Pre-Decision Discussions: Reasoning

In Part I and Part II of this exploration of contributions to pre-decision discussions, I examined how we use facts and emotions in discussion contributions. We can think of facts and emotions as the raw materials of the discussion. Reasoning is a tool for combining the raw materials into a comprehensible structure. So in this part I examine how the three different kinds of reasoning can build new components that help us find paths to final decisions.

Three forms of reasoning are available for use in pre-decision discussions. Most uses of reasoning in organizational settings are informal, but even in informal reasoning there are some refining attributes. Those attributes distinguish the three forms of reasoning.

Deductive reasoning

We use deductive reasoning to proceed from premises to conclusions in a sequence of steps, each step following from its predecessors by implication. Deductive reasoning provides strong validation for its conclusion. For example, if we know that testing is the only way to be certain that our software application works as intended, and we also know that we haven't tested our software application in a given release of an operating system, then it follows that we don't know for certain whether our software application works in that release of the operating system. The software might work, or it might not work, but we can be certain that we don't know for certain.

Deductive reasoning based on validated facts and evidence provides a validated conclusion. That is its appeal. But rarely do we have validated facts and evidence, because we rarely have the time and resources required for validating those facts and evidence.

Inductive reasoning

Inductive reasoning also proceeds from premises to a conclusion, but it establishes the conclusion as a generalization of the premises. When the basis for the generalization is data regarding large numbers of examples, the generalization is statistical. When the basis for the generalization is a limited number of cases deemed typical of a large class, the generalization is anecdotal. Neither kind of generalization leads with certainty to a valid conclusion. For this reason, inductive reasoning is less likely to provide strong validation for the conclusion.

But inductive reasoning is still useful. Continuing with our software example, suppose we know that the operating system release in question is a minor update of the previous release, and that our software worked well in four previous minor updates. Reasoning inductively, we then have reason to believe that the software will work in this new minor release. It might work, or it might not work. We don't know for certain, but based on past experience, we believe there is a strong chance that the software will work.

Abductive reasoning

Abductive reasoning is neither deductive nor inductive, but, in a weird way, it can be both. Distinguishing abductive reasoning and deductive reasoning can be difficult, because what Sherlock Holmes (Arthur Conan Doyle actually) calls deductive is in the modern terminology, abductive.

When we're Reasoning is a tool for combining the
raw materials of a discussion — facts
and emotion — into a comprehensible
structure that helps us
find paths to decisionsreasoning abductively, we begin by gathering data about the situation. We then formulate an explanation. That is, we apply principles that we believe pertain to that situation to provide an explanation for what we observe about the situation.

To illustrate, consider yet another extension of the software example. Suppose we actually test our software on 22 machines running the minor update of the operating system. And further suppose that on three of the 22 machines, the software fails. Examining all 22 machines, we notice that the three that failed were also running an old version of a popular word processing program. The machines on which our software operated correctly were running an updated version of that word processing program. Using abductive reasoning we suggest that an unanticipated interaction could be occurring between our software and the word processor. Engineers then investigate further, and they do discover the problem and install a repair.

Using deductive reasoning, we find a conclusion by starting with premises, and creating a chain of implications connecting them to the conclusion. Using inductive reasoning we create a generalization from the premises to reach a highly plausible conclusion. And using abductive reasoning we create an explanation that fits all available observations. Noticing the kinds of reasoning in use in your organization can help you reach more solid conclusions more rapidly. First 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.

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:

Obstacles to Compromise

Compromise is the art of devising an approach acceptable to all parties. A talent for compromise is rare. What makes finding compromises so difficult?

Virtual Conflict

Conflict, both constructive and destructive, is part of teamwork. As virtual teams become more common, we're seeing more virtual conflict — conflict that crosses site boundaries. Dealing with destructive conflict is difficult enough face-to-face, but in virtual teams, it's especially tricky.

Animosity Patterns

Animosity between two people at work is often attributed to "personality clashes." While sometimes people can't get along, animosity can also be a tool for accomplishing strictly political ends. Here's a short catalog of some of its uses.

Teamwork Myths: Conflict

For many teams, conflict is uncomfortable or threatening. It's so unpleasant so often that many believe that all conflict is bad — that it must be avoided, stifled, or at least managed. This is a myth. Conflict, in its constructive forms, is essential to high performance.

Quips That Work at Work: II

Humor, used effectively, can defuse tense situations. Here's Part II of a set of guidelines for using humor to defuse tension and bring confrontations, meetings, and conversations back to a place where thinking can resume.

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

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming March 29: Time Slot Recycling: The Risks

When we can't begin a meeting because some people haven't arrived, we sometimes cancel the meeting and hold a different one, with the people who are in attendance. It might seem like a good way to avoid wasting time, but there are risks. Available here and by RSS on March 29.

And on April 5: The Fallacy of Division

Errors of reasoning are pervasive in everyday thought in most organizations. One of the more common errors is called the Fallacy of Division, in which we assume that attributes of a class apply to all members of that class. It leads to ridiculous results. Available here and by RSS on April 5.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenZLkFdSHmlHvCaSsuner@ChacbnsTPttsdDaRAswloCanyon.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