Decision-making in business

The application of CT in business can be very powerful. The process of moving from an initial question to a decision, using a CT (‘tree’) framework, can be represented in the following way.


Clarifying terms

Producing a continuum of choice

Selecting from continuum of choice

Generating criteria for evaluation of choices

Applying criteria, by selection and use of relevant evidence


This method, developed by me as a way of operationalising CT in decision-making, combines a very productive combination of clear and coherent reasoning with a strongly creative aspect in the production of a continuum of choice and the generation of criteria.

The method is further informed by using the overall CT criteria of relevance and adequacy, which are powerful criteria in judging the significance of claims and how they are used.

CT can also (literally) profitably be applied to the examination of the various sources of problems that can detract from good decision-making.

These include the following:

  • alternatives not being clearly defined, described, and considered.
  • existing biases not being discounted (uncritically using familiar ways of thinking or acting);
  • the range of ‘traps’.

These traps include the following:

  • anchoring;
  • the status-quo;
  • sunk-cost;
  • confirming-evidence;
  • framing;
  • selective recall.

Possible solutions to each of these can be very clearly developed by using CT. For example, with the confirming-evidence trap, we should

  • stand back from the problem/issue and consider what sort of evidence might (and might not) be relevant;
  • think of possible counter-positions (including counter-arguments);
  • think of the ways in which we might be biased, and seek to compensate.

Given that good CT involves a dialogue that is sustained, purposeful, and reasonable (as in using reasons), it can be seen that the use of CT can make a significant contribution to decision-making.

We can produce a tailor-made consultancy package that brings CT to any aspect of a company’s or organisation’s decision-making.

I also provide some perspectives on other services offered by ASM PLUS which have particular relevance for business and which like CT are geared to either avoiding dispute/conflict in the first place or resolving it as quickly as possible, namely mediation and the facilitated meeting.


Mediation can be understood as the process of assisting disputing parties in resolving conflict. It is a process in which the clarification of issues is used as a central feature of enabling disputing parties to consider resolutions of conflict.

This fits very well with using the skills and dispositions of CT, given the ways in which CT can contribute to the production of clarity in dialogue, the ways in which it can invite those in the mediation to look at assumptions being made in positions, and the ways in which it can focus our thinking on the nature of the relationship between claims and counter-claims.

By being helped by the use of the questioning approach of CT, those involved in mediation are highly likely to see more clearly how agreement on a useful outcome can be reached.

Facilitated meetings

Whereas mediation normally involves parties in conflict, facilitated meetings which also fit very well with CT do not normally do so. Though the facilitator works with a group to reach an agreed decision, the members of the group do not start with opposing positions. It might be, of course, that during the facilitated meeting, disagreements emerge about aspects of the decision-making (such as disputes over what is relevant, what evidence is significant, what assumptions should be made, and so on), and these will be examined during the meeting.

As with mediation, the skills and dispositions of CT are highly relevant to the successful operation of a facilitated meeting, given what they bring to the meeting:

  • initial clarification;
  • examining possibilities and positions;
  • generating and using criteria relevant to the issue(s);
  • making assumptions explicit;
  • encouraging focused and sustained dialogue;
  • highlighting the relationship between positions and counter-positions;
  • narrowing down of considered choices;
  • looking for agreement.