Strategic Communication: Fallacies of Logic

Two weeks ago we discussed different types of reasoning. However, as hard as we may try there are times that our reasoning does not completely make sense. When the grounds of an argument do not connect to the claim this is called a fallacy. Fallacy is defined as any unsound mode of arguing, which appears to demand our conviction, and to be decisive of the question in hand, when in fairness it is not. This means that an argument made that has nothing to do with what is actually being argued is considered a fallacy. Sometimes we use fallacies to strengthen our persuasiveness by appealing to a subject that your audience holds to be more important, however, if we are debating or if the audience that we are trying to persuade is a group that thinks critically, this can actually work against and weaken our argument.

Fallacies of logic that are confined to one statement are usually easy to spot. For example, an ad hominem attack from when we were younger usually went something like this, "don't believe John Doe when he says we are getting a longer break, he is a doody head!" Now, weather or not John Doe was, in fact a "doody head" actually has nothing to do with whether or  not the break for that day was extended. However, the child who uttered these words were hoping that the listener would agree with him about John Doe, thus lessening Doe's credibility and believability.

Here we can also run into the issue with fallacies of logic as well. Say that John Doe had been mistaken about break being extended and really break was the normal amount of allotted time. Even though a critical thinker would be less likely to believe the child who used the ad hominem attack for reasoning he had been right. Not about John Doe being a "doody head" but about the fact that break was not extended. A fallacy of logic does not necessarily mean that a speaker is wrong and so when we face people or organizations that use fallacies of logic to advocate for a particular issue then we must ask questions and try to break down what is actually the truth.

Fallacies of logic are harder to spot when it is not one particular statement but an entire argument that is a fallacy. A student earlier this week sent me a link to a Huffington Post article. Now, one thing must be admitted right of the bat. This was one of two articles analyzing President Obama's speech on Syria last Tuesday and so there might be more explanation in the first article. It should be noted that I am using this one article as an example because it fits my purpose and not because I think the author necessarily used fallacious thinking when writing. However, the article is a perfect example of a larger piece of work that, at first glance, uses no fallacy of logic in a single sentence but when taken in as a whole exhibits the characteristics of a piece that is fallacious. This has to do with the definition that the author is trying to put forward to defend President Obama. The author tried to define the term "systemic causation" by using a lot of words and yet not really clarifying what he means by the term. This is called verbalism or "the abundant use of words without conveying much meaning."

Again, just because the author uses a fallacy does not meant that he is wrong. It just means that when he was expressing himself, he did so in a way that would be easy to deconstruct in a debate. I would encourage everyone to make themselves aware of the different types of fallacies that are used so as to be able to identify them when someone is using them in an argument. Here is a website that does a good job at explaining fallacies and giving examples of what they are.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

As always, if you have any comments or questions, please feel free to post in the comment section below.

Strategic Communication-Debate Formula

Claims - Grounds - Warrants - Backing - Modal Qualification

These are the beginning steps to an argument. When I say argument I am not talking about a fight in which two sides just yell at each other and there is nothing that is gained but an honest intellectual argument (even if the subject matter is not what one would call “intellectual”) where people discuss their differences of opinions.

This system can be used in everyday conversation or in scholarly, political, or judicial debates. Yes, there is more to an argument than these steps and argumentation and debate is certainly a more complex system than this particular communicative formula would indicate but it is a good place to start. To start a debate, you make a claim. This can be a claim of fact, opinion, belief, or value. Most claims are of a subjective nature. After the claim you set the stage for the claim by setting the grounds for the claim. This is the time when you quantify your argument. So you start with a general statement and then narrow focus of that statement. You then use warrants to show how your claim and your backing are actually connected. You can do this through using logic however, because logic does not guarantee a correct or valid argument, it is good to bring in studies and scientific research to help make your case. This is called backing. Finally, you look at your overall argument and you try to decide if it makes any sort of sense. If it fits together in a logical flow that other people can follow and understand.

Again, it must be admitted that communication and debate and persuasion cannot really be put into such a formulaic way but this is the start of debate. Eventually, people will question you and rebut your position and then you will have to adapt. But, if you are starting off with debate and you use this as a guide to formulate the way you express yourself, you will give yourself a strong foundation that will help and benefit you when you actually do get to debate someone.

Beginnings of Debate

For the next few weeks I will be blogging about debate. This is because I am teaching an argumentation and debate class at Troy University and I am doing this for the benefit of my students. I welcome comments on the blog both comments that disagree and comments that agree with anything on here. I also welcome any thoughts that may help with an issue that I have covered that needs clarification. The only thing I ask is that all comments are respectful.

In the textbook Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making, debate is defined as the process of inquiry and advocacy; the seeking of a reasoned judgment on a proposition. This is usually done through the process of argumentation which is also defined in the text as reason giving in communicative situations by people whose purpose is the justification of acts, beliefs, attitudes, and values. With this is mind I will address why it is a good thing to debate.

First, I must address how we usually look at debate. Debate is normally seen as a win/lose scenario. This would not be a bad thing except for, when we learn how to debate, much is made about seeing the other side's point of view. If we start off with the premise that a debate must be win or lose then we start off looking at the "opposing" sides arguments as wrong. In the Sherlock Holmes stories, Holmes often cautioned Watson against coming up with a conclusion before finding the evidence because then he would find evidence to fit the conclusion and rule out all other possibilities. In debate we caution against using fallacies of logic and yet, with our approach to a win/loss scenario it almost seems that we are encouraging the use of fallacious thinking in our approach to debate.

It is not that we must accept the point of view but, if we are to persuade people of our positions, we must know what they stand for as well. That way we can offer a comparative look between their position and ours. In a debate this comparison is called clash. To have a good debate we must have clash. That is two opposing ideas over the same subject must be brought forward so that we can see either side and make a clear decision as how to best proceed.

This decision is made easier through the use of logic and critical thinking. Using logic does not dictate that we will come to the right answer, merely the logical one. If we are in a debate or are watching one and want to make the best decision it is best to follow a logical path it can, however, help us to see if the proposition that is being posited by either side has any merit. If both propositions do hold up to logic it is then time to use critical thinking skills. Critical thinking is the ability to analyze, criticize, evaluate, and advocate ideas. This means that we break down those ideas being put forth in the debate and see how they may fit into our lives.

Finally, I will address the ethics of debate. Debate is an excellent way of decision making. It is most certainly preferable to some of the alternatives such as fighting or war. If debate is this important then it would hold that it we should approach debate in an ethical way. Ethical is defined in Argumentation and Debate as being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession or community. Some students in the class brought up the fact that since ethics can depend upon the society or the individual it is sometimes difficult to use this as a basis for debate.

While I do admit that not everyone's ethics are the same it is still important that there is a standard when debating. That standard may be how we are to conduct ourselves in a debate or we may decide on a particular standard that a profession such as lawyers or doctors or preachers are held to in order to help frame the debate. The reason that we do this is to make it easier to see how what we are debating will affect us in our own ethical standard. It does this because we can see the set of ethics that were used and compare those ethics to our own.

This is just the start to what argumentation and debate is. It is good to get some basics down before we go any further.

Freeley, A., & Steinberg, D. Argumentation and debate: Critical thinking for reasoned decision making. (13 ed.). Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Strategic Communication- Joy in Communicating

Communication is a difficult thing sometimes. More than ever there are changes in the way we communicate. This is why Strategic Communication is so important. We must be intentional in how we communicate. This is true for us as individuals, for businesses, and for any organizations. However, I think that, when measuring the success of our communication and planning for future communication campaigns it is important to remember one thing: have fun. I do not mean do not take things seriously but there should be a certain amount of enjoyment in the communication process. I am a well-documented nerd and because of this I follow Wil Wheaton, who I have written about a couple of times, on Twitter. I was reading his blog one day in which he posted about why he was a user of Twitter and the thing that most stood out to me was that he used it because he enjoyed it. He had fun with it. Because of him being who he is, he naturally had quite a few followers but as time has gone on he has grown to over two million followers. On social media Wheaton has become huge because he writes and communicates about that which he is passionate about.

I write that not to encourage people to only focus on the fun parts of communication because there are certainly times that communication is not fun. Crisis communication is a response to stimuli that are very much not fun. I do believe that we should take joy in the process of communication though. It is a complex thing that is just getting more complex and we get to participate in it. As strategic communication professionals we get to lead in it. This is really something that I think we should take pride in. No, our leadership will not always work out and some campaigns will fail. But communication will still take place and we should hold on to that idea and strive to get better at it.

Strategic Communication- A Measurement of Success

A few weeks ago I posted a link to a TED talk by Benjamin Zander in which he talked about classical music and why everyone should love it. One of the points he made was that, as a person gets more experienced with music they tend focus on longer musical phrases. He stated that when you first start you focus on every beat, then every two, then every measure, and then every phrase and, finally, you get to the point where you start the music with the end in mind. It is not that you focus just on the instant when you end or the end results but you focus on the piece of music as a whole. It is the whole adventure, the totality of your experiences from start to finish that you must focus on. As a strategic communicator, this is also how you should measure the success or failure of any particular campaign. The approach taken should be a holistic approach to the change that you wished to be implemented. This means that there cannot be a focus on just product advancement and there cannot be a focus on culture change but all of it must be taken into account.

As I have written, I am a Youth Director at a church and churches tend to be not much different when it comes to focusing on the bottom line. Yes, for us we focus on how many people are “saved” or how many have joined the church. Or we may focus on a particularly popular program because “so many people seem to like it!” These, in and of themselves are not bad things but I got a glimpse of what I would call a success in the fullest sense of the word. I had put on my Facebook that I had a career opportunity and one of my youth responded telling me that she did not want me to leave. This was not the success but it did make me feel good. I assured her that I was not leaving but just expanding my horizons and what she responded with made me realize that I, to at least some degree have been a success as a youth director. She wrote “ Don't leave me it's senior year!  But follow what God tells you to do. I'm pretty sure you taught me that he is more important than I am anyway. Praying for your decision. “ This student, who is a Christian, is saved, comes to most events and is in just about every tangible way a success made me realize that there was more to success than just those things. Somehow, as her leader, I had imparted on her a willingness to be self-sacrificial to the will of God even if it means not getting what she wants.

In the book, Manager’s Guide to Excellence in Public Communication Management, in the very first chapter there is a link between excellence at an organization and the culture that is established. In a culture that is more open and less authoritarian, communication tends to expand. With this come the benefits of good communication. This includes, but is not limited to, a feeling, both internally and externally, of inclusion. This feeling helps with feedback and feedback can lead to an increase in the bottom line for an organization. Feedback is an important way to be able to measure the success or failure of a communication campaign. If you create that culture where communication is encouraged you help develop relationships. These relationships are important for organizations. The way to measure these relationships, according to article Organizational Blogs and the Human Voice: Relational Strategies and Relational Outcomes there are three things to be measure as it pertains to relationships. These are antecedents, maintenance processes, and outcomes. The second measure, maintenance processes focuses on how organizations maintain the relationships that they have built and this, too, helps stress the importance of a culture that exemplifies communicational excellence. Granted, the article is about using blogs to maintain those relationships but I think that would just be a strong indication that a company or organization was serious about the results they were after.

As it pertains to results, when measuring them it pays to be careful. In his TED talk, Why we make bad decisions, Dan Gilbert talks about our perception when it comes to making decisions about what will make us happy and how, often we choose incorrectly. This is pertinent because when measuring the success of a program, one must be aware of all facets of the campaign and the actual contributions to the organization. It is our job as strategic communicators to convince and show our CEOs and managers the actual benefits of excellent communication. I did not completely agree with Mr. Gilbert’s entire outlook because he was viewing happiness as a formula that was simply if we get more out of something than we put in, we will be happy. If you watch the video all the way to the end, someone from the audience makes the point that happiness is not always about getting more out of an activity. Sometimes it is just the activity that gives us pleasure. This resonated with me but it also pointed out the fact that sometimes we have to be careful how we judge success.

There are ways to judge success. As I pointed out, we should really look at the “big picture.” This is because if we do not then we are likely to miss out on a true success story for us and our organizations. Also, it is our job to convince, not only our bosses, but everyone in the organization that communication has to be two way. Communication has to be the goal and the measure of that communication can be done several ways. I believe the largest measure is in the culture of the organization but there are also more tangible ways to measure as well. However an organization decides to measure success it should always be on the lookout for improvements that need to be made because, unfortunately, there are no sure fire ways to guarantee any sort of success.

Strategic Communication- Branding and Marketing Strategies

There is a statement that familiarity breeds contempt. Yet, in the marketing industry it would seem that companies should actually try to increase familiarity. Up to this point brands have tried to obtain that familiarity with repetition of their brand or their message. There is a quote that is attributed to Oscar Wilde that states that the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. This was sort of the precursor to the idea that there is no such thing as bad publicity. The idea is that you want your name to be talked about, good or bad, because it was the repetition or continued recognition of your brand that accomplished the goal of selling your goods. At least that is the end result. Good marketers are actually trying to sell more than goods; they are actually trying to sell ideas. By that I mean that through the reduction of uncertainty they are trying to get people to accept them and their goods or services. In Mediating the Message: Theories of Influence on Mass Media Content, Shoemaker and Reese make the point that from an ideological perspective, “programs encourage a feeling of social stability resistant to substantial social change.” This means that the longer something runs (in this case it was television shows) the more comfortable people get with it. Think about the most well-known brand in the world, Coca Cola.  In the 80’s they tried to change their brand and there was a huge backlash against them. People had been drinking coke for years and they were not happy with this change. The backlash was so fierce that, after only a short time, the Coca Cola Company returned to their previous brand with only one exception, they added the word Classic. This helped to signify to their customers that they understood that they were comfortable with what they had always known.

There is a theory that proposes an inverted U relationship between familiarity and liking. Under this premise, it states that, initially, there is a positive relationship between reduction of uncertainty and liking. This means that when a company starts out, they need to reduce the uncertainty about themselves as quickly as possible. However, it seems that the theory agrees with the idea that familiarity breeds contempt because it states that eventually what endeared the company to the public will eventually become the reason that the public comes to dislike the company (or person). I can think of no better example than that of Tim Tebow. Tebow started his college career with the University of Florida. During his time there he was a part of two teams that won national championships and participated in three conference championships. While at Florida, Tebow had become a national favorite. Part of the reason for that favor was that he was devout in his faith and expressed that faith on the field. However, as time wore on people became less enamored with his expressions of faith (also called “Tebowing”) and, as such; they also started to criticize his play on the field. The interesting thing about this is that, while he was with the Denver Broncos, Tebow had an impressive win/loss record and routinely outplayed opposing quarterbacks (Bryne, 2011). Yet, because of his controversial nature and people’s dislike of him, this was often ignored and his image suffered because of it.

At a point in time a company no longer has to be a proponent of who they are. By this I mean that they no longer have to try to convince people of what they stand for. This is where actions of the company speak for the company as well as where the idea of transparency comes into effect. Some of the most successful companies are transparent but they no longer have to be a cheerleader for their values. Their values are shown in how they act. In regard to the Tebow example, there was another football player named Reggie White. Reggie was a defensive player for the Green Bay Packers but he was also a preacher. Reggie never garnered the negative attention that Tebow did because, even though everyone knew that he was Christian, he no got to a point that he did not have to continue to do things to prove it such as tebowing. There was an interview after the death of Reggie where former Dallas Cowboys wide receiver, Michael Irving, who had a questionable past, said that even though you knew that Reggie was a Christian you never disliked talking to him or resented him for his faith. This was because whenever Reggie would talk to Irving, he would not talk to him about what he had been doing wrong or ask him about his faith but he talked to him about his personal life. The focus shifted from Reggie to Irving. Reggie was transparent in that there was never a question about his faith but he reached the point where he did not have to talk about it because his actions showed it.

This is a great example of what Morgan Spurlock was talking about in his TED talk about marketing. In it he talks about the culture that is required in order to make a company successful. He made the point that the companies that were willing to take chances and were willing to lose a little bit of control were most successful. My favorite quote from his talk was “When you train your employees to be risk averse, then you’re preparing your whole company to be reward challenged.” So a company should be willing to take risk. It is true that when a company first starts, they should hold to their values because it helps give them and their customers comfort. They should remain transparent but allow their work to signify their values because if they continue to try to get people to know who they are, they run the risk of chasing people away. Finally, they must not be risk adverse because it is through risk that they grow.

Strategic Communication- Leadership Through Vision, Culture, and Communication

Leadership is about others. This statement largely exemplifies the ideas about leadership that are garnering attention today. In the opening of his Google talk, Jerry Porras stated that there was an overabundance of literature on leadership today. Yet, we still study it and read about it and talk about it. For as much as we study leadership, we are still learning. We are finding that there are commonalities among our most effective leaders and we try to replicate or at least focus on those leaders. This leads to the question, “what do all those leaders have in common?” There are certain things those leaders do but, according to Benjamin Zander in his TED talk, “the one characteristic of a leader is that there is no doubt in his mind the capacity of the people he is leading to realize his vision.” This is just a mirror of my first statement that leadership is about others. Real leaders and good leaders look to their followers and feel that they have the responsibility of helping them to realize their potential. Doug Fields, one of the foremost authorities on church youth leadership called it “Spotlight Leadership.” It was leadership where the leader was not threatened when his/her followers did well but celebrated their accomplishments. In a paper written for the United States Army about strategic communication and leadership author Rebecca Wriggle focuses on three areas of leadership. These areas are vision, culture, and communication.

Benjamin Zander's TED talk

Vision

Zander also said that, “to get to the end we cannot think about each individual note, we must think about the whole piece.” This makes reference to the fact that the leaders must have long term vision. In several articles about leadership and vision one of the most repeated things was the statement that leaders with vision start something with the end in mind. With respect to Mr. Zander’s statements it is important that there be some boundaries given in a vision so that the followers know the ultimate goal. In a Forbes article, John Ryan wrote that:

 “Great leaders give real thought to the values, ideas and activities they’re most passionate about–and those are the things they pursue, rather than money or prestige or options forced on them by someone else. The visions these leaders have can be–and, in fact, should be–challenging to put into action. They realize them only by setting realistic, demanding goals and then going after them relentlessly, with the help of other talented men and women who are equally committed and engaged.”

 This indicates that leaders should set the vision but set it high. Not only should they set the vision high but they should set the vision somewhere where their followers want to go. Zander also stated in his talk that “we all know where home is.” A leader’s responsibility is to help get their followers to what feels like “home.” By this I do not mean that the follower has total control over where an organization goes, as stated above, vision does come from the leader and sometimes that means taking hard stances. But, at the end of whatever journey a leader and follower go on together they must, at the end, find themselves in a place of comfort and growth. This is what I refer to as home. The vision starts at the beginning of the journey and is realized throughout the process of traveling.

Culture

The second area that Wriggle focused on in her paper is creating a culture that enables the vision to become reality. The culture is what allows for the final destination of any organization to be reached. This is something that Zander referred to in his talk. He stated that “the conductor’s power depends upon the power to make other people powerful.” In essence it is a leader’s job to enable their followers to do the work that they need to do. A leader must help the followers do that work in the strongest way possible. This helps to create a culture that will buy into the vision of a leader.

Further, Zander stated that leaders should ask the question, “Who am I being that my children’s eyes are not shining?” This leads to the second aspect of a leader that helps create the culture needed to fulfill the vision. This aspect of a leader is that the leader must be willing to give up their own wants in order to bring out the possibilities of their followers. I was at the Orange Conference which is a conference for church leadership and Pastor Andy Stanley put it this way, he said that, “I am willing to be wrong if it means that someone else is made to feel important.” From a strategic communication standpoint it goes back to the idea that leaders of organization must be willing to lose a little control if it means that the ultimate goal is met. This happens when a leader allows their followers to help define the vision of their organization. In an article for the Harvard Business Review authors, James Kouzes and Barry Posner state that “constituents want visions of the future that reflect their own aspirations. They want to hear how their dreams will come true and their hopes will be fulfilled.” This idea goes back to the idea of the Golden Circle that I mentioned in my blog on Opinion Leadership. The one thing that all opinion leaders did was communicate in a way that answered the question Why? for people. It was a focus on values and interests that lead the way with communication and this focus will help to create the culture needed to accomplish the long term goals set forth in an organization.

Communication

Communication is the final aspect that all true leaders share. It is not just regular communication though; leaders with a vision and that have created a culture for that vision to flourish must communicat strategically. Strategic communication is defined as a “strategy for communicating. It recognizes that information can transform attitudes, beliefs and behaviors, and is a potent force for achieving strategic ends(Wriggle, 2006).” Strategic communication is further defined as “effects-based and begins with the end in mind (Wriggle, 2006).” This means that any communication that a leader gives must mention the goal. A leader should also include the fact that it is a goal that is shared by the people of the organization because it was a goal that was made by those very same people. Every communication sent out to anyone who has an interest in the company should make mention of the vision and the culture. This helps both outsiders and insiders know what the company is about and where it stands as it pertains to the goal. If a leader has implemented the first two aspects of vision and culture then it becomes much easier to communicate because the leader knows what needs to be done to accomplish the vision. A leader must also remember that communication is a two way process and should allow for feedback. This, again, will be made easier if the leader has focused on creating a culture that enables the vision to be accomplished because the lines of communication necessary to create that culture are the very ones that should be open for feedback.

All of these considerations shows that being an effective leader requires the leader to focus on the followers first.

Forbes Article
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/29/personal-success-vision-leadership-managing-ccl.html

Harvard Business Review
http://hbr.org/2009/01/to-lead-create-a-shared-vision/ar/1

Wriggle, R. (2006) STRATEGIC LEADER AS STRATEGIC COMMUNICATOR. U.S. Army War College,Carlisle Barracks,Carlisle,PA,17013-5050.