{"id":2449,"date":"2015-09-10T00:13:55","date_gmt":"2015-09-10T04:13:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/terrencemetz.com\/?p=2449"},"modified":"2026-04-21T13:42:08","modified_gmt":"2026-04-21T17:42:08","slug":"make-thinking-visible","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mgrush.com\/blog\/make-thinking-visible\/","title":{"rendered":"How to Make Thinking Visible — Three Forms of Business Argumentation Support"},"content":{"rendered":"

The main reason for categorizing input relies on a common purpose. Most groups gather around a common purpose.<\/h2>\n

For example, treasury groups gather their departments around financial capital. While human resources gather their departments around human capital. Sales and marketing gather around customers’ needs for products and services. Force your participants to make thinking visible around their purpose and why they organize the way they do.<\/span><\/p>\n

Evidence-based<\/h3>\n

Three forms of support for business argumentation<\/a> include:<\/span><\/p>\n

\"How<\/a>

How to Make Thinking Visible<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n

    \n
  1. Evidence,<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. Values, and<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. Credibility<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    When you challenge meeting participants to make their \u2018thinking visible<\/a>\u2019, use active listening<\/a> and reflect back on WHY they believe their claims to be true. Isolate the proof behind their claims, understanding that you will need to reflect on the facts and examples they provide to boost their claim. Let us take a closer look at the three forms.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Evidence<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    Much is written about evidence, and while the following is not all of it, business arguments<\/a>\u00a0rely on three types of evidence to support claims, namely:<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Surrogates<\/span><\/li>\n
    2. Trends<\/span><\/li>\n
    3. Vision<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Surrogates<\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n

      Surrogates provide examples and operate through analogy to support arguments. Meeting members might refer to competitors as surrogates for their own group. Examples might not even come from within the industry but may derive from an analogous situation. Some clothing dry cleaners introduced drive-up services, having viewed the success of a surrogate industry, the fast food industry.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Trends<\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n

      Statistics are frequently used to support business arguments. Since proof about future conditions cannot be established, support is provided for likelihood and probabilities. As you know, historical performance does not prove future performance. The value of statistics derives from trend lines.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Historical performance and statistics provide a lagging indication when time has passed and nothing can be done to reverse the past. Linked together, however, tends to appear to support the likelihood or probability of future performance. As a facilitator, be prepared to further challenge the assumptions from historical performance that may be carried over to support future claims.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Vision<\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n

      When leadership establishes visionary claims, such as establishing \u201cworld-class\u201d or \u201cbest-of-breed\u201d aspirations, meeting participants will use the vision<\/a> to support their claims. Visionary arguments may be similar to arguments supported by values<\/a>, in that they are likely to be more fuzzy than SMART<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Organizational goals and objectives capture measurements toward the vision and will be used to support many arguments. If participants can make clear claims for example, that their positions will generate the most profit, most will support them if their claims are clear and valid.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Values<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      Operating in a similar fashion to vision, values also drive \u201cboard room to boiler room\u201d behavior and will be used to support arguments. An organization focused on \u201csafety\u201d for example, may defer to the argument that claims to be the safest approach if everything else is held constant.<\/span><\/p>\n

      As a facilitator, strive to have the organizational values (also called Guiding Principles, Tenets, Elements, etc.) handy, and preferably posted for all to see. Likewise, having a clear line of sight<\/a> to enterprise, business unit, departmental, and project objectives can be leveraged to resolve arguments.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Credibility<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

      Credibility is \u201cthe perception that the arguer is competent and trustworthy, and has good will\u201d (see \u201cArgumentation and Critical Decision Making\u201d by Rieke, Sillars, and Peterson, pg 280) toward the other meeting participants. Participants naturally give stronger adherence to other participants with greater credibility. Extensive research and other books and journals speak to the power of credibility. From a facilitator\u2019s perspective, challenge even the credible to make their thinking visible. Make sure everyone in the meeting understands WHY<\/a> the credible participant has formed his or her belief or claim.<\/span><\/p>\n

      ______<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

      Lead the Change\u2014One Meeting at a Time<\/b><\/span><\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

      Are you ready to transform how decisions are made, problems are solved, and alignment is built in your organization?<\/span><\/p>\n

      True meeting leadership goes beyond setting an agenda.<\/b><\/span> It requires a facilitator who can navigate complexity, balance voices, and drive toward outcomes with clarity and consensus. Our Professional Meeting Leadership Workshop<\/b><\/span><\/a> equips you to do just that\u2014blending human-centric methods<\/b><\/span> with structured analytical tools<\/b><\/span> to foster rigor, inclusivity, and results that stick.<\/span><\/p>\n