know for sure that the sales training program contributed to the increased satisfaction? Without explanatory warrant, the connection between the customer satisfaction data and the sales training program is highly suspect. Arguments Are "Data Driven" Thus, an argument is communicated by (1) asserting some kind of claim (e.g., fact, value, causation, or policy), (2) coupling probative and non-probative data to support this claim, and (3) providing warrant or showing the connection between these data and the claim. A claim is stated, sometimes followed by a brief explanation of key words or its significance. Then probative and non-probative data are presented--statistics and/or testimony coupled with examples, comparison/contrast, or repetition. Of all these elements, the presentation of data typically consumes the greatest amount of time. Typically it does not take much time to name and explain a claim. Elaborating probative and non-probative data is another matter, however. A statistical table, for example, must not only be shown but also clearly explained so the audience can fully comprehend it. Moreover, the table must be shown to be relevant to the claim in order to achieve warrant. And even more than this, the table must also be related to other kinds of data, as it alone is likely insufficient to persuade. Complexifying the Argument Model In addition to the basic components of an argument (claim + data + warrant) some additional elements may also be needed to construct a "winning" argument in certain situations. These elements include qualifiers, rebuttal, and backing. Qualifiers show the limitations or restrictions in the scope of the claim. Words such as ' probably, or soft modal verbs, such as might, or may, can be inserted to qualify as in the claim of fact below: 5

6 The Euro will probably appreciate against the U.S. dollar within the next five years. Qualification shows that the claim is asserted with sophisticated knowledge of the exceptions, which can bring a certain amount of credibility to the claim and the manager promoting it. Typically, however, the first time a claim is stated it is not qualified. Instead, qualification is given at some later point as in the following claim of fact: The Euro will appreciate against the U.S. dollar within the next five years. While this is not an absolute prediction, it is highly probable because.... In the next few minutes I will show you the reasons why we can safely predict such a comparative currency appreciation. Rebuttal points out major objections or limitations that the opposite side is likely to raise. Rebutting an argument before the opposition has an opportunity to do so, can strengthen a claim (e.g. "The fact that X is not covered, however, is not a major concern because "). Rebuttal may be incorporated to show that objections/limitations are not significant enough to negate the claim. Rebuttal may also be as simple as saying that the claim is true unless, as in the following: "We expect this occur unless, of course, XYZ policies change. Backing is used in conjunction with warrant. Backing is some kind of testimonial or study supporting the association between the claim and the data. For example, the testimony of a longtime sales employee might be used to back the notion that the improvement in customer satisfaction is a direct result of the sales training program. The employee may be quoted explaining some very specific and important ways her customer service has improved since she participated in the sales training program. A sophisticated argument may not only include the essential elements--claim, data, and warrant-- but also qualification, rebuttal, and backing as shown in the claim of fact example below: Claim: The Euro will appreciate against the U.S. dollar within the next five years. Data (testimony): According to an IMS report, the European union is expected to grow while U.S. growth is decelerating and expected to do so in the near future. Warrant: Growth is necessary for currency appreciation; indeed, faster growth is directly attributed to currency appreciation. Backing: According to Prof. Gunter Dufey, expert on international exchange and finance at the University of Michigan Business School, the absence of systematic changes in government policies relative to movements of the business cycle become a major cause for currency valuation. Qualifier: The probability that the Euro will appreciate against the U.S. dollar is strong. Clearly, this remains a probability, but it is a strong probability. Rebuttal: The Euro will appreciate against the U.S. dollar unless, of course, U.S. policies dramatically change. Clearly, the above example is a lot to digest all at once. Receivers would need elaboration in order to understand fully. For example, the claim might be restated in different words. Or, one 6

7 piece of data, an actual quotation from the IMS report, might be shown in a visual, read carefully with emphasis on key words, paraphrased, and then tied back to the claim. Types of Arguments Since much of managing involves causing or preventing change, claims of policy are frequently used and the several kinds of arguments used to support policy claims become keenly important. Types of arguments to support policy claims include (1) inherent harm, (2) comparative advantage, and (3) goal achievement. An inherent harm argument shows that either the present system or the proposed change is structurally or systematically incapable of solving or preventing certain harmful consequences or basic problems. In other words, such an argument contends that either the present system or the proposed plan cannot get the job done, or cannot solve the problem, or cannot eliminate the harm because of certain inherent barriers. For example, a manager could argue that the old policy of "hiring managers from within" hinders the company progress because it prevents hiring outsiders who bring innovative perspectives and ideas into the firm. The hiring-from-within policy, then, is presented as a barrier to the infusion of new, outside perspectives. Of course, an inherent harm argument can also be garnered for the other side of this issue. For example, one could argue that outsiders do not have the kind of sustained organizational knowledge that is necessary for upper managers at the company. Indeed, the argument could continue, the only way to ensure that those hired as middle- and upper-level managers have been ingrained knowledge of company systems, is to "grow or develop them from within. Giving a few examples of individuals who have been developed internally would serve as non-probative evidence for this kind of a claim. A comparative-advantage argument states that either the proposed change or the current system has certain advantages that cannot be realized via the alternative. Issues of efficiency, enforcement, financing, and implementation may all be used to argue advantage. Usually, there are several advantages given to make a comparative-advantage argument. The argument may begin something like this: Adoption of ABC would result in three major advantages. These advantages are, A, B, and C. Let me explain each briefly. With this type of argumentation, however, it is not enough to simply list advantages. Rather, the arguer must explain the advantages in light of the other side, showing how these advantages cannot be realized via the alternative. Without such explanation, receivers can readily dismiss the advantages or posit that these advantages can be achieved via the alternative. A goal achievement argument shows that certain desirable goals can only be achieved via the policy the manager is promoting. Alternatives, the manager argues, are incapable of bringing 7

8 about these goals or the objectives. For example, a manager may show that the goal of cutting costs cannot be achieved by replacing the sales training program with an apprenticeship program. By comparing the projected costs of the two programs, the manager goes on to show how the cost-savings goals can best be achieved via maintaining the sales training program. Key to the success of this type of argument, then, is showing how the goals or objectives are achieved by the policy being promoted. Finally, in addition to the three types of arguments suggested above, several additional strategies might be used with claims defending existing policy. One such strategy is to deny that any significant problem exists, raising doubt about the need to change. Another is to argue that the present system is capable of self-correction and that any problem is incidental rather than systematic. And finally, one can also defend the current state of affairs by suggesting minor repairs. A minor repairs strategy admits that the current policy needs some alteration in order to continue successfully, but goes on to show that there are no serious, inherent faults. Minor repairs or corrections are all that is required. Sources include: Toulmin's (1954) The Uses of Argument and a debate handbook titled The Elements of Argument 8