21 The Conclusion

Putting It All Together

Conclusions are solutions to our headscratchers. Recall the components we detailed in the prior chapters: facts, observations, experiences, beliefs, and assumptions. Collectively, these make up the premise. Now we'll put them together and see how they form a conclusion. Then we'll cover why some conclusions are more reliable than others and how to strengthen confidence in a conclusion. Finally, I'll explain how our personalities play a role in the conclusions we make and what to do when people have different conclusions than we do—how to resolve and agree.

This is a bigger chapter than the others, because conclusions are a big deal. They're what allow you to solve your headscratcher. Although clarity is the first step in critical thinking, and you can't solve a problem well without being clear about what that problem is, it's the conclusion that moves you from problem to solution.

Creating the Premise

We combine facts, observations, and experiences to form an assumption. Figure 21.1 shows how everything in this process relates.

In Figure 21.1, facts, observations, and experiences form the foundation for assumptions. That's why they are below assumptions in our visual; they support them. We then apply our belief filter to yield a conclusion and figure out what to do.

Here are a few examples to show you the entire process.

• Fact: Water reduces friction between your car tires and the road.
• Observation: The 6:00 PM weather report says there will be a downpour during the morning rush hour.
• Experience: When it rains like crazy in the morning rush hour, traffic moves slowly. It takes longer to get to work; you've experienced this many times.
• Assumption: It's probably going to take longer to get to work tomorrow morning (based on the preceding facts, observations, and experiences).
• Belief: Being on time is important. I said I would be at the 8:00 AM meeting, so I will.
• Conclusion: I will set my alarm 30 minutes early so that I can get to my 8:00 AM meeting on time.

• Facts: A customer calls and tells you he's upset. This individual has been a customer for nine years and always pays his bills on time.
• Observation: When you examine what you billed him, you see products listed that the customer claims he did not order.
• Observation: Peers tell you that they like helping this customer and that he buys a lot.
• Experience: In the nine years this person has been our customer, he has complained four other times about being billed for products he did not order. We found after investigating each incident that the customer was correct.
• Experience: We sometimes have this problem with our billing system.
• Belief: People should acknowledge their errors and not blame others.
• Assumption: This customer is probably right, because of experiences with both him and our billing system.
• Conclusion: Apologize for the error, and adjust the bill for the customer.
• Conclusion: Ask the billing department why or how this problem can occur and what we can do to prevent it from happening again.

• Fact: Each candidate lives locally, is employed, and has more than 10 years of work experience.
• Fact: Candidate 1 got unanimous thumbs-up from the interview team, whereas candidates 2 and 3 got a thumbs-up from 9 out of 10 interviewers.
• Fact: The same person gave candidates 2 and 3 the thumbs-down, and the reason given was “not my personality type.”
• Fact: Candidates 1 and 3 have asked for a salary slightly above the target.
• Experience: We don't always offer a salary based on what a candidate asks for.
• Observation: Candidate 1 arrived late for two out of the three interview appointments, blaming her tardiness on traffic.
• Observation: Candidates 1 and 2 both have résumés filled with impressive projects, but it's not clear what they did on those projects.
• Observation: References for all candidates checked out great. Candidate 3's references were glowing.
• Experience: Candidates generally provide references that give positive feedback.
• Observation: Candidates 1 and 2 have great experience in the specific job function sought and have spent most of their careers in that job function. Candidate 3 has less experience in the specific job function but has experience in several related job functions.
• Experience: If someone is successful in multiple jobs or responsibilities, that success shows he or she can adapt and apply skills in different areas.
• Observation: Candidates 2 and 3 say they are considering a few job offers.
• Belief: People can apply their skills anywhere.
• Belief: Being late for an important meeting shows poor planning.
• Assumption: We probably can't go wrong with any of these candidates.
• Assumption: Our company is going through changes, and we'll need to have flexible people on board who can handle different responsibilities.
• Assumption: Candidate 3 is diverse and successful, and her experiences demonstrate her ability to succeed in very different situations.
• Conclusion: Make an offer to candidate 3.

In situation C, the hiring manager put the most weight on the observation that candidate 3 was successful in many diverse job experiences and responsibilities. The hiring manager indicated he had multiple positive experiences with people who handled diverse job responsibilities.

The Stronger the Premise, the More Reliable the Conclusion—and the More Confidence You'll Have in It

The stronger the premise, the more confidence you'll have in your conclusion. Conversely, if your premise is weak, your confidence in your conclusion is lower. Consistent facts, observations, and experiences provide strong premise components, and strong premises contain assumptions that you can validate. Weak premises, on the other hand, have assumptions that you cannot validate—because they aren't supported by facts, observations, and experiences.

Here are a few examples of strong and weak premises:

• In situation A, if the weather report on one TV station was for a downpour, yet the Weather Channel predicted sunny and warm and an Internet weather forecast predicted a 30 percent possibility of widely scattered showers, then your premise would have contradictory observations. This yields a weak premise, and your conclusion about getting up early would be questionable. If all three sources confirmed that it would be pouring, your conclusion about getting up early would be a good one if you want to get to that meeting on time.
• In situation B, when you checked the customer's prior purchasing records, if you found that he once claimed he didn't order something but actually did (contrary observation), then you wouldn't be so quick to assume he was correct now. Your conclusion may have been to take a closer look at the shipping records (to validate or invalidate your assumption).
• In situation C, if one of the references for candidate 3 mentions how the candidate was unsuccessful in many of her different job responsibilities, the assumption about her being successful is invalid, thereby weakening the premise. Then the conclusion to hire candidate 3 becomes dubious. If the assumption is invalidated prior to offering the job, the hiring manager would change his mind or at least investigate further to completely invalidate (or revalidate) the assumption.
• In the pharmaceutical industry, a tremendous amount of research is conducted when a new drug is created. Experiments are performed that produce a mountain of data (facts, observations, and experiences). Assumptions are made from these data with respect to the drug's effectiveness, as well as possible side effects—and before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves a drug, the pharmaceutical company must validate these assumptions. One of the ways companies do this is with extensive clinical trials—highly controlled and monitored human assessments. If the trials (experiences) prove that the drug assumptions are correct, the confidence in the conclusion—that the drug is okay—is high. However, if trial results contradict the assumptions, there will be low confidence in the conclusion—and the FDA will not approve the drug.
• You've invited a guest to your new house, and you expect to give a tour when he arrives. Having a very neat home is important to you (belief), so before his arrival, you ask your children to put the clothes on their bedroom floors in the laundry basket and to make their beds. Your kids are neat, so you assume they will do what you ask. Your guest arrives, and after a while, it's time for the tour. When you get to one child's bedroom, it's a mess, and you're embarrassed. In this case, the assumption that your children would do as you asked when you asked was a bad one. A bad assumption leads to a bad conclusion (in this case, thinking you can take your guest on a tour). If you had validated your assumption by peeking your head in your children's bedrooms before your tour, you would have realized the assumption was bad and postponed the tour (changed your conclusion) to avoid the embarrassment.

You must examine whether your premise is strong when reaching conclusions, and make sure your facts are facts! Have multiple observations and experiences that are consistent with each other. Make assumptions, but be sure to validate them.

Jumping to Conclusions

Every person moves from premises to conclusions thousands of times a day. You make conclusions about what to wear, what to eat, what to say, when to say it—everything you do. You conclude about your projects, your priorities, whether you are finished, what else you need to accomplish, and who needs to do what. You need the premise components first, and then a conclusion will follow.

At this point in our critical thinking workshops, someone usually asks, “But what exactly is the mechanism that moves you from the premise to the conclusion?” You have likely been told, “Don't jump to conclusions.” This is another meritless expression. Nobody actually knows how you get from your premise to a conclusion. You make assumptions within your premise, apply your beliefs, and then at some point, an idea comes to you. There's a jump, a leap, an aha moment when an idea comes to you. In other words, you always jump to a conclusion. A big difference between automatic thinking and critical thinking is that when we jump to a conclusion in automatic thinking, we think we're done. When we do so in critical thinking, we ask how we reached that conclusion: Specifically, what assumptions are we making, and why are we making them?

We question the reasoning behind our conclusions during critical thinking. This generates great conversations about the premise components that lead to those assumptions. Those conversations create confident conclusions or help identify a weak premise. Good conclusions come from strong premises that we've vetted, reviewed, and discussed.

This brings up an important point. The equation of facts, observations, experiences, beliefs, and assumptions that yields conclusions is bidirectional—meaning you can use this process in two ways. Starting with a clear headscratcher, you might say, “I don't know what I should do here, so I'm going to look at facts, observations, experiences, beliefs, and assumptions to help me.” The second way is to think, “I have some ideas about what to do, so I'm going to ask myself: What assumptions am I making, and what facts, observations, and experiences am I using to make those assumptions? What beliefs may I be applying? Let's see if my premise is strong and supports those conclusions.”

In other words, whenever you have an idea to solve a headscratcher, go ahead and jump to a conclusion—but then go back and ask, “What assumptions am I making and why?”

Where Do Personalities Fit In?

Our personalities play an important role in the conclusions we make. Everyone uses the same thinking process: inductive reasoning to reach a conclusion. However, we don't all weigh premise components the same. Some people put more weight on facts, others perhaps on their experiences or beliefs. Individual-specific weighting preferences mean that people can have the same information yet make different conclusions.

Here's a simple example. You, your spouse, and your child visit a car dealer, and you all see the same car. You all read the fact sheet about the size of the engine, horsepower, and automatic this and that. You all get a copy of Consumer Reports on the vehicle (observations). You take a test drive together (experience). Of course, safety for the family is important (belief). What happens? You observe the report indicating maintenance costs on the vehicle are high; you make the assumption it's expensive to maintain the car. Although safety is important to you, it is critical to your spouse. The report's safety ratings lead her to assume the car is very safe. Your child really likes the built-in USB port in the backseat (observations) and assumes this would be a really cool car in which to ride. You conclude the car isn't for you because the maintenance costs are too high. Your spouse decides the car is great because of the safety record, and your child insists this is the only car in existence because she can recharge her smartphone in it.

You form three conclusions based on how each of you weighed the premise components. You ultimately resolve this not by arguing about who's right or wrong but by discussing the premise components and why you weigh some more than others. For example, you explain to your child the other four cars you are considering also have USB ports in the backseat, causing you to weigh that observation less.

Very analytic people weigh facts very heavily. Some people will have an experience only once and weight it very heavily. (Ever have food poisoning at a restaurant? Ever been back there?) Our personalities influence our inductive reasoning and our premises. We all use the same process to think—but we weigh premise components differently, which results in different conclusions.

Which Conclusion Is Right?

Why do two people who have the same facts reach different conclusions? One reason might be that they have different observations or experiences. One person heard the weather report, and another missed it; as a result, one concludes to bring an umbrella, and the other does not. We have different beliefs, and these alter our premises. We have different experiences, which cause different premises. Even when we have the same facts, observations, and experiences, and we share the same beliefs, we weigh them all differently. Mixed assumptions result, leading to diverse conclusions. How do we reconcile different conclusions? Which one is right?

First, we need to accept that it isn't about right or wrong; it's about the confidence and probability of the conclusions with respect to being a good headscratcher solution. The question shouldn't be whose conclusion is right but what conclusion is most beneficial to the specific headscratcher. Here's a situation: you and your peer are working on a problem, and you say, “I think we should do this,” but your peer says, “I think we should do that.” Now is the time to be in critical thinking mode.

Don't argue about who is right or wrong. Start the conversation with, “We have a situation, and we have two conclusions. One of these conclusions is more optimal than the other in this exact situation, or perhaps neither is good, and there's another, better option. Our job is to determine the best solution for this situation. So, what assumptions are we making, and why are we making them?”

Here's a specific example. Joe and Lisa are project leads on a process improvement team. The team is finishing up a project that required a testing cycle. Lisa says, “We have tested enough. We are done.”

Joe says, “We haven't tested enough. We are not done.”

Lisa replies, “We have tested the same amount that we tested in prior process improvement initiatives, so I really think we are done now.”

Joe stands his ground and says, “I know that we've tested the same, but we really need to test more.”

Bruce, another project lead, steps in and says, “Hmm, we have two views here (conclusions). One may be more advised then the other, so Joe, why do you think we need to continue to test; what assumptions are you making?”

Joe responds, “I'm assuming that because we reworked a critical component only last week, we need to test at least that component several more times.”

Lisa asks, “Joe, why do you think we reworked that critical component?”

Joe replies, “I read the e-mail that said that was going to happen.”

Lisa says, “Oh. That didn't happen. We found a minor problem elsewhere and fixed it, retested many times, and we're good.”

Joe nods and says, “Oh, in that case, I agree we have done enough testing. We're done.”

In the previous example, because Joe had an observation that was inaccurate, his assumption was invalid, leading him to a conclusion that was not optimal. With a conversation about the premise components, that was cleared up easily and quickly.

Have a conversation about assumptions to uncover why each of you is making them. Go there first, because it will lead to a discussion about facts, observations, and experiences. Listen to animated people who say things such as “Because it's the right thing to do,” “Because we are a leader in this space,” or “Because we said we would do it.” These are beliefs coming out. When you understand the premises, you now have something to discuss.

For example, you say, “I think we should make 1,000 units.”

Someone else says, “No, no, make just 500.”

You ask, “Why 500? What are your assumptions behind only 500?”

He says it's because we don't need that many, so you ask why.

“Because last week we sold only 750 (experience), and we have 250 leftover (fact). We'll probably only sell 750 this week (assumption), so we'll have enough.”

You say, “Did you know marketing was rolling out a promotion? (Observation.) I'm assuming the demand for the product will be higher, and we'll need more on hand.”

He says, “Oh, I didn't know that (missing observation). Given this new information (which changed the premise), we'll probably sell more (new assumption), so I agree—we should make 1,000 units (agreed-upon conclusion).”

You must have a premise conversation to reconcile different conclusions. Start by determining what assumptions everyone is making and why. These conversations are very productive, because they don't take long to uncover the differences in people's premise components that are leading to conflicting conclusions. Once revealed, you can have a fruitful conversation that will generally result in quick agreement.

Getting Started with Conclusions

You make thousands of conclusions a day. Many take only a second or two, and you're good at making them in automatic mode. When should you use critical thinking for conclusions?

In two very specific situations:

• You don't know what to do and have to figure it out.
• You already have a solution for your important headscratcher—and because the outcome makes a difference, you want to be confident in the conclusion.

If you are riding a bus and conclude to sit on the right side instead of the left side, the outcome doesn't really matter, and you should stay in automatic mode. However, if you choose to run a price promotion, release a new product, institute a new policy, or hire a new employee—those are conclusions that make a huge difference in your business. Using critical thinking for these situations certainly is warranted.

Here are a few other examples of times when you'll want to use critical thinking to arrive at a conclusion:

• When someone says, “What should we do?” or you say, “What should I do?”: Start by listing some of the facts, observations, and experiences, and then ask, “What assumptions can we make from these?”
• When you're given requirements for a deliverable: Of course, you'll get clear on those requirements, but you'll also want to question the assumptions behind them. For example, is the manager assuming customers want a specific function because he or she talked with a number of them, or is he or she using a single e-mail request from one customer to decide upon this requirement?
• When you hear someone say, “I assume …”: Don't say, “Don't assume.” Ask supportively, “May I ask a question about that assumption? Why are you assuming that?” You're looking to have a fact, observation, and experience conversation. How strong is that assumption, and can this person validate it?
• When you hear “I don't think that's a good idea,” or “How about this idea?”: Start the conversation with, “We have two conclusions. One may be more appropriate for this situation than the other, so let's see what our assumptions are and how we got to them.”
• When you find yourself disagreeing with someone else's idea: You can have the same conversation as directly above. Alternatively, ask yourself even before you have that conversation, “Gee, what assumptions could that person possibly have that would lead him or her to that conclusion?” You'll want to examine your own assumptions for strength and validity as well.
• When you are negotiating: Understand your assumptions prior to negotiating. Anyone with whom you're negotiating is using the same thinking process as you, so ask yourself, “What do I think the opposing party's assumptions are? Why?”
• When you have to correct someone: Think from the perspective of the person with whom you are speaking. He or she came to a conclusion using facts, observations, and experiences. He or she made assumptions and applied beliefs to reach a conclusion. If the person made an error, it is most likely an accident because of a bad assumption. Perhaps he or she relied on an experience not representative of the norm, read (observed) a memo wrong, or thought something was a fact when it was not. When you understand the premise used, you can focus on correcting the premise. He or she will not only see where the error occurred but also will learn from the mistake.
• When being a thinking coach: Use this technique when you're helping others figure out what to do. Remember: Don't tell your conclusion. Just stay with their premises by asking questions such as “What experiences have you had related to this issue?” or “What have you read, been told, or heard about this?” or “Based on the experiences, observations, and facts you've told me, what assumptions might you make? Is there a way to validate those?”
• When involved in postproject analyses, lessons learned, or postmortems: After you finish a project, review what went well, what didn't, and what lessons you learned. Use critical thinking to ask questions such as “What was our thinking behind this? What assumptions did we make and why? Did we validate those assumptions? If so, how? If not, why not? What lessons can we learn about the premise?”

Because we've revealed how people conclude and the importance of the premise in that process, we can now take a look at how this process affects credibility, change, and influencing and persuading others. After that we'll visit the exciting world of innovation—reaching conclusions beyond your everyday thinking.