To Make a Strong Case, Don't Be a Data Dumper

To Make a Strong Case, Don't Be a Data Dumper
3:35 PM Monday December 6, 2010

News flash: academic writing can be verbose.

Throughout my career as a Harvard Business School professor, writing and reading textbooks, journal articles, papers and studies, it almost seemed that anyone who used one word when they could instead use five simply wasn't trying hard enough. But we professors are not longwinded and laborious simply to puff our own chests. Rather, it's because we've been conditioned to believe that making a case with lots of data and complex jargon wins us praise from the academic community. Basically, we think it is the best way to get buy-in for our work.

My work leading to my latest book, Buy-In, indicates that this approach is not, and should not be, universal. In fact, I've found that in most cases, people should argue with less data. When you're defending an idea, my research of what works in the real world suggests that you should respond in ways that are simple, straightforward, and honest. This may sound obvious, but I found that this principle is rarely employed. Rather, most people respond to a critical question by arguing against the reasoning of whoever asked the question. They offer all of the evidence they can think of, hoping to make their case overwhelming. They shoot at an attack sixteen times with bullets of data to make sure it is dead. But in so doing, they are arguing not on their own but on the naysayer's territory, opening themselves up to counter-attacks with each piece of evidence they dispense — and simultaneously putting other listeners to sleep!

I have seen far more success when people offer a quick, direct, common sense answer that shows respect for the naysayer but moves the discussion along. It is important to strike a balance between addressing a naysayer's concern and keeping each question-and-answer brief in order to hold your audience's full attention. To use economics terms, there are diminishing marginal returns to data-dumping in your answers. Great leaders throughout history, from Gandhi to Sam Walton, have always employed this principle to maximum effect. They knew the power of clarity and simplicity. And they found that using it allowed them to connect with more people and win more hearts and minds.

The next time you present an idea on an important new marketing campaign, for example, and someone rebuts it by citing five previous times that your company tried a new marketing campaign and it was unsuccessful, you have two options. You could go through each of the five examples, explain their flaws in detail, and demonstrate how each of those flaws does not apply to your idea. Or you could say, "There are always examples of failed attempts to do anything of real importance, and we did indeed learn from the experiences you cite. But we cannot allow these past failures to keep us from adapting to a changing world or else we would never move forward on anything."

I have found the latter approach to be far more successful because it is simple, straightforward, and honest, and because it appeals more to the broader audience. Sometimes arguing with less evidence actually allows you to be clearer and more persuasive.

http://blogs.hbr.org/kotter/2010/12/to-make-a-strong-case-dont-be.html