Technical Influence

Technical Influence Module: Debating Tactics – Part 1

Welcome to this training and development module on Debating Tactics. It's part of the growing library of skills modules available at www.technicalinfluence.com. We help you to develop the abilities that will make the difference to your success at work. You develop new skills that will give you the edge over other technically-oriented collegues and organisations.

This is the “Free Preview” version of the module. To get the complete version, you need to be a technicalinfluence.com member.

1.  Why would I want to learn about Debating Tactics?

Everyone needs to engage in debate and negotiation at work. Perhaps it's at project reviews, or at appraisal interviews. Maybe you manage or supervise others, or need to manage your boss. Come to think of it, most meetings and discussions are about exchanging views. How would it be if you were even more confident and effective in putting your own views across, and in helping other people to consider them.

If there were a systematic way of creating responses and debating points, would that be worth some study? If so, read on...

 2. How are we going to do this?

We’re going to introduce you to 3 parts of a system for creating effective arguments and debate points. The whole system has about 15 parts, and we’ll gradually build modules to include them all. So this is a first taster and an introduction.

We’ll explain how each tactic works, and give you some examples. Then we’ll invite you to practice for yourself, to build your confidence with each tactic.

3.  What are Debating Tactics all about?

Some people are naturally talented at debate and negotiation. They easily come up with effective reasoning and they counter their opponent’s arguments in a variety of ways. Whatever the situation, they always seem to be able to come up with a response. They don’t always get their way, but never seem to lose outright.

How do they do that?

Researchers have examined the various ways in which you can respond to somebody else’s comments. They have described about 15 classic tactics that can be useful. Most of us regularly use our own favourite few. But if they don’t work, we can get stuck.

If you can use more tactics for debate, you have a bigger variety of tools at your command. You can respond to different situations more confidently. You have a better chance of having the right tactics at your command. It's like having more spanners in your toolkit, or more reagents in your chemistry set, or more icons on your toolbar.

Most decisions and debates rely on people's opinions, personal attitudes and individual views, not on absolute verifiable facts. This adds some complexity - opinions are more complicated and flexible than facts. But it's this flexibility that you can use to your advantage.

You can use the tactics from this module to challenge opinions when you need to. Even better, you can prompt people to challenge their own views.

4.  How the tactics work

These tactics have a factor in common - they invite the other person to think about their view in different ways, looking at it from different angels and loosening rigid attitudes. These tactics work best when the other person has given their opinion in one of two ways:

 i).  "X causes Y". These are cause-and-effect statements. The other person is claiming that one thing causes another thing. Often the effect is something undesirable. Here are some examples:

• "Upgrading equipment always causes technical problems."
  
• "Sponsoring professional qualifications causes staff turnover."
  
• "We can't hire you because you're under-experienced" - or put another way, to be more obviously cause-and-effect - 
  "Your lack of experience causes us to say that we can't hire you".
  
• "We have to shelve your project because of financial cutbacks." - or put another way, to be more obviously cause-and-effect -
  "Financial Cutbacks cause us to shelve your project."
  
• "Lack of time at work means I can't put new skills into practice."
  
• "This undesirable thing is a result of that thing you're proposing to do".
  

ii).  "X is Y" - when it's a matter of opinion whether X really is Y. Often, the second bit "Y" is something undesirable. Some examples are:

• "Money spent on this technology is a waste."
  
• "Development of your influencing skills is impossible."
  
• "Your proposal is too complicated."
  
• "Telling jokes at work means you're unprofessional."
  
• "This thing is that undesirable thing."

So let's take a look at some tactics you can use to reply when challenged in these ways. We need to transform the point that's been made. In doing so, we weaken the argument or invite it to be reconsidered.

Tactic 1. Re-define the Effect

Here we take simply take the undesirable bit of the statement and re-interpret it differently. We present an alternative, more acceptable result.

Or we take the undesirable bit of the "X is Y" and re-interpret that.

Let's look at some examples. Here we take some of the objections listed above and show some ways that you might respond to them by redefining the effect:

Your associate says: 
"Sponsoring professional qualifications causes staff turnover."

He’s objecting to the undesirable effect: staff turnover. You might use one of these responses that replace or redefine the effect:

• "Sponsoring professional qualifications is a way to motivate your staff and foster a long-term working relationship."
  
• "Staff who are sponsored through qualifications feel cared for and are more inclined to stay with their company."
  
• "Sponsoring professional qualifications gives you a more switched on, capable and committed workforce."

In each case, you've redefined or replaced "causes staff turnover" with a more appealing, more positive opinion.

Here's another example for you.

Your associate says:
"Upgrading equipment always causes technical problems."

He’s objecting to the undesirable effect: causes technical problems. You might use one of these responses that replace or redefine the effect:

• "Once established, this upgrade will lead to greater efficiency and reliability."
• "In fact, upgrading equipment causes greater capabilities which far outweigh any initial teething troubles."
• "Upgrading equipment can happen with minimal problems if we are given the resources to do it right."

Again, you've taken the chunk of the argument that he's objecting to, and redefining it. You replace it with a more appealing concept. Getting the idea OK? Just to be sure, here are some further examples to check out.

Your associate says: 
"Lack of time at work means I can't put new skills into practice."

He’s objecting to the undesirable effect: “can’t put new skills into practice”. You might use one of these responses that replace or redefine the effect:

• "Lack of time means that you need to become more effective by developing better skills."
  
• "Lack of time means that you should now be developing your abilities to say "No" and to delegate work."
  
• "And the way to regain some time is to experiment with new personal efficiency skills."

Your associate says:
"Money spent on technology is a waste."

You might use one of these responses that replace or redefine the undesirable idea “a waste”:

• "Money spent on technology is an investment in greater capability and efficiency."
  
• "Money spent on technology keeps us ahead of the competition."
  
• "Money spent on the right technology will continue to give us the edge over our competitors."

Your associate says: 
"Development of your influencing skills is impossible"

You might use one of these responses that replace or redefine the unhelpful idea “impossible”:

• "Development of my influencing skills may take some effort, but it will be very worthwhile."
  
• "Development of my influencing skills will be a new departure for me, but an entirely possible one."
  
• "Development of my influencing skills depends on my attitude rather than yours."

Your associate says:
"Telling jokes at work means you're unprofessional."

You might use one of these responses that replace or redefine the unhelpful idea “unprofessional”.

• Because I am professional, I tell appropriate jokes at appropriate times."
  
• Telling jokes is a way to release tension, so that we can return to serious work refreshed and alert."
  
• Telling jokes at work helps me maintain warm working relationships with my professional team."

And so onto the next tactic in your toolbox...

Tactic 2.  Intent

For this tactic, we usually focus on what the other person is trying to achieve, what they want.
We then point out an unexpected or unintended result of their proposal.
This can be a very effective negotiating tool, because it does not make the other person look small or stupid. You acknowledge that they are well intentioned, and then draw their attention to a factor that they may not have been aware of.

An alternative "Intent" tactic is to clarify your own intentions. You state what your (good and worthy) intentions actually are.

Let's illustrate these ideaswith some examples:

Your associate says:

"Sponsoring professional qualifications causes staff turnover."

You focus on their intent - which might be to avoid staff turnover, and keep the best technicians in the team. You recognise this helpful intent, and then suggests an unintended result:

• "I know that you intend to keep hold of your best technicians, but do you really want an unchanging team of frustrated and under-qualified people?"

Or you might imagine that their intent is to reduce the HR development budget. Again, you don't challenge this positive intent. But you do point out how it runs contrary to a much bigger financial aim:

• "Your intent to save on HR development budgets is admirable. And if you want to get maximum return on your much bigger salary bill, you'll want your staff to become highly competent through professional qualifications."

Or you might clarify your own intent in this discussion. Perhaps you've proposed a training programme, and have met with the objection above. You need to reassure the other person what you really want.

• "I'm not trying to make your staff leave. I'm trying to help them stay as part of a supportive, professional and highly productive team that you can be proud of."
  

Here's another example of how you might work with Intent.
Your associate says: 
"We can't hire you because you're under-experienced" - or put another way, to be more obviously cause-and-effect - 
"Your lack of experience causes us to say that we can't hire you".

Here are some responses to the objection that focus on intent. The first two acknowledge that the other person has a positive intent. However, you then point out other factors which may tempt them to loosten their thinking.

• "I know that you intend to hire an experienced person, but you might end up with a tired and cynical old dog who can't learn new tricks."
  
• "I know that you intend to use experience as a factor in selecting for this post. However, I hope you won't overlook the other important attributes that the right person will need."

This example works with your own intent. It clarifies that you're not intending to deceive the other person, and emphasises a very positive intent:

• "I'm not trying to pretend that I'm highly experienced. I want to extend my experience whilst making my mark in this sector of the industry. I'm looking for the right team in which to excel."

Here are some more examples of how you can counteract arguments by working with your intent or theirs.

Your associate says:
"We have to shelve your project because of financial cutbacks." - or put another way, to be more obviously cause-and-effect -
"Financial cutbacks cause us to shelve your project."

Responses to the objection that focus on intent:

• "I realise that you intend to save money by shelving the project, but you will be losing the financial benefits that the project is set to deliver"
  
• "This project is not designed to waste money, our intent is to deliver benefits with real value to the company."
  
• "I can see that you're looking to make a short term saving. Do bear in mind that the cost of missing this project could be enormous - we will lose all the benefits it is designed to give."

Your associate says:  
"Lack of time at work means I can't put new skills into practice."

Responses to the objection that focus on intent:

• "I know that you intend to keep your workload under control. And if you don't try out any new tactics for managing your work you'll always be just as short of time as you are right now."
  
• "I can see that you only want to take on valuable activities, because your time is so precious. Surely gaining new skills will be very valuable if they help you release more time."
  
• "I'm not suggesting that you waste time on new skills. I'm suggesting that you invest some time now on skills that will help you release time."

Your associate says:
"Your proposal is too complicated."

Responses to the objection that focus on intent:

• "My intent was not to confuse you, but to demonstrate that I've thought the plan through thoroughly."
  
• "I realise that your role is to work at the big picture strategic level. And the complexities of this plan are relevant to delivering that big picture."
  
• "I appreciate that you don't intend to deal with the complex detail. I just don't want you to feel that I hid any important elements of the plan from you."

And so on to our last new tactic for this module...

Tactic 3.  Our Ideals

For this tactic, we focus on the appealing or important ideals or principles that drive our own proposal.

We contrast these with less appealing ideals that might drive opponent's proposal. Usually they don’t explicitly say what that ideal is. We have to guess. And this gives the flexibility to guess something that makes our proposal stand out as favourable by comparison. We need to take care here. We usually don’t want to offend our associate by suggesting that they are motivated by immoral or evil values.

The best ideals to use in support of your your own case are those that your opponent or the team or the company have already established as important. Your organisation's mission statement or your department's main functions are good sources of useful ideals.

Once again - some examples will help to clarify how this works:

Your associate says: 
"Upgrading equipment always causes technical problems."

Here are some responses that contrast ideals. This first one assumes that your associate’s ideal is to have zero technical risk, and that your higher ideal is to have industry standard equipment:

• "Surely it's more important to have industry standard equipment, than to avoid any technical risk."

This next one is more aggressive. It suggests that your associate is motivated by extreme risk aversion, and it sets you up as progressive company leader:

• "Isn't our company mission all about progress and growth, rather than stagnation and decay?"

This one contrasts the unhelpful ideal of fear with the more helpful ideal of supporting the business.

• "Shouldn't we support the business with modern equipment, rather than being frightened off by potential teething troubles?"

This strategy works by aligning your point of view with a generally accepted ideal or "truth". "Obviously" we need industry-standard equipment; we're all agreed that we're into progress and reject decay; we support the business fearlessly. Everyone who's really on board with reality would agree, surely...

And you need to exercise care. People's ideals are important to them. And they don't like being accused of having unappealing ideals. So the example "Isn't our company mission all about progress and growth rather than stagnation and decay?" might ruffle a few feathers. In effect, you're accusing your associate of holding "stagnation and decay" as key ideals. This is no problem with the right person, done in the right way. It can act as a useful shock tactic. However, many people would be offended. If in doubt, go to a different tactic.

Here are some more examples of debate using the Our Ideals tactic.

Your associate says: 
"Telling jokes at work means you're unprofessional."

Responses to the objection that contrast ideals -

• "Isn’t it more important to focus on a team’s results rather than whether they manage to avoid having fun?"
  
• "Surely encouraging wit, creativity and good working relationships is more valuable than suppressing them."
  
• "Our mission this quarter is to deliver the Beeblebrox project. We have no objectives about becoming humourless."

So there's some theory and some practical examples.
Now - go and make it work for you...

5. Putting it into practice

Thesetactics can be very effective when used in live debate. To do that, you need to be familiar with how they work and well-practiced in their use. A great way to develop these skills is to work with the sorts of arguments and objections that you encounter most at work. Make a note of the debating points that you'd love to have a better response for. Make a note of the stock answers that your colleagues habitually give to justify this or that.

Then spend some time constructing possible answers, using each of the 3 tactics described above. Use your own words, so that you can speak naturally. There is no single right or wrong answer. Play with ideas. Write down your best ones, then come back later and refine them.

Experiment with using the tactics you've developed. There are 2 main ways to do this:

1. The prepared response.

Having done your prep work on the most common objections that you have to deal with, you have tools at the ready. Try them out as the objections come along again. So you're ready when an IT user comes out with:

 "Can't you just fix it now? Logging issues on the system is a waste of time." you can respond with something like:

• Logging issues on the system guarantees that your problem gets the attention it deserves. OR
• I'm not trying to waste your time, I'm trying to operate to the company's quality standards. OR
• It's more important for me to give you a proper service to agreed standards, rather than cutting corners or doing  unprofessional work.

2. The pre-emptive strike.

You have your list of debating points that your colleagues are likely to use, and you have your counter-arguments at the ready. Rather than wait for them to raise their objection, you come up with the counter-argument up front. This can be great for presentations and even written reports, where you have time to think beforehand.

You know who are the people at the presentation that need convincing. You can have a good guess at the objections that they might raise, or at least the issues that concern them. So you put your counter-argument in there even before they have opened their mouths. You don't raise the objection for them. You just answer it, which may well stop it arising at all.

For example, you're presenting a proposal for a technical upgrade to your business team. You know that at least one of them is very wary of the technical problems that can be encountered during upgrades. This has killed other proposals. So you go along prepared. You include in your presentation comments like:

• Once established, this upgrade will give us much greater capability and reliability, far outweighing any teething troubles.
• It's important that we have industry-beating capabilities, delivered by this upgrade. And pursuing that capability is more important than eliminating all technical risk.
• I know that we alll want to minimise technical disruption during the upgrade, so I propose to give it the preparation it needs to happen smoothly. 

This doesn't guarantee that you'll get no objections, or that they'll agree to everything you want. But it does give you a good start because you've answered some of their queries before they could arise.

Now go and try it out for real.

Look out for other tactics from this family in later technicalinfluence.com modules.