Pre-Decision Discussions: Facts

When a group must take a position or choose a direction, many groups follow a simple pattern. First they gather information, views, and options from their members or advisors. Then they choose an option. But group decisions, like personal decisions, aren't always purely rational. In many cases, pressure, tension, and emotion play important roles.

Following are descriptions of four patterns of pre-decision contributions selected for their relationship to facts and evidence.

Reports

A report is a contribution that contains an objective fact. Reports might (or might not) include citations — references to reliable sources that validate the fact or facts contained in the report.

There's no requirement that all members of the group accept the fact provided in the report. That is, even though a report is factual, and even though it includes citations, some members of the group might dispute the report. If the ensuing discussion is largely a debate about the validity of a fact supported by a citation, trouble looms. Unless the group can agree about what the facts are, and whether or not they are validated, the group will likely have difficulty reaching a decision that is both durable and compatible with group objectives.

Opinions

An opinion is a contribution that expresses a conclusion based on facts, but which lacks factual support sufficient for it to be regarded as entirely valid. Opinions aren't equivalent to "almost-reports," because the facts upon which opinions are based might not be directly useful for validating the conclusion expressed in the opinion.

To determine the persuasiveness of a contribution, we must distinguish opinions from reports, but opinions and reports can be difficult to distinguish. For example, an opinion and a report can be identical, word for word, if the report lacks a citation. One tactic that can help distinguish opinions from reports that lack citations is asking the report's contributor for citations. Even better: the group can adopt a norm that contributors of reports offer citations.

Beliefs

Beliefs are contributions that express what the contributor holds to be true on the basis of cultural values, personal values, or faith. An example of a widely held (and widely disputed) belief: "Software projects are always late and over budget because software engineering isn't really engineering."

Expressions of belief (or disbelief) in business meetings are more common than many realize, because they aren't always identified as beliefs. We tend to confuse beliefs with opinions, and both beliefs and opinions with reports. Reports are substantiated with facts. Opinions are partially substantiated with facts. Beliefs are unique in that their foundations are axiomatic. Beliefs have no factual substantiation, and to many who hold the beliefs, beliefs need no factual substantiation.

Some might regard as factual substantiation of a belief a set of specific facts that are consistent with the belief. Such contentions are misleading — they are not proof, though they might suggest a direction to search for a proof.

Hearsay

Hearsay is a report of a statement by another party. The fact in the report is that the cited party made the statement, but the statement that's being reported might or might not be factual. For example, person A might state that B told A that C was a licensed masseuse. That would not be evidence that C is a licensed masseuse, but it would be evidence that B told A that C was a licensed masseuse.

One risk of In face-to-face meetings we use
facial expressions and body language
to manage tensions that develop. In
virtual meetings, we depend more on
the nature of our contributions.hearsay is that the group might mistakenly conclude that the statement delivered by hearsay is actually a validated fact. When that happens, the group can make an unwarranted decision. Unwarranted decisions can carry unbounded levels of risk.

A second risk arises because the term hearsay is a pejorative, having acquired a negative connotation from decades of use in popular courtroom dramas. When Group Member A identifies Group Member B's contribution as hearsay, that negative connotation can cause B to experience A's comment as an accusation about the integrity of both B and the third party B quoted. Avoid the term hearsay. Instead, ask for factual evidence: "Do we have corroboration for that?"

Reports, Opinions, Beliefs, and Hearsay provide the group rough guidance as to the direction in which a decision might lie. Next time I'll examine other kinds of contributions that evoke emotional responses that can affect group judgment.   Next issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Do you spend your days scurrying from meeting to meeting? Do you ever wonder if all these meetings are really necessary? (They aren't) Or whether there isn't some better way to get this work done? (There is) Read 101 Tips for Effective Meetings to learn how to make meetings much more productive and less stressful — and a lot more rare. Order Now!

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Conflict Management:

Assumptions and the Johari Window: I

The roots of both creative and destructive conflict can often be traced to differing assumptions of the parties to the conflict. Working out these differences is a lot easier when we know what everyone's assumptions are.

Meta-Debate at Work

Workplace discussions sometimes take the form of informal debate, in which parties who initially have different perspectives try to arrive at a shared perspective. Meta-debate is one way things can go wrong.

Creating Toxic Conflict: I

Many managers seem to operate as if their primary goal is to create toxic conflict among their subordinates. Here's a collection of methods for sowing toxic conflict that can help bad managers become worse managers.

During-Action Reviews

When you depend on internal services to get your job done, and they aren't being delivered in a customer-oriented fashion, solving the problem during the incident isn't likely to work. Here are seven tips for addressing the issue.

Bad Trouble: Misdirection

When Bad Trouble develops at work we have a chance to see what our organizational cultures are made of. Many of our colleagues respond constructively. When they don't, misdirection tactics are popular. Here's a little catalog of misdirection responses.

See also Conflict Management and Effective Meetings for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming July 3: Additive bias…or Not: II

Additive bias is a cognitive bias that many believe contributes to bloat of commercial products. When we change products to make them more capable, additive bias might not play a role, because economic considerations sometimes favor additive approaches. Available here and by RSS on July 3.

And on July 10: On Delegating Accountability: I

As the saying goes, "You can't delegate your own accountability." Despite wide knowledge of this aphorism, people try it from time to time, especially when overcome by the temptation of a high-risk decision. What can you delegate, and how can you do it? Available here and by RSS on July 10.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info