I would like to introduce a new logical fallacy into the world.
The argument from “PROFESSIONALISM”.
This argument is provided by those who wish to change organisations and structures. The conversation might go something like:
“We want to make you work 20 hours more in a week. As a professional you must agree that this would increase the time you have to work.”
Essentially it seems rather a hard argument to try and battle. If you are a professional then you want to do your job to the best that you can. You also think that you are open to change and improving outcomes. So, this “you should agree with me” approach seems rather hard to argue against.
My problem with this argument backing up changes in an organisation is that pretty much anything can be justified using the “you’re a professional and so would want the best for your sector”. This is why the argument shouldn’t be used. If your argument can be extended (a bit like the slippery slope) to back up anything then it invalidates the points you are trying to put across.
“You can’t disagree with these new standards as they surely improve what it is that is expected of you as a professional.”
Again this seems hard to argue against. But there is a counter argument to be made. As a professional I should be expected to do all that I reasonalby can to ensure that I work my best. There is a limit to what can physically be done and the expectation on professionals should stop before that limit is reached.
Time for the world to use arguments that really back up what they want to do. Some evidence wouldn’t go amiss either [not just anecdote].