Pros, Cons, Verdict: how to give a fair answer that still takes a side
By Rita Okonkwo · The Craft
Some questions do not have an obvious answer, and the listener knows it. If you argue only one side, you sound like you have not thought about the other. If you lay out both sides and stop, you sound like you cannot decide.
Pros, Cons, Verdict does both jobs. You make the strongest case for, the strongest case against, and then you make a call and say why. The fairness earns trust; the verdict is what the listener actually came for.
Pros, Cons, Verdict, one part at a time
Question: Should we move our weekly all-hands meeting to every two weeks?
- Pros (The best case for it): The best case for it is time: forty people in a room for an hour is forty hours every week, and half of each meeting repeats the last one.
- Cons (The best case against): The best case against is that it's the only place new joiners hear what the rest of the company is doing, and two weeks is a long time to be new.
- Verdict (Your call, and why): So my call is every two weeks, with every new joiner paired with someone who briefs them in between.
The three parts
1. Pros: the best case for it
The strongest argument in favour, with something concrete behind it. Not a list of every advantage: one or two real ones, stated as well as a supporter would state them.
2. Cons: the best case against
The strongest argument against, stated just as fairly. This is the part people weaken without noticing, picking an objection that is easy to wave away. Do the opposite. A Verdict that has survived the best objection is far more convincing than one that has only survived a weak one.
3. Verdict: your call, and why
Take a side. Say which way you come down, and, crucially, say why the Pros outweigh the Cons (or the reverse). The best verdicts do something with the Cons rather than ignore them: here, the new-joiner problem is answered by a buddy, so the objection becomes part of the plan.
"It depends" is not a Verdict. If it really depends, say on what, and which way you would go in the case in front of you.
Why the strongest objection helps you
It is tempting to think that raising a serious objection weakens your case. For a spoken answer, the opposite is usually true. The listener is already thinking of the objection; if you say it first, and say it well, they stop holding it against you and start listening to how you deal with it. You also sound like someone who decides things with their eyes open.
An answer, taken apart
Pros. The best case for it is time: forty people in a room for an hour is forty hours every week, and half of each meeting repeats the last one.
Cons. The best case against is that it's the only place new joiners hear what the rest of the company is doing, and two weeks is a long time to be new.
Verdict. So my call is every two weeks, with every new joiner paired with someone who briefs them in between.
The Verdict does not just pick the Pros; it answers the Con. That is the difference between a decision and a vote.
Where it works, and where it doesn't
Use it for decisions with real trade-offs: "should we...?", "what do you think of...?", debate topics, and interview questions like "what's the downside of your approach?". It is also the fairest way to disagree with somebody in a meeting.
It is overkill for questions with a clear answer, where weighing a weak objection just wastes time; PREP is faster. And if the case is one-sided and you need to persuade, the Rule of Three makes it more forcefully.
How the Coach listens for it
The Coach checks a take for a case for, a case against and a verdict. The most common miss is the verdict itself: a balanced answer that never comes down on one side.
Practise it
Practise Pros, Cons, Verdict in the Coach. Lock it and try the Debate scenario, where the prompts are written to have two real sides.