Argument Dilution - Auckland Transport Way

Published: Jul 24 , 2014
Author: Mark Simpson, Scotwork New Zealand

The media has discovered that Council controlled Auckland Transport is using special shuttles to move staff around Auckland – apparently because it’s faster than the public transport they provide for the rest of us.

When challenged Auckland Transport shot themselves in the foot and provided us with a beautiful example of argument dilution.

Initially, Auckland Transport highlighted the benefits of the shuttles as – being able to cut down the size of its car fleet and improve “business efficiency”. A good sound reason for trialing the shuttle businesses.

But then their representative also tried to justify by stating that the train timetables don’t always suit and take too long!  To quote:

“Public transport is also an option used by many staff to travel to meeting but the timings of the trains don’t always suit”

“The train takes 45 minutes where-as the shuttle, door to door, is 20 to 25 minutes.”

The shuttle driver is then quoted as saying that he frequently makes what is scheduled as a 42-45 minute journey in 20 minutes, observing that he catches and passes the recently departed public bus “every single day”

Councilor Chris Darby is quoted as saying Auckland Council had yet to develop a workplace transport plan which understood staff needs and found ways to meet them.

As Homer Simpson would say “DUH!”

As anyone that’s been through the Scotwork Advancing Negotiation Skills course would know this is a classic example of Argument Dilution. The rationalization of a large fleet of vehicles following the formation of the Supercity council is a good sound commercial reason for using the shuttle buses – full stop.

There is usually a good reason for doing something or not doing it. Often we tell the other party the reason. We then think of another reason and give that as well. Then a third reason occurs to us and we add that for good measure. The problem is that each reason is weaker than the one which went before and gradually the original compelling argument is diluted.

As a negotiator faced with a good strong argument ask the other party if there are any other reasons. Most people will not be able to resist the temptation to give two or three more, each weaker than the last. Eventually the arguments can become so feeble as to be self-defeating.

If you have a reason for doing something give it, and shut up!

Mark Simpson, Scotwork New Zealand


SHARE

blogAuthor

About the author:

Mark Simpson, Scotwork New Zealand
No bio is currently avaliable

Latest Blog:

Squashed

I find this rather difficult to write, as I am a person of some size myself, but I shall press ahead anyway in the fond hope that no one is offended. Recently, on a holiday in the USA, my wife and I found ourselves on an internal flight on a budget US airline. If I share with you at the outset that this airline made Ryanair look like the Savoy hotel of the airline industry, you’ll begin to get the picture. Anyhow, I was allocated seat 4B on a plane that the check-in steward told me was completely full – a middle seat; my wife was in seat 4E – a middle seat on the other side of the aisle. I had missed the bit about pre-booking your seat for $25 a seat; how full was the flight from Phoenix-Mesa to Rapid City going to be, for heaven’s sake? It turned out to be very full. Who knew? As we were waiting to board,...

Latest Tweet:





United States
973.428.1991
usa@scotwork.com
Follow us
cpd.png
voty2016_sign_gold.png