How can you evaluate the validity of an argument in strategic thinking?

The best tactic: Ask questions. Open ended, digging deeper questions. Look for assumptions, which can be dangerous. Ask for a likelihood and a confidence in each one. Look for leaps of logic. Do they stack up, or do they just sound good. Then test. Small scale pilots, trials or experiments that can prove the hypothesis.

Clarity can be hard to get to. If it is missing, or is hard to explain, then it could be a red flag. Simple strategies are much easier to implement, complex ideas risk getting lost.

Humans love stories, and a great showman, who engages their audience can bring a strategy to life. But is it enough - this is the question to ask yourself. Try the argument on others; presented by others, received by others - removing the showman from the loop. Does it translate easily. Where there are options, how much are they stacked with bias. Ask for other options to be considered.

Moreover, it's essential to be vigilant for nuanced fallacies that might not be as overt. One such subtlety is the 'fallacy of composition' or 'division,' where assumptions about the whole are incorrectly applied to its parts, or vice versa. This can lead to misjudgments in strategic thinking when extrapolating from individual components to the entire system, or vice versa. Beyond recognition, cultivate the ability to address these fallacies effectively. Consider embracing a systematic approach to counteract common fallacies, which involves not just pinpointing the flaw but offering a constructive alternative, steering the argument back to a rational course.

Weighting can be a great way to look at the pros and cons of an argument, but we also need to recognise that humans are biased, especially if they have invested in creating the argument in the first place. We use a checklist that works to overcome the biases. It looks for diversity of thinking, additional options, some 'what if' scenarios. All useful in opening up the conversation and ensuring the rigor of the strategic argument in the first place.

In the realm of strategic thinking, ensuring the robustness of an argument goes beyond the outlined four steps. Evaluate the external factors that might impact the validity of the argument. Strategic decisions are often influenced by the broader environment, including economic, cultural, and geopolitical aspects. Consider how changes in these external forces may affect the soundness of the argument over time.

The above statements are true, but they are also entirely theoretical, so they don’t mean anything in a real world setting. If a business strategy is to be tested, all the above techniques come into play but real objectivity will only be developed through a framework. The output of a framework is to connect a real world business to where it wants to get to in 5 years, through creation of an operational strategic plan. This describes how you will get to point x in 5 years, through a set of operational objectives to be delivered through years 1-5. It is the construction of this plan which is what drives out the real objectivity and strength in a robust strategy. Real discipline is then needed to deliver it & not to stray off course.

To stress-test a potential approach assess and addresses potential counter-arguments. A robust argument anticipates and responds to opposing viewpoints, demonstrating a thorough consideration of different perspectives and potential challenges. Don't get caught chasing down a single route.

- Align back to strategic context & goals - Assess real-world applicability - Test the arguments by assessing opposite and/or alternatives