Making discerning decisions

How can you critically assess a professional recommendation without blocking the decision-making process or antagonising those you are speaking to?

1960 € per session, excl. VAT

In short

This 7-hour day, excluding breaks, trains participants to examine a recommendation before committing to it: distinguishing facts from interpretations, assessing evidence, seeking competing explanations and expressing constructive disagreement. Participants alternate between simulations, observation and feedback, then structure an approach they can apply to their professional decisions.

Why this training?

A claim repeated in meetings can come to be taken as a given without ever having been checked. Under pressure, the team risks confusing testimony, interpretation and evidence, then taking action that is disproportionate to the observed problem. Doubt becomes useful when it leads to precise questions and an explicit decision. The training focuses as much on the quality of reasoning as on how to challenge a conclusion while preserving cooperation. Continuing case study: The fictitious organisation « Ardelune Conditionnement » is considering replacing a supplier after several delays. A committee must examine complaints, a delivery table and conflicting accounts before recommending termination, continuation under conditions or further investigation. Transfer to the workplace: Over the following two weeks, apply the framework to an anonymised professional recommendation. Ask a colleague to seek a competing explanation, then record the decision, the remaining uncertainties and the new fact that would justify revising it.

Objectives of this training

  • Distinguish verifiable facts, interpretations and judgements in a case file.
  • Assess the relevance and limitations of a piece of evidence.
  • Formulate competing hypotheses and look for counterexamples.
  • Question a recommendation without attacking its author.
  • Justify a decision by making its uncertainties and conditions for revision explicit.

Who is it for and what are the prerequisites?

Roles and tasks concerned

  • Managers required to decide between conflicting recommendations.
  • Project managers and operational managers assessing incidents, proposals or feedback from the field.
  • Subject-matter experts presenting conclusions to a group.

Prior skills

  • Participate in meetings where work-related proposals are discussed.
  • Be able to describe a professional decision and its constraints.

What you will work on

  1. Recognising your judgement shortcuts

    Objective: Observe how an initial conviction is formed. Anchoring, confirmation bias and the influence of status in a discussion.

  2. Classifying the available information

    Objective: Separate observation, interpretation and conclusion. Traceability, proximity of the source, context and missing information.

  3. Putting evidence to the test

    Objective: Assess what the available material actually allows you to assert. Incomplete sample, relevant comparison, correlation and causation.

  4. Developing competing explanations

    Objective: Avoid retaining only the preferred hypothesis. Counterexample, alternative hypothesis and discriminating check.

  5. Disagreeing without discrediting

    Objective: Maintain rigorous scrutiny in a tense meeting. Fair restatement, open question and distinction between the person and the argument.

  6. Reaching a conclusion despite uncertainty

    Objective: Turn critical examination into a proportionate decision. Decision criteria, acceptable risk and conditions for revision.

What you take away

  • Framework for classifying facts, interpretations and evidence.
  • Matrix of competing hypotheses and priority checks.
  • Framework for respectful challenging questions.
  • Reasoned decision note and commitment to workplace application.

Method and assessment

  • Short inputs followed by simulations and role-plays based on the continuing case study.
  • Structured observation and peer feedback using a shared framework.
  • Guided debrief: what worked, what will be adjusted, individual commitment.
  • Preparation: Prepare an anonymised account of a recommendation that was accepted too quickly or proved difficult to challenge. Remove all confidential information; the exercises use fictitious or anonymised cases and only materials authorised by the organisation.

Observable criteria: Correctly classifies the material in the case file and flags unverifiable information. ; Links each important conclusion to evidence and specifies one of its limitations. ; Examines at least two competing explanations before reaching a conclusion. ; Restates the opposing reasoning before asking a non-accusatory question. ; States a decision, a residual uncertainty and a condition for revision..

Frequently asked questions

Do you need to be proficient in formal logic?

No. The work is based on professional situations and reasoning explained orally.

How can you avoid questioning everything?

By focusing on the uncertainties that could change the decision and limiting checks to that issue.

Can you work on a real disagreement?

Yes, after anonymisation; the fictitious case file remains available if confidentiality prevents sharing it.

How is progress observed?

Peers compare reasoning and behaviour during the initial attempts and the replayed sections.

Last updated: