Formal and Informal Argumentation

Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning

Commentary: This is a series on effective reasoning as it applies to project management. Using proper argumentation in a project while vetting risk, options, objectives, strategies, and workaround solutions can strengthen a project's performance, improve communications, and develop a sense of unity. Effective argumentations comes down to building the strongest case for a claim. In this series I will be summarizing points made by David Zarefsky in his Teaching Company coursework as well as drawing on other resources.   This series of posts may be reviewed at the Argumentation Series Posts link.

In the last posting we looked at the assumptions behind argumentation. In this posting we will look at deductive and inductive reasoning.

Formal and InFormal Argumentation

The degree of certainty is a division between the primary forms of argumentation; formal and informal. Formal reasoning is deductive which is strongly certain. Informal reasoning is inductive and is strongly uncertain. The majority of argumentation is informal.

Formal Argumentation

A formal argument is deductive in nature as the conclusion flows from its premises. The conclusion contains no more information which may be implicit than in the premises. This suggest two corollaries; deductive reasoning is analytic and does not contribute to increasing knowledge. Deductive reasoning simply rearranges knowledge requiring no reference to the natural world and may be counterfactual. 

Commentary: Deductive reasoning flows logically from a set of premises. It assumes that the knowledge or information is truthful and simply attempts to demonstrate a logical association. For example, evolutionist claim based on randomness that random genetic drift and random natural actions result in cumulative change that leads to speciation. Evolutionist offer support for this claim at a higher level of the argument such as animals that have undergone mutation and adaption. While logical and a well stated claim, the challenge with this claim is that the well accepted Chaos Theory states there is an underlying order to all things natural. Order is counter to randomness. Chaos Theory supports probabilistic outcomes (mathematic formulation) in lieu of randomness (no mathematical formulation). This evolutionary claim, at the low level assumption of randomness, has a significant challenge to overcome if it is to be accepted despite its logical conclusion based on randomness. This also brings up a point about levels within an argument which will be addressed later in the series.  

Figure 1

The basic unit of reasoning in formal argumentation is the syllogism which is the structure of two premises and a conclusion. There are three forms of syllogisms; categorical, conditional, and disjunctive. Categorical syllogisms contain statements that relate categories. The statements may be universal or partial and inclusive or exclusive. The only terms that identify quantities are all, some, and none. The soundness of a categorical syllogism is tested either by drawing a Venn diagram, Figure 1, or applying rules of distribution. Venn diagrams represent informational domains as fields that may overlap to show degrees of inclusivity or exclusivity. Domain fields may also be exclusive and illustrate no inclusivity at all. Rules of distribution are used to govern proportionality.

Conditional syllogisms are if-then statements. The "if" is antecedent and the "then" is e consequence. The argument is sound if the antecedent is affirmed or the consequent is denied. The converse does not hold true.

Disjunctive syllogisms are either-or statements. The argument accepts or rejects one of the alternatives drawing a conclusion about the other alternative. Rejecting one option always results in accepting the other and is determined from the context of the argument.

Commentary: Deductive reasoning has it place in academic circles and investigative endeavors where discovery (finding something that exists) is more important than revelation (a new realization).  A Project manager must be able to discern the which type of reasoning is best suited for the circumstances. We will talk more on this later after more of the foundations are in place.  

Desire for Change

Formal argumentation has been the desired or preferred method for most of the 20th century. There is a movement in academic circles in which formal reasoning is not seen as the prototype for argumentation. The claim is that very seldom does one reason in a syllogistic form. Most argumentation is not represented by a form in which the conclusion contains no new information. The purpose of reasoning is to move the audience from what is already known to a new position or to justify a position taken. This requires a quantum leap in judgment for the audience and  is what the arguer seeks in order to justify his position.

Informal Argumentation

Informal argumentation functions as the model for everyday argumentation. The argument in this form cannot be extracted from the language in which it is cast. The conclusion often contains new information. The conclusion relies on probability rather than certainty. The conclusion can be asserted with confidence if the arguer adheres to the conventions of informal reasoning which is experiential. Informal argumentation seeks to convince the audience of a revelation or new realization. 

Commentary: Convincing your audience is reliant on building sound reasons for your claim. The reasons may not be empirically evident. Instead the reasons may adhere to self-evidence, a reasonable man understanding, or a stronger probability over other options. Moreover, one may be able to convince one audience with a line of reasoning but another may not adhere to the same reasoning. Therefore, the arguer must know his audience well. The evolution example given earlier is one such example. Ardent proponents of an argument like evolution tend to be emotionally attached and may ferociously seek to disqualify the new realization presented. 

As a project manager, there are times when syllogistic arguments are necessary. Such instances, may be financial, legal, or regulatory arguments. In these arguments, the project manager may not want to introduce new information which may continue the dialogue. Instead, he may desire to simply terminate the discussion and reason with certainty that a decision is valid in support of the financial, legal, or regulation conclusion.

Most of the time, especially in technology and complex projects, the project manager may realize many paths to the same end and the audiences may vary greatly. For example, different coders may have very different approaches to the same result. Likewise, the focus of leadership is different than a coder. Leadership may think in terms of profitability of a service while the coder thinks in terms of function and features. In a strategy-to-task endeavor the coder's results must match up with the leaderships strategy. The functions and features of the service need to contribute towards the strategy. The justifications for the results to leadership will be structured to the strategy and its desired outcomes. Meanwhile, justification for the results to a coder will be centered on points in their realm of functions and features towards the strategy. The right communication to the right people is very important in a project.

There is a certain amount of savvy that the project manager must have developed through experience and training in order to talk to the various audiences found in a project. The project manager must be able to shift swiftly between these audiences. Sometimes these dissimilar audiences will be in the same seating. During these meetings the focus is on the sponsor and/or senior stakeholders. Project principals in attendance such as coders should be made aware that the meetings focus is on these stakeholders.

I will skip the history on Argumentation. Next week's post will be on argument analysis. Future posting planned include a two part section on Attack and Defense, Evaluating the Evidence, and more on argumentation foundations. Once we complete the foundations, I will draw more on project management's use of argumentation. 

References:

Zarefsky, D. (2005) Argumentation: the study of effective reasoning. 2nd Ed. the Teaching Company. Chantilly, VA.

Underlying Assumptions of Argumentation

Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning

Commentary: This is a series on effective reasoning as it applies to project management. Using proper argumentation in a project while vetting risk, options, objectives, strategies, and workaround solutions can strengthen a project's performance, improve communications, and develop a sense of unity. Effective argumentations comes down to building the strongest case for a claim. In this series I will be summarizing points made by David Zarefsky in his Teaching Company coursework as well as drawing on other resources.   This series of posts may be reviewed at the Argumentation Series Posts link.

In the last post, we discussed the basics of argumentation. In argumentation there is no right to an opinion or a matter of an opinion as these cannot resolve a dispute. Argumentation is reason giving as a justification for a claim made. Reasons are logical and ethically presented. Argumentation has an inherent uncertainty and relies on ascent of the audience.

Underlying Assumptions of Argumentation

Ultimately, argumentation is a means of decision making. There are five key assumptions used when we employ argumentation. Understanding these assumptions is essential to building a strong argument.

Assumption ONE. Argumentation takes place with an audience who are the ultimate judge of success or failure. There is a long history dating back to ancient Greece of orators seeking to debate and influence audiences. The Federalist Papers were written and designed to influence a specific audience. The claims made in these historical debates were not always universal truths but instead subject to acceptance by the audience at hand. The audience’s disposition towards a worldview will affect values, priorities, and methods of judgment. Typically, the audience is composed of those the arguer desires to influence and some may not be directly present or may be silent listeners. Recognizing and/or acknowledging differences in the audience's beliefs does not entail acceptance. Instead, acknowledging the differences indicates recognition of many beliefs in the audience and may result in a greater willingness to listen to what an arguer is presenting.

Commentary: As a project manager, it is not uncommon to make presentations to stakeholders and  principals (your audience) on a project. Dale Carnegie offers wisdom regarding audiences. One of Carnegie’s base principles is to become genuinely interested in other people which leads to several related principles; begin in a friendly way, be a good listener, and  talk in terms of the other person. Finally, respect the other person's opinion.  One must overcome personality obstacles regularly. The use of Dale Carnegie methods goes a long way toward winning your audience over.

Assumption TWO. Argumentation occurs under the conditions of uncertainty. The notion of certainty can be audience dependent. This uncertainty originates from genuine differences in claims made that matter to the audience who wish to see the matter resolved. These differences can be controversial which has multiple dimensions as explicit or implicit, centered on a single or multiple proponents, or relate to one or more claims. The uncertainty requires an inferential leap that the audience must accept.

Commentary: Uncertainty arises not only from a lack of evidence or a break in a line of logic due to missing information but also from different world views. Most world views profess some sort of self-truth and resulting claims as an outcome of those truths that affect people's conduct and judgment. As an project manager arguing a project issue, realizing these difference in the audience and being able to speak to those differences is crucial to winning support. For example, credit and risk is handled differently under various world views. Under one world view interest cannot be charged for risk but under another system that is perfectly accepted and a foundational element for making more than what you were given. This may require an adaptation to not only a project manager's risk planning scheme to accommodate his audience but also to is procurement management during the project as interest is charged based on risk.  These considerations are important in a multi-cultural society and even more important in international projects.

Assumption THREE. Argumentation centers on justification of a claim not proof of an idea or belief. The arguer offers reasons for the audience to make inferential leaps. The audience uses critical judgment. If a reasonable person is convinced then the reasons are accepted indicating the claim is justified. A justified claim entails certain implications:

1. A justification differs from a proof as it is subjective and conditionally dependent on the audience.
2. The audience is willing to be convinced yet skeptical enough not to take unsupported statements.
3. Justification is always provisional and subject to new information or arguments.
4. The strength of an argument varies from merely plausible to highly possible.

Commentary:  Epistemology is the study of knowledge and its limits.  In general, the truth scale ranges from correspondent truths to epistemic truths.  A correspondent truth is fact based and self-evident. i.e. the car is red. Epistemic truths are based on assumptions that have either strong rationale behind the assumption or supporting facts from which an inference is made. Hence, there is a degree of uncertainty in an epistemic truth. As a project manager, especially during a complex project, circumstances are not always clear cut. Project managers need to make judgments based on experience and their knowledge. They develop work-around solutions when road blocks pop up. Often these work-arounds are questioned by stakeholders. Having a strong rationale behind the work-around builds confidence and improves stakeholder relationships. This often requires some due diligence of the stakeholders and developing a good stakeholder register and keeping it current by listening closely to them.

Assumption FOUR: Argumentation is more cooperative than adversarial. The arguers and audiences have the common goal of reaching the best possible answer. The adversarial relationships or roles have a place of improving the rigor, reduce the likelihood that critical details will be omitted, and strengthen confidence in the result. The matters in which the arguers agree include a common frame of reference from which the disagreement is built, a common language and system of meanings, they share procedural assumptions and norms as to what counts as evidence, and they share modesty, respect for the audience, as well as respect for free ascent as the arguers compete for their rationale to be chosen.

Commentary:  Project managers often encounter nay sayers and stakeholders that have an agenda.  They have politically charged questions and seek to derail the project managers rationale or redirect the conversation towards their desired outcomes. Thus, project managers must know their audiences well and make use of 'parking lots' in order to keep the conversation focused. The 'parking lot' is a technique for maintaining control as a comment or question will be put in the 'parking lot' in order to return to it later under controlled dialogue and not offend the member of the audience. Typically, the project manager would remark that is a good point and let us come back to it at the end.  When addressing it later it can be done as part of the presentation or discussion or as a sidebar marginalizing the impact.

Assumption FIVE: Argumentation entails risks. Two principal risks are losing the argument and losing face to the perception of a poor argument or position. The incentive to engage in an argument must outweigh the risk for an individual and indicates a willingness to accept the risk. The arguer assumes the same value of personhood of the adversary as for themselves as sort of a reflection of the Golden Rule.

Commentary:  Argumentation for the project manager is not always voluntary. Responsible for the project outcomes the project manager must be sharp and well attuned to the issues. Challenges come regularly to the project manager sometimes visibly and sometimes behind the scenes as project principles and stakeholders will communicate then challenge the project manager on a point.  This is when Carnegie principles become important in the argumentation process again. first, the project manager must not knee jerk and become defensive or take jabs at the other arguer, the project manager must ensure that the other arguer(s) save face. Smile.  Do not condemn or criticize instead simply state your rationale and state the risks, if any, of the other approach. Be honest in your assessments. If the stakeholder choses an undesirable path, seek to further understand, and look for compromising work-arounds that permit the same outcomes but satisfy the desire for undesirable path. If scope, cost, and schedules are impacted then communicate these concerns to all the stakeholders as some decisions are in the group or with the sponsor. 

Possessing skillful, ethical, and persuasive argumentation talents can aid one in business and personal interactions. Properly structuring an argument can reduce emotional reactions and generate interest towards your claim. In project management, developing traceable rationale behind judgments, decisions, and choices aides in communications with stakeholders and other principals involved in the project.  In the next post, we will discuss formal and informal argumentation.

References:

Zarefsky, D. (2005) Argumentation: the study of effective reasoning. 2nd Ed. the Teaching Company. Chantilly, VA.

Introduction To Argumentation

Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning

Commentary: This is a series on effective reasoning as it applies to project management. Using proper argumentation in a project while vetting risk, options, objectives, strategies, and workaround solutions can strengthen a project's performance, improve communications, and develop a sense of unity. Effective argumentations comes down to building the strongest case for a claim. In this series I will be summarizing points made by David Zarefsky in his Teaching Company coursework as well as drawing on other resources.   This series of posts may be reviewed at the Argumentation Series Posts link.

A common challenge today is the practice by many people of placing a high degree of confidence in an unsupported personal belief as though this belief is somehow sacred. They are not open to the possibility they may be incorrect. The problem with a personal belief is that they are just that, personal and no one else holds the belief to any degree of esteem. Therefore, in order to settle disputes and determine the strongest support for a claim there must be some sort of process that all can follow and agree on the method of discernment. Argumentation is that process and requires training to become effective. Let us begin with the basics. 

Introduction: Effective Reasoning

Argumentation is common but an imperiled activity. Many people think of arguments as quarrelsome, heated, and unpleasant. They tend to think any disagreement is somehow destructive and unhealthy. Other  people tend to interact with only those whose share the same views to avoid elevated debate or challenges to their claims. Nearly all treat opinions as unbridgeable. Jamie Whyte argues in his book, “Crimes Against Logic”, that people often argue they have a right-to-an-opinion when disputed in order to deflect the argument to a discussion of rights. Whyte comments that when there is a right, there is also a duty. He postulates three questions then answers them:

1. Does a right-to-an-opinion require me to agree? NO. If both parties have the right to their own opinions then agreeing would violate the right. The duty to support another opinion violates one’s own right to an opinion. Thus, opposing opinions cannot both be valid.
2. Does a right-to-an-opinion require me to listen? NO. Listening to unlimited opinions is not practical. Thus, it cannot be a duty that is fulfilled naturally nor easily.
3. Does a right-to-an-opinion allow an opinion to persist? NO. Any entitlement or merit to an opinion, in an epistemic sensibility, is founded upon good reason such as evidence or sound logic in order to be durable.

If there is a right-to-an-opinion then such a right cannot settle disputes because another’s rights cannot be violated (Whyte, 2004).  Clearly, there is paradoxical tension in this alleged right as opposing opinions have to be treated equal and as valid. Hence, there cannot be a right-to-an-opinion because the duties cannot be executed naturally or easily.

That's just a matter-of-opinion is a common expression heard these days which needs to be addressed as well. Whyte furthers his concept remarking that a matter-of-opinion has no objective standard by which to judge. He comments that facts do not rely on opinions and facts do not emerge by having a mere belief in them. Therefore, matters-of-opinion are not relevant, demonstrate no clear understanding, and should not exist. Authoritative opinions do not rely on a voice or character as evidence but instead rely on solid logic, evidence, and reasoned expertise to decide within certain limits or scope of a discipline of thought.

Defining Argumentation

Argumentation is effective reasoning drawing upon principles, intellectual dialogue, and reasoned judgments in order to produce both a product of messages and a process of interactions. Argumentation may be a lost art today as few seek to improve argumentation skills to gain influence, resolve disputes, and strengthen positions through effective reasoning.

Effective reasoning means that one is capable of debating a claim and arriving at a reasonable conclusion under the construct of argumentation. Thus, an argument is reason giving as justification of a claim. Reasons given are most often not absolutes. Thus, the entire concept of argumentation is built upon the uncertainty of a claim and its reasons. This uncertainty originates from complexity, value judgments, future speculation, broad scope of the problem set, or truths that cannot be directly observed.

The process of argumentation relies on logic, dialectics, and rhetoric underpinnings. Logic is concerned with the principles regarding reliable associations of knowledge and information that support a premise known as a line-of-logic. Rhetoric is concerned with how messages are formed in order to influence people. Dialectics is concerned with deliberation or consideration for the different sides of a debate. Thus, argumentation is structured, ordered, and deliberate.

The alternative to reason giving is to accept or reject claims on a whim, caprice, or the command of an authority figure. If we are to do this then we surrender to chance, accident, happenchance, or even coercion. Then we will believe and act upon these reasons impacting very important matters in human affairs. We do not want to do that without careful deliberation. What makes humans unique is the ability to reason and connect a claim to a line-of-logic.

Effectiveness and Ethics

Argumentation is the study of effective reasoning. Effectiveness implies a concern for an audience composed of one or more readers or listeners. The effectiveness of an argument is dependent on the ascent of the audience or adherence to a claim based on its reasons. In short, argumentation persuades an audience of a claim’s validity.

Ethical considerations figure prominently into argumentation given persuasion that creates limits on freedom of choice and is the application of superior to inferior ideas affecting the conditions of the workplace and/or society. Argumentation is respectful towards different ways of thinking and reasoning and does not impose influence but seeks free ascent.

Commentary: Possessing skillful, ethical, and persuasive argumentation talents can aid one in business and personal interactions. Properly structuring an argument can reduce emotional reactions and generate interest towards your claim. In project management, developing traceable rationale behind judgments, decisions, and choices aides in communications with stakeholders and other principals involved in the project.  In the next post, I will look at the underlying assumptions in argumentation. I will also draw upon resources such as Dale Carnegie, Stephen Covey, and others as I move through this series. 

References:

Whyte, Jamie, (2004)  Crimes Against Logic. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-144643-5

Zarefsky, D. (2005) Argumentation: the study of effective reasoning. 2nd Ed. the Teaching Company. Chantilly, VA.

OnGoing Project Manages Business Rules

Commentary:  This is a series of posts that will follow highlights of an ongoing project I am currently engaging. The project is the development of a turnkey thematic shopping cart. My charter as the project manager is to develop the prototype site, establish baseline performance metrics or reasonable sales, and turnover the prototype deliverables. I am not at liberty of discussing client specifics but will provide general highlights of the project in a series of sporadic posts. 

Business Rules

Success of a project from the PMI perspective is dependent upon the management of the scope, schedule, quality, cost, and achievement of the project objectives. From a purely pragmatic, get-the-job done, operational perspective this is sufficient. However, effectiveness and operational efficiency is not always considered. Sometimes businesses bring in lean experts afterwards or fine tune PMI styled projects using Six Sigma continuous improvement project methods later. Taking into consideration leaning the process early on in a PMI styled project may save money, efforts, and strengthen project effectiveness.

During the thematic shopping cart project, I have held such a focus. One of the concerns is the timing of the business rule execution. The error and format checking can be processed either client side or server side. If all the users hitting the site are processed on the server side this requires additional processors and RAM to handle the loading. So I decided to process basic error and format checking on the client side. By distributing this processing, I am able to achieve faster posts and reduce computational requirements at the hosting site saving cost as some hosting sites will charge extra for high load sites.

In achieving this goal, I decided to use client side JavaScript and Document Object Module, DOM, methodologies. Regular expressions, logical vetting, and format comparisons were used to vet the business rules ensuring the data is properly formatted, does not contain invalid characters, or is not blank.  I also provided messaging and stop light indicators to aid users in identifying issues. The following function is an example of the simple javascript that can vet characters in a password string as they are entered on the form. When the string length is long enough the stoplight bulb turns green. If any invalid characters are entered then a message appears informing the user.

<script>
function ComparePword(){
var BaseLine = document.getElementById("CreateForm").elements[1].value;
var BaseLineLen = BaseLine.length;
var CharChk = BaseLine.match(/[!^%$#]$/g); /* ------ Regular Expression */
 /* ---------------------------- Check for Invalid Characters */
if(CharChk == "#" || CharChk == "$" || CharChk == "%" || CharChk == "^" || CharChk == "!" ){
                 var MSG1 = CharChk + " is a prohibited character";
                document.getElementById("MSG").value = MSG1; }
       else{
  var MSG1 = "";
  document.getElementById("MSG").value = MSG1; }
/* ---------------------------- Check for required length */
  if( BaseLineLen > 5 ){
  document.getElementById("status1a").src="images/GRN-BALL.GIF";}
  else{
              document.getElementById("status1a").src="images/RED-BALL.GIF"; }
return;
       }
</script>

You can observe the code in action at Sample Code. I simplified the script for demonstration purposes. The actual scripts are much more involved.

The overall take away is that when business rules are evaluated early and on client machines, computational requirements can be reduced and application performance can be enhanced. The overall outcome is that not only is the project a success based on scope, cost, schedules, quality and objectives but it also becomes a broader success because simple technical considerations normally overlooked were handled effectively.

Commentary: In my next post, I want to return to operational project management processes from these tactical considerations that enhance project success. I want to discuss the SDLC processes on this project.   The next post is not scheduled so please monitor for it.   Please review my other postings. Feel free to email me at james.bogden@gmail.com or post a comment. Thanks for reading!

Project Posts:

1. Ongoing Project: Combining Project Management with Hands On Skills
2. Project Management: Unique Skills Beyond Paper Documents
3. OnGoing Project Manages Business Rules

Project Management: Unique Skills Beyond Paper Documents

Commentary:  This is a series of posts that will follow highlights of an ongoing project I am currently engaging. The project is the development of a turnkey thematic shopping cart. My charter as the project manager is to develop the prototype site, establish baseline performance metrics or reasonable sales, and turnover the prototype deliverables. I am not at liberty of discussing specifics but will provide general highlights of the project in a series of sporadic posts.

Project Management and Unique Skills

While project managers create the standard project documents, technical specifications, and a plan of action and milestone (POA&M) at the operational level, the tactical piece requires unique skills. The technical requirements can be achieved tactically in many ways. Each approach has its benefits and drawbacks. For example, without getting into the security specifics, this project has a requirement to default to the lowest level of access. That way if someone attempted to load a session page directly from the browser without logging in, it will redirect to the login page by default. This required careful testing of the logical constructs ensuring that the default is always to redirect to the login on any failed state. This sounds simple but incorrectly using operators or poor logical structures may create a subtle vulnerability. Aside from the careful review of the code execution for security design, other error checking and database design issues were just as challenging.  Many-to-many relationships are one of these challenges. These relationships do little for data normalization but are useful especially in sales and distribution design patterns. 

First, let us discuss this site project in general which is product centric having some complex relationships. There are base prices, retail prices, sales prices, and special pricing.  The vendors may include the manufacturer, wholesalers, and retailers. Products are assigned to multiple marketing channels and fulfillment services may be through more than one source. Thus, each product item may have several prices, vendors, and fulfillment sources. Source selection is determined by the mix of products desired by the client. I managed these relationships in the database through the use of many-to-many relationships. In handling the many-to-many relationships I used what I called matrix tables as demonstrated in Illustration 1.

When calling data from these tables, I used SQL SELECT statements that related the many-to-many relationships without getting to complicated but is a little more than an ordinary SELECT statement.   For example:

SELECT * FROM TBL_Item, MTX_ItemVendor, TBL_Vendor, TBL_Prices WHERE TBL_Item.IID = MTX_ItemVendor.IID AND MTX_ItemVendor.VID = TBL_Vendor.VID AND TBL_Item.IID = TBL_Prices.IID ORDER BY ItemName, VendorName.  

I had to be sort of tricky on the adding of a product by breaking up information in the form into separate actions such as inserting basic item data then the base pricing followed by vendor assignments. First, I inserted the new item record using a SQL statement similar to this one;

INSERT INTO TBL_Item (Name, Desc, Status) VALUES ('#Name#', '#Desc#', '#Status#')

Then I grabbed the new record identity immediately;

SELECT @@IDENTITY as 'Identity' FROM TBL_Item

I set the Identity equal to the IID then turned to the pricing. In the management of the information additional pricing is added later during routine updates as required but first the base pricing is inserted as the product record is created. I did not show the pricing table in Illustration 1 but it is in a one-to-many relationship to the Item table. Creating this pricing record is a simple insertion of the price into the price table much like this following statement that uses the captured Identity;

INSERT INTO TBL_Prices (IID, Price, Reason) VALUES ('#IID#', '#Price#', 'Base Price')

Finally, I pulled the vendor identities from the form list box of vendors then related the vendor to the item  in a looping construct. Coldfusion performed the looping based on the number of selected vendors. I used incremental variables where n indicated the vendor in the list box options then looped and inserted the records for the selected vendors in the selected array list using a SQL statement like this;

INSERT INTO MTX_ItemVendor (IID, VID) VALUES ('#IID#', '#VIDn#') 

The actual code, constructs, and field names were more detailed than the what I provided here. Nonetheless, the handling many-to-many concepts are what is important. I tried to keep it as simple as possible without sacrificing performance or security. One important step was to understand the full process and when specific information was needed. Cramming all the information into one form and trying to do everything at once is not always the best solution. For example, alternate pricing can be an update to the item record when the pricing is needed. Thus, at item record creation only the base price is really needed. Likewise, the processing of the information in the form was broken up in a behind the scenes in the processing page in which the form data was handled in incremental steps. Many-to-many relationships can be useful in some design patterns and may even simplify what could have been a complicated table structure and SQL actions.

In my next post on this project, I want to discuss the error checking methods I used with some of the forms to vet business rules without loading the server with unnecessary processing.

Commentary: The next post is not scheduled so please monitor for it.   Please review my other postings. Feel free to email me atjames.bogden@gmail.com or post a comment. Thanks for reading!

Project Posts:

1. Ongoing Project: Combining Project Management with Hands On Skills
2. Project Management: Unique Skills Beyond Paper Documents
3. OnGoing Project Manages Business Rules

When Conflict is Inevitable: ComeBacks at Work

Commentary: The work place has become a challenging place today. People are on edge, tempers flare, and in some cases the competitiveness has taken a hostile direction.  Simply good communication skills is not enough.  Professionals must become skilled at handling difficult people and in many cases corporate psychopaths.

This series of postings will discuss using communication methods to gain control of circumstances and reduce your chances of becoming a target. We will cover ten (10) chapters in the book "Comebacks at Work" over the next several weeks. I'll attempt to couple these when appropriate with other authors works such as Dale Carnegie.

When Conflict is Inevitable

People disagree. Thus, conflict is inevitable.  The trick is to manage disagreement in constructive ways and to avoid having ourself drawn into responding in disagreeable ways. One cannot be defensive nor needlessly personal.  Taking yourself out of disagreements and emotional detachment is important achieving an effective comeback.

Get Rid of "I" and "Me"

If you hear yourself using the words "I" or  "Me" more than occasionally then you more than likely are the problem. Using these pronouns allows emotions and feelings to dominate your thoughts and places the focus on yourself rather than the source of a problem. By doing so, the offending person does not have to explain, apologize, or correct their ways. Simply reframing your own responses to remove any personal focus and place the offending comment under the lens strengthens your position. In some cases, you can reframe ignoring insults and move things forward giving them a pass even though you know exactly what was intended. In essence, saving face is a Dale Carnegie thought. You will need to weigh your approaches and determine what is best for your objectives.

Thinking Along with Your Opposition

In general and as a rule, describing your emotional state is not appropriate and can be a mistake. Nonetheless, there are times to address emotions. At times, both sides have deeply invested views. Co-opting common portions and principles of the opposing side can allow for open discussions and debates without yielding the emotionally invested portions.  Making people feel they are wrong and you are right by virtue of their error rarely is effective.  Somehow you got to connect what matters to you with what matters with others.

"Telling it like it is" places people on the defensive. Inflammatory remarks simply indicates you fail to recognize  that people are often only partially incorrect. If you listen to what people say then you will realized that there are nuggets of agreement. Unfortunately, most people fail to see them.  Finding those nuggets during dissension is not easy but can save face, keep relationships sound, and move discussions forward.

Getting Past Derision

At times, we are all confronted with mockery and ridicule, derision. Sometimes the conduct originates from cultural bias, stereotypes, and at other times from immature behavior. Whatever the source of the derision,  you need to push through your doubts conjured up by the poor expectations of others. You need to bypass the negative first impressions and with confidence press ahead. 

To Put It In Your Words

Sometimes an offensive remark can be made part of a positive response. Rather than fight everything, consider parsing out pieces then co-opting them into your response.  This takes practice and you need to learn to listen carefully. Some people simply speak in negative manners that can derail progress. Learn to flip thoughts to positive connotations.

When Words Alone Will Not Do

Facial expressions and other body language can stand alone as comebacks. They can be more effective too. Gaining control and practicing the use of body language can send signals when words are not as effective.

Make People Feel Bigger

Always work to elevate other people even though the dispute is spirited. Ronald Reagan was a great communicator who used humor to refocus the situation.

Commentary: Making people feel bigger hinges on several Dale Carnegie principles such as Arouse Eager Want in Others, Make the other person feel important, or The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.

Reardon, K.K., (2010). Comebacks at work: using conversation to master confrontation. (1 ED.). Harper Collins publishers, New York

The Gut Check: Comebacks at Work

Commentary: The work place has become a challenging place today. People are on edge, tempers flare, and in some cases the competitiveness has taken a hostile direction.  Simply good communication skills is not enough.  Professionals must become skilled at handling difficult people and in many cases corporate psychopaths.

This series of postings will discuss using communication methods to gain control of circumstances and reduce your chances of becoming a target. We will cover ten (10) chapters in the book "Comebacks at Work" over the next several weeks. I'll attempt to couple these when appropriate with other authors works such as Dale Carnegie.

The Gut Check

Humans are both rational and emotional. They are not mutually exclusive but instead mutually inclusive. To deny one or the other is to deny part of who we are.  When one is cornered, humiliated, frustrated, attacked, or in some way placed on the spot then both logic and emotions form a gut feeling. Our emotional self picks up on the periphery while the logical portion focuses on the central information.  Reason selects the response and emotions sets the intensity.

Commentary: We often speak in terms of IQ and EQ as they relate to the 8 components of intelligence given in Frame of Mind authored by Howard Gardner. Author Daniel Goleman of numerous books on EQ has parsed Gardner's work and better grouped some of the intelligences renaming them. Nonetheless, 4 of the intelligences relate to IQ and the remaining other 4 to EQ.  The 4 Gardner's EQ intelligences are; Bodily-kinesthetic, Linguistic,  Interpersonal, and Intrapersonal. Understanding these intelligences and training on them can dramatically improve your skill in these areas. 

Developing a Gut Instinct

Gut instinct has both experiential and self-confidence elements. Over time you have had events in which you responded learning what works and does not. You also assessed you emotional tolerance levels for violation of your principles developing an anticipation of the situation and direction, intuition.  Intuition requires attention to people and the rules that drive them.

As to learn experientially, you may have a tendency to ignore intuition or to go with it too often. Either end of the range is problematic. You will need to begin assessing your responses to intuition and developing your sixth sense.

Becoming a Communication Detective

We observe the situation for clues about the emerging situation then attempt to connect  action with the anticipation. The more experience we have with a particular circumstance the more adept we are at connecting the correct action with the anticipation. The action becomes instinctive but you have this edge that you do not know why. It is a primal level sensibility.

The root of this ability is an outcropping of the fact that we are people of pattern and nature itself is patterned. The observant communicator picks up on these patterns. Dr. Reardon offers a model she calls the Comeback Component Model, figure 1.

Figure 1: Comeback Component Model (source: 2010, Comebacks at Work)

Effective comebacks originate from one of three components; gut instinct, current information, or episode memory. Proficient comeback artisans consider objectives of their own and the organizations as well what works and the big picture. This is a dance and balancing act.

You should seek to evaluate your weaknesses in the model's components then work to strengthen them. It is a good start to becoming a more effective communicator. The following four are examples of how people have learned to use instinct.

1. Gut Instinct on Moral Issues

You have a moral base and when actions of others violate that moral base you can react sternly and instinctively. However, allowing yourself to manage your reactions and filter information increases effectiveness. Appealing to the higher moral value and bigger picture can build support for an effective comeback. It is a balancing act between reaction and reason. You should even allow for mistakes and demonstrate confidence by recovering with your repertoire of comebacks.

2. Gut Instinct from Prior Experience

You have to build upon the past rearranging the present like jig saw puzzle pieces from the past applying them to the current puzzle. Effective comebacks then are a combination of logical and emotional assessments. This accomplished easily by those who have trained.

3. Gut Instinct in Inflexible Situations

Sometimes the gut reaction is to cut the push and move on due to inflexible circumstances. This can leave you with a sense of unfinished business. You will need to create a clean slate each day dumping any baggage.

4. Gut Instinct Relying on Learned Clues

With age and experience, you develop a sense of when to push and when to back off. Some people draw a line in the sand that denotes when the response is greater than the benefit.  One sort of has to get into the mind of another and anticipate responses and thinking. One has to be a double agent and detect what someone else is thinking about you. Vetting the information coming your way is important and to ensure you do not have incorrect data is just as important. Thus, assessing your emotions and body language is critical.

Dr. Reardon offers a checklist for self assessment in the book.

Commentary:  Project managers often have to rely on experiential knowledge and make quantum leaps in judgments. These quantum leaps often require gut instincts.  A major portion of project management is personality management. This is where gut instincts often act significantly. Project managers must learn how to read people and assess the situation at hand. Diverse cultural multi-national projects become even more complex and even more important to properly read people as some cultures will always show a smile yet be upset beneath the surface. This can manifest in various ways at the most inopportune time. Assessing the correct circumstances and gaining knowledge on your staff and key stakeholders culture is essential. Also establishing up front and early moral and ethical standards as well as workplace etiquette is important to moving production along smoothly. 

Having strong effective gut instincts takes training and a willingness to embrace mistakes as a principle centered leader.

Reference:

Reardon, K.K., (2010). Comebacks at work: using conversation to master confrontation. (1 ED.). Harper Collins publishers, New York.

Choosing a Relevant Comeback: Comebacks At Work

Commentary:  This is a series of posts on the book ComeBacks at Work by Dr Reardon.  This chapter  will help you with comebacks at work. The length of the post may be daunting but this was one of the core chapters with a lot of information. I suggest you copy the R-list onto a wallet sized card and refer to it occasionally as you self-train on these methods.

Choosing a Relevant Comeback

Dr Reardon has discussed how comebacks work and what typically gets in the way of effective comebacks. This chapter offers a list of comebacks and categories but still requires you to practice and discern the appropriate time and place to use them. Reardon suggests that you make a list and review it from time-to-time.

The Comeback R-List

As with most forms of knowledge the more you study the more you become proficient. Comebacks are not a mystery to be held by some elite group of intellectuals. The ground state for learning is to memorize the R-List of Comebacks. This will put you on the path of significant comeback improvement. The R-List of the most common comebacks types drawn upon follows:

• Reframe: Recast the issues in a different light

• Rephrase: Say it in a different light way that works better for the you.

• Rejoin: Disarm the other person with an offhand phrase or witty retort.

• Revisit: Use an earlier success to redefine a current failures.

• Restate: Clarify or redirect.

• Request: Ask focused and deliberate questions.

• Rebalance: Adjust their power over you.

• Reorganize: Prioritize the issues to your favor.

• Rebuke: Chastise them or bring them up short.

• Retaliate: Get back at the them.

The list makes a handy tool from which to think more quickly. We will begin a closer inspection of each type.

Reframe:  This one is the absolute favorite of many people. People naturally default to this method as they seek to define circumstances and people around them. Often people will carefully select the terms used. For instance, 'agrees' and 'admits' have two very different connotations. Agrees insinuates a state of being nice and cooperative. Whereas admits suggests guilt or a sense of being wrong. Therefore, careful selection of wording can reframe the conversation to one's favor.

The objective of a reframing strategy is to take the words used by another person then alter them in order to change the connotative and/or denotative meaning of the interaction toward your desired outcomes.

Reframing is a powerful tool that in practice becomes crucial to effective comebacks. Gaining skill in this method will propel you far beyond others who allow the words of another to define who they become. You will gain control over the situation and negotiate beet outcomes.

Rephrase: This method is similar to reframing but instead of changing meaning, this method asserts the correct or intended meaning. If the remark is left unchecked then it could result in dysfunctional relationships and paths. This method often begins with phrases like:

• Did you mean to say...
• If you meant...
• Would it be better to say...

Rephrasing seeks to clarify the situation by stepping back then regrouping and moving forward under the corrected or better understanding.

Rejoin:  This method is designed and intended to avoid an awkward moment or digressing commentary by another that may result in an argument or you looking bad. The rejoiner is usually a neutral comment.

• Good for you
• Whatever...
• If that floats your boat

These are intended to diffuse an awkward moment and/or bring a strange comment to a close.

Revisit:  Perfectly good conversations go bad simply because of a wrong word, thought, or poor body language. The revisit methods stops the downward spiral by returning to a good point. For example, reminders of the successes the two parties have had or returning to where the conversation left off on a positive note.

Revisiting is an anchor in a conversation and there can be many. Attentive and skilled comeback artisans listen for anchor points and changes in tone. At such tone changes, a revisit can quickly abate a downturn keeping the conversation on track.

Restate:  We are responsible for 75% of how we are treated and sometimes we say things we did not mean or were simply misinterpreted.  The quickest solution to this dilemma is to restate:

• Oh forgive me, let me restate ...
• Lets back up and start over....
• Did I just say that...

If done well, that is with humility and grace, most people will understand as they have done it too. Of course, if this happens too much then you will have other issues to contend with as others will expect you to self correct. Other than that you can use restatement as a means to restore a derailed conversation.

In some instances, especially when you are the leader, you may desire to assume more than your share of responsibility. You may do this for a variety of reasons. For example, other people are too focused on their mess up, you may have set the conditions for the mix up, or the situation is heading down the wrong path and needs to be brought to a stop. Regardless, of the cause, a decision is made to put the circumstances back on track by restating the intended communications in a non-offensive and positive light.

Restating is breaking patterns over an argument of right or justified in order to become effective again.

Request:  WHEN IN DOUBT ASK! This method is perhaps the least used and the most important one of them all. Most people never ask questions. They simply react. Many people believe asking questions is a  result of poor listening skills or is an indicator of weakness. Yet experts tout that the sign of a good leader is an inquisitive nature of asking questions. Therefore, when in doubt ask questions to validate your perceptions.

You rarely want to shoot from the hip but at times cannot avoid this. Training on the request comebacks can aid in reducing the negative affects of shooting from the hip. Asking the right questions can stall the moment long enough to assess misperceptions and clarify comments further. Sometimes people will attempt to wave off or graze over questions for a host of reasons. For example, they may feel it is too probing or revealing, a question could also be interpreted as an insult, indecisiveness, or a lack of competence. You have to exude confidence and properly phrase the questions. Your questioning should arise from the ole dictum of the 5W's and an H. He are some examples:

• Who put that idea out there?
• What is the real objective here?
• Where did you get that information?
• When should this be discussed?
• Why is this being brought up now?
• How are you going to contribute to the solution?

The last point and word of caution is that you do not want to elicit responses that you do not already have a feel about. Asking questions often leads to more questions which could be embarrassing or cause other issues. Model your questioning based on Socrates approach to guiding and steering conversations.

Asking questions causes people to rethink things and clarifies the situation. They can also buy time. Therefore, ask questions.

Rebalance:  This method is about retaking power from those who have attempted to usurp your power and control. I'm the workplace, there are people who block progress of your work or take control of the destiny of your work. This is accomplished through a variety of means. First, you must understand that power is yours to give away and we do to undeserving people way too much.

One approach is to be proactive and take control of even minor circumstances. For example, a letter of recommendation that never seems to get written would be better handled by writing it yourself and walking it through the process.

You can use language that softens your level of control by asking if you can swing by to either drop it off or pick it up. In the end, you take positive control, usurp getting upset and frustrated, and manage the circumstances on your tine schedule.

Reorganize:  All too often people create problems when they organize and prioritize activities that can affect other people. A skillful communicator will monitor for this seemingly benign ordering of importance by others then they will reset the order when common activities are imbalanced.

This method is also useful when people fail to prioritize too. Some people will see all activities in equal concern 'cluttering' with too much information then executing in a haphazard manner. A good communicator will assess this remove the excess and/or irrelevant data then zero in on the primary concerns. Often the communicator must take control of the situation and impose order on the chaos.

Reorganizing is a handy comeback strategy that focuses on the process. It can peel away personal injects and get at prioritizing the concerns. Reorganize may be characterized as the correction for a failure to communicate.

Rebuke:  This method should used sparingly. A good communicator and leader would read the anticipatory clues then avoid any confrontation by simply minimizing exposure. Thus, never having to employ this method.

Nonetheless, letting people walk all over you or challenge your authority, respect, or esteem directly and overtly should never be tolerated. If you are confident about the nature of the remark or the character of the person then you have the rebuke method available to you.

The rebuke can come in several forms. Some these are:

Directly addressing the remark: This often results in a battle of the wits and refocuses the situation on the human relationships rather than the circumstances and progress.

Public humiliation: This is a belligerent method that can have dramatic impacts on morale, relationships, and cooperation. Other people may see this in an unfavorable light or misinterpret your intentions. This should not be employed unless the persons conduct is over the top, unyielding, and itself public. The best approach is to bring attention to the persons conduct. 

Offering insulting commentary: Often used as an affront to their conduct or overbearing positions or when someone is acting in a pompous and arrogant manner. The intent is to terminate the conversation and reject their commentary by positioning yourself opposite of them.

Affirm the relationship: This is used when someone assumes undeserved authority or attempts to control you in an obnoxious or dominant manner. ie you are not my boss!

Gratuitous Insults: These are comments made that sound endearing to bystanders but possess a sting to the recipient. 

Good communicators practice these techniques and are exceptionally cautious about deploying them. They seek to avoid these circumstances rather than deal with them.

Retaliate:  This method, in all truth, should never be deployed. Once again a good leader and communicator will avoid these circumstances like the plague. Nonetheless, the workplace is brutal and there are people who deliberately take hostile actions against coworkers. They have a mindset to identify office place enemies and marginalized them. This method is outright belligerence.

Retaliation can come in various forms. One can usurp another's authority, control, and/or respect in the workplace. Even set the initial conditions for termination. However, retaliation and the circumstances that call for it are best avoided.

Commentary: In a secular world and work place that is becoming increasingly hostile, common grace and dignity are fleeting principles. Many people aspire to more power, visible material wealth, and influence. Other people simply are in over their heads and resort to less than becoming conduct. Thus, saving facing and acquiring power, wealth, and influence become more important than human relationships which are cavalierly treated as expendable. Stephen Covey speaks to principle centered leadership which gets at the root of these issues and may be a good review for you. 

Finding Your Comeback Comfort Zone

There are many strategies, techniques, and methods that have been presented thus far. Not all of these may best fit each person's individual style as most people have comfort zones. It is important to know your comfort zone and have an awareness of when to leave it. If you are unable to manage this then you will feel helpless and stressed at work.

One of the key abilities of a good communicator is to know when to let loose, bluff, and/or avoid. This is essential to making effective comebacks and achieving the desired outcomes. Some communicators enjoy being underestimated and use that to their advantage.

The bottom line is that effective comebacks operate within your comfort zone, are deliberate, managed, and achieve a positive outcome. Negative comeback strategies should be avoided and employed only as a last resort. Usually these negative strategies are outside most people's comfort zone. Nonetheless, knowing when to use a method and when not to is a personal choice refined with experience and practice.

Commentary: Many of the negative methods have their foundations in war fighting concepts. These have been popularized and discussed in books like Leadership Principles of Attila the Hun or Sun Tzu: The Art of War. For example, taking a strength and portraying it as a weakness in order for your opponent to underestimate you. Once lured in, you retaliate with a vengeance. Many people have read these books and have taken those principles to heart. As an outcome you may be confronted with these in the workplace as they practice them.

For example, I worked in a small firm once where they often perform duties as professional witnesses. Some of the professionals in the firm had been trained in psychological methods used in the court room and often practiced them on the staff in the office in order to achieve their mundane objectives. It gave them a sense of power over others by often usurping another's authority. However, whenever someone unexpectedly pushed back the professional witness's own insecurities would run uncontrollable and even childish. It would be wise to at least have an understanding of these counter-culture books and methods out there when assessing comeback strategies. Your objective is not to war fight but instead bring people together and focus on positive outcomes.

Which comebacks work for you

You now have a sense of which methods are in your comfort zone. Now you need to assess the intensity with which your comebacks are applied. There is a rheostat of intensity that ranges from passive to highly aggressive. The various degrees of intensity follow:

• Let it Pass - ignore the remarks, silence, perhaps comment that you will let that one go.
• Silent Contact - long stare, a nod of disapproval, or other body language of disapproval.
• Give the Chance to do the right thing - rephrase, revisit, restate, request
• Set them straight for their own benefit - restate, rebalance, reorganize, rebuke
• Consider yourself told - rebuke, retaliate, rebalance,
• You'll wish you were never born - retaliate, hard glares or body language of disgust, public humiliation,

You should think about your comfort zone and the use of intensity in your responses. Dr. Reardon offers a matrix scale to meter your response levels. Ideally, intensity should be low and positivity should be high. It is better not to over do it and on the safe side. Then gradually increase intensity over time learning the best levels. You do not want to err on the side of high negativity and high intensity. That could have negative impacts on you.

In the end, you do not have to be someone you are not. You simply need to increase awareness, learn new methods, practice delivery, and be yourself but a little more savvy.

References:

Covey, S.R. (1992). Principle Centered Leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: the power of thinking without thinking. (1 ED). Little, Brown and Company. New York

Griffith, S.B. (1971). The Art of War. Oxford University Press 

Reardon, K.K., (2010). Comebacks at work: using conversation to master confrontation. (1 ED.). Harper Collins publishers, New York

Roberts, W. (1990) Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun. Business Plus