Professional Development Plan

In conversations with colleagues or scrolls through social media, you find no shortage of statements about what's true or what you should believe. We all make claims, maybe even with evidence to back them up. But are these claims built on a solid foundation with no cracks? And if there are cracks, can you find them? A good argument is deliberately constructed from a solid foundation. They aren't built with funny comebacks or louder voices. Solid foundations are built with claims that are supported by reasons that are glued together by evidence. Consider my coworker clients who took different positions on how to deal with their massive growth. Ranjit argued for staying in their current space and instituting a distributed workforce, while Eric argued for moving into a larger space. Ranjit's claim, it's best to provide a distributed work option. Eric's claim, it's best to keep all the employees together. Since these claims are statements that support the argument, they should be arguable. Both Ranjit and Eric's claims were arguable, but if Eric had said, I don't like working from home, or Ranjit had said, I know lots of people who like working from home, these wouldn't have been arguable claims because they don't allow people to disagree. Personal opinions aren't sturdy building blocks for a good argument. Reasons follow the word because and provide support for claims. Ranjit argued that keeping the existing space and offering a distributed work option is better because it gives employees more choices. When Ranjit asked Eric why he supported moving into a larger space, Eric's reason was because physical togetherness creates a sense of family that's part of the company's commitment to our employees. But had Eric asked Ranjit why he's afraid of taking a chance on a larger space, that would have been an example of a bad argument tactic, a logical fallacy. Beware of replacing an actual claim with a distorted version of it. Ranjit never claimed he was afraid of taking a chance on a larger space. Had Ranjit argued that Eric is too old to understand what younger employees want, that would have been an example of a bad argument, another fallacy. A good argument requires using good evidence to support reason. Ranjit provided data from a study indicating that 87% of employees prefer to choose their work location. Eric provided data from a study that showed that location-based work environments have higher retention and produce more innovative products. Assuming both studies were reliable from unbiased sources and using valid samples, this evidence could be considered reliable data. If Eric had offered that everyone he's talked to supports getting a bigger space, that wouldn't have been good evidence. It's tempting to use your own experience as good evidence, but more anecdotal evidence doesn't equal reliable data. When Ranjit offered support for distributed workforces from a professor who teaches optimizing organizational structure, it was an appeal to authority evidence. When Eric countered that a board member preferred making the move to a bigger space, this was weaker evidence. Evidence from someone who is an authority is stronger than evidence from someone who has authority. Construct good arguments from solid foundations and you'll communicate conclusions that can be counted on to guide wise decisions.