Bad Office Conversations

Have you walked into work on Monday morning and been asked about your weekend while grabbing a cup of coffee?  How does the conversation go? Is the other party truly interested in your weekend activities, or do they quickly shift the conversation to tell you about their weekend? Alison Wood Brooks and Michael Yeomans have published a great new paper titled "Boomerasking: Answering Your Own Questions."  They explore how people who turn the conversation around in this manner actually harm their reputations with colleagues.  Here's what the scholars write in the abstract to their paper: 

We introduce one pervasive way people attempt to reconcile these competing goals—boomerasking—a sequence in which individuals first pose a question to their conversation partner (“How was your weekend?”), let their partner answer, and then answer the question themselves (“Mine was amazing!”). The boomerask starts with someone asking a question, but—like a boomerang—the question returns quickly to its source. We document three types of boomerasks: ask-bragging (asking a question followed by disclosing something positive, e.g., an amazing vacation); ask-complaining (asking a question followed by disclosing something negative, e.g., a family funeral); and ask-sharing (asking a question followed by disclosing something neutral, e.g., a weird dream). Though boomeraskers believe they leave positive impressions, in practice, their decision to share their own answer—rather than follow up on their partner’s—appears egocentric and disinterested in their partner’s perspective. As a result, people perceive boomeraskers as insincere and prefer conversation partners who straightforwardly self-disclose. 

For more on how to conduct effective conversations, I highly recommend my former student Charles Duhigg's book, Supercommunicators: How to Unlock the Secret Language of Connection.  Duhigg, a former writer for the New York Times, explains how to engage with others in a way that builds strong, enduring relationships. 

The Value of "Stupid" Questions

Source: Hyatt Hotels

David Gelles interviewed Mark Hoplamazian, CEO of  Hyatt Hotels, recently for the New York Times Corner Office column.   In the interview, Hoplamazian describes his early days as CEO of Hyatt, when he was quite unfamiliar with the business.  He explains why "stupid" questions proved quite powerful.  

It was pretty intimidating in some ways. I came into the business, and I was pretty ignorant. I knew a lot about the financial and tax structure of Hyatt because I had helped put the company together in the whole family reorganization. But I didn’t really know the business; I didn’t grow up in the business. That level of ignorance was super powerful because it just let me ask a whole bunch of stupid questions, which served me extremely well. Those simple questions often led to interesting discussions about why we do certain things the way we do, and that led to changes. But it was organic as opposed to me coming in thinking that I knew better. It was actually the result of inquiry.

Hoplamazian's comments about the value of "stupid" questions speak to the importance of bringing some non-experts into the decision-making process on your team from time to time.  Experts may be wedded to the past, to the way things have always been done.  They can be trapped by the conventional wisdom.  Smart people with a broad range of other experiences can bring fresh perspective. They can ask, "Why are we doing it this way?"   Done effectively, these questions don't have to be threatening.  They don't have to disparage the existing ways of working.  They can simply inquire, seeking to understand, rather than being critical.   The right quesiton might not be "Why do you do it THAT way?" Instead, it might be, "Help me understand the rationale for that approach or that process." 

Four Questions Each Leader Should Ask

Bill Boebel, serial entrepreneur and CEO of Pingboard, has written a good column for Fast Company about the four questions each leader should ask themselves.  Boebel argues that leaders need to focus on these four questions in order to build a productive work environment for their team members.

1. DOES EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE UNDERSTAND WHERE THE COMPANY IS HEADING?

2. DO EMPLOYEES UNDERSTAND HOW THEIR WORK CONTRIBUTES TO LARGER OBJECTIVES?

3. DO MY EMPLOYEES FEEL VALUED?

4. AM I SETTING MY EMPLOYEES UP FOR A THRIVING FUTURE?

Source: Blue Diamond Gallery

Four terrific questions.  Here's a suggestion: Each leader should print these questions on a poster and put them up his or her office.  Stare at them every day.  Ask others to provide them regular evaluations of how well they are doing on these four issues.  

Avoiding Leading Questions

In yesterday's blog post, I discussed the way you frame a question has a significant influence on whether others will reveal problems, risks, and bad news to you as a leader.   In this blog post, I would like to expand on the topic of asking the leading question.   

We often find ourselves asking leading questions without even being fully aware of our behavior.  We do not recognize how our mental models and assumptions have shaped our inquiries in ways that may influence the way people respond to us.   

Years ago, psychologist Elizabeth Loftus studied the issue of leading questions.  She found that small changes in the way that we phrase a question can matter a great deal (similar to the research cited in yesterday's blog post).   For instance, she showed research subjects the video of a car accident in one study.   For some individuals, she asked them how fast the car was traveling when it drove through a stop sign.  Fo others, she simply asked them about the car's speed when turning right, without mentioning the stop sign.   Later, not surprisingly, when asked if they had seen the stop sign, more people responded affirmatively if the question referred to the road sign.   Loftus describes the inclusion of the stop sign as a "presupposition" - “a condition that must hold in order for the question to be contextually appropriate.”

In a later experiment, Loftus examined the impact of including false presuppositions in our questions.  After showing research subjects a video of another car accident, she asked some of them, “How fast was the white sports car going when it passed the barn while traveling along the country road?” She posed others a similar question, but without mentioning the barn at all.   The barn actually never appears in the video.  Later, she asked all the research subjects if they had seen the barn in the video.  Sure enough, many individuals in the first group reported spotting the barn - they were led to believe it existed by the phrasing of the question posed to them.  

Do managers include presuppositions in their questions?  Sure, we all do at times.   Consider the question, “How much will market share rise if we increase our advertising spending?” This question presumes that more advertising spending will increase sales, and more so for the manager's firm than for competitors.  What if the advertising drives primary demand, increasing sales for the entire prodcut category (but therefore, not improving market share)?  What if competitors respond/match the spending hike, and therefore, it has no effect on market share at all?   The words "how much" at the start of the question may distort the responses that one receives.   

[This post summarizes the discussion of leading questions in my book, Know What You Don't Know.]  

Phrasing the Question: Start by Presuming a Problem

Julia Minson, Eric VanEpps, Jeremy Yip, and Maurice Schweitzer have published a new paper titled, "Eliciting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: The effect of question phrasing on deception."  They report their research regarding the impact that question phrasing has on a counterparty's willingness to reveal critical information.  They examine this issue in the context of negotiations and job interviews.  

Minson and her colleagues contrast three types of inquiries:  positive assumption questions (presume that no problem exists), negative assumption questions (assume a problem exists), and general assumption questsions (no mention of a problem). The authors provide an example of positive vs. negative inquiries. Positive: “This car doesn’t have any problems, right?” Negative: “What is wrong with this car that you are trying to sell me?”  

The authors conduct a series of studies to examine the impact that different types of questions have on a counterparty's behavior. They find that negative questions elicit the revelation of more critical information about problems.  In an interview with Knowledge@Wharton, Van Epps concludes, "“People are much more likely to disclose problems when you presume [there is a] problem.”  

These scholars examine questions in the context of job interviews and negotiations, but I think an even more important application might be for leaders assessing risk in their organizations.  We know that bad news often does not rise to the top in organizations.  How can leaders uncover hidden risks before small problems have become major crises?  This study suggests that leaders should ask probing questions that presume a problem exists, rather than inquiring in ways that assume things are going smoothly.  

Asking Engineers the Right Questions

In our extensive study of the Columbia space shuttle accident, Amy Edmondson, Richard Bohmer, and I examined the culture and leadership at NASA. Specifically, we analyzed the forces that made it difficult for engineers such as Rodney Rocha to speak up regarding their safety concerns, and we looked at how leaders did not ask probing questions to elicit dissenting views. 

When I teach the case to engineers and other technical experts, I often hear them say that management needs to understand how to ask engineers the right questions, and how to interpret their results. They argue that engineers were not going to scream, "There is a safety-of-flight risk!" unless they had conclusive evidence. The engineers' lack of complete certainty might lead to them to give answers that that are interpreted incorrectly by management. Organizational leaders might be looking for a definitive statement expressing alarm and grave concern, but they won't get it if there is scientific uncertainty. 

Today, I ran across a good quote (in Fast Company) from Google's long-time Chairman and CEO, Eric Schmidt, regarding this issue. Scmidt explains how you have to ask multiple questions, in different ways, to make sure you are getting the whole picture when working with technical experts: 

They are taught to think logically. If you ask engineers a precise question, they will give you a precisely truthful answer. That also tends to mean that they’ll only answer the question that you asked them. If you don’t ask them exactly the right question, sometimes they’ll evade you — not because they’re lying but because they’re being so scrupulously truthful.”

Five Essential Questions

My colleague Peter Nigro (finance professor here at Bryant University) gave me a little book to read this week:  "What, What?" by James Ryan, Dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education.  What a fantastic read!  I laughed, cried, and learned a great deal.   Ryan offers five essential questions that we should all ask ourselves (not just once, but throughout our daily lives).   Here are the five questions:

1.  Wait, what?   In other words, ask people for clarification.  Ask them to elaborate. Seek to understand them more clearly before jumping to conclusions.

2.  I wonder... Two types of "I wonder" questions actually: I wonder why and I wonder if.  I wonder why demonstrates intellectual curiosity.  You are trying to understand what's really going on.  Then, you can ask, "I wonder if..."  In other words, what might be possible?  How might we improve things?  You open up your mind to new opportunities for growth, development, and change.

3.  Couldn't we at least...?   Sometimes we disagree vehemently with others.  This question seeks to find some common ground.  It looks for some small first steps that can bring people together.  It propels us to take some action, rather than waiting for the perfect grandiose solution.  It invites us to find small wins.

4.  How can I help?  With this question, we reach out to others, but we don't simply offer our solutions to what we perceive to be their problems.  We let them drive the conversation.  What do they need from us?  How can we contribute most effectively?

5.  What truly matters to me?  This question pertains both to specific meetings, projects, and decisions as well as to your life overall.  For particular tasks, asking this question enables you to get to the heart of the issue.  Where should we really focus our attention?  What are the key issues, and what are the things that distract us?  At a broader level, this question enables us to consider our values and our priorities in life.

The video below provides a brief introduction to these ideas.  I highly recommend reading the entire book.  It's a quick read (just over 100 pages).  I promise that it will be thought-provoking.

Brainstorming vs. Question-Storming?

I read a terrific article by Stephanie Vozza in Fast Company this week.  The article focuses on the notion of asking great questions.  She argues that the best leaders ask good questions so as to enhance their learning and engage more effectively in meetings.  Toward the end of her article, Vozza highlights a particular technique proposed by Hal Gregersen of the MIT Leadership Center.   He proposes that teams should employ "question-storming" sessions from time to time, particularly when they have reached an impasse on a tough issue.  Vozza explains:

Have your team generate at least 50 questions about the problem. At about question 25, Gregersen says it will stall. "I have watched this a hundred times around the world," he says. "People say: 'I don't have any more questions, I am stuck.' Keep going, because it's that pass forward that can sometimes give you some of the greatest questions."  Question storming a long series of questions gets you closer to the right questions that will give you the right answer, says Gregersen. "And that's where question storming complements traditional brainstorming," he says.

I like the notion.  In fact, I think question-storming might be useful at the front end of some challenging problem-solving processes, rather than simply as a tool for when a team is deadlocked.  Generating a list of thoughtful questions can insure that a team looks at a problem from multiple frames, and it can help inform the research that needs to be done to generate key insights about an issue.  

Five Great Questions to Ask When a Team is Stuck

Suppose your team is stuck.   The group has discussed two main options for moving forward, but it can't agree on which course of action to pursue.  Two factions have emerged, and the dialogue has become contentious.   People have become entrenched in their positions.  What types of questions can you ask as a leader to help the group become unstuck?  Here are five great questions you might pose to the group:

1.  What other options might we consider, beyond the two proposals currently on the table?

2.  How might our principal rivals in the marketplace look at this issue?  How might they approach it differently?

3.  Are we trying to solve the wrong problem?   What we if we framed the issue and/or defined the problem/opportunity differently?

4.  What if you had to argue for the option that you currently oppose?  What are the main arguments you would make for that course of action and why?

5.  What if you were the CEO of this organization (as opposed to looking at it from the perspective of your division, department, discipline, etc.)? How might you look at this issue differently? 

The Value of Naive Questions

Fortune magazine published an article recently that was titled, "The brilliance of asking incredibly naive questions." The article focuses on the work of Warren Berger, author of A More Beautiful Question: The Power of Inquiry to Spark Breakthrough Ideas.   Berger explains:

"In most meetings -- and in most everything we do in business -- we are usually trying to keep things moving forward and just 'get things done.' This is a natural impulse, and of course it's important to get things done and stay on schedule. The problem is, this leaves little time to question assumptions, as in, Why are we doing this particular thing? Have we really thought it through, and considered other possibilities?"

I think Berger is right about the "getting things done" mentality.   I would put it this way.  We often fixate on the "how" question - as in, how are we going to do this?   We often overlook at the more fundamental question:  Why are we doing this?  

The problem, of course, is that people are often afraid to ask the naive questions.  That's why leaders need to make sure they are asking these types of questions from time to time.  They accomplish two things when they pose such questions.  First, they might uncover some key assumptions and alternatives.  Second, they set a tone and an example.  They make it easier for others to ask such questions. 

One final thought - timing is everything.   You do have to consider the timing of your question.  You don't want to embarrass folks or become disruptive when you ask such questions.  You want to think about the audience, and consider how you may impact a colleague.   You certainly don't want to unintentionally undermine a peer or make them look bad.  

Two Kinds of Questions: Which Do You Ask?

Stanford's Bill Barnett has a terrific blog post about the two types of questions that people tend to ask.   The "showing off" question aims to demonstrate how much we know about a subject.  It might be a "gotcha" aiming to expose the weakness or mistake in a presenter's argument.  The second type of question aims to learn, not to show off.  This question comes from a willingness to be a bit vulnerable, to acknowledge ignorance or a lack of a complete understanding about a subject.  This "learning" question aims not to demonstrate our existing knowledge to others, but instead to deepen our understanding about a particular topic.  Barnett points out that we often fail to ask these "learning" questions because we don't want to look stupid.  We are afraid to acknowledge in front of our peers, subordinates, or superiors that we do not understand a topic completely.   Unfortunately, we limit ourselves when we hold back in such a fashion.  

What type of questions do you ask as a leader?   Moreover, what type of questions do you encourage your team members to ask?  Here are a few clues that someone might be asking a "showing off" question rather than a learning one.  First, do you hear a long preamble before the actual question (or is there actually no question in there at all!)?  Second, does the person's agenda shine through when they ask the question?  Third, what's the person's body language like?   Are they in attack mode in their posture, as well as their words?   Finally, is it a leading question?  Are they clearly fishing for a particular answer?  

Mission Questions

Warren Berger has an outstanding column over at Fast Company about what he calls "mission questions."   Berger, the author of the forthcoming book A More Beautiful Question, argues that leaders should be asking five crucial questions pertaining to a company's mission.   Here are the five questions:

1.  Why are we here in the first place?

2. What does the world need most that we are uniquely able to provide?

3.  What are we willing to sacrifice?

4.  What matters more than money?

5.  Are we all on this mission together?

I think these questions are very useful.   I would simply add two comments.  First, companies need to be cautious about adopting an insular approach when responding to these questions.   The questions focus on "we" a great deal - as in the company's leaders and other employees.  Of course, the key player here is the customer.  What do they want, need, and desire?   Why should they choose us?   We might have a cool product idea, and we might care about it a great deal... but does it really solve a problem for a customer?  Does it relieve their pain?   Too much product focus and not enough customer focus can be a problem in some organizations.  

Second, the questions get people to think very broadly about the company's purpose. However, a great strategy has a strong degree of focus.  Answering these questions can sometimes get people thinking so expansively that they aren't carefully delineating the boundaries of the firm's strategy. Who are we trying to serve, and who are we not trying to serve?   What are we going to produce, and what are not going to produce?  

Asking Better Questions

Shane Snow wrote a good column recently on the importance of asking good questions.  He argues that asking good questions serves as a crucial leadership capability that people should develop.   Snow makes some good recommendations, such as trying to not ask leading questions, reframing questions later in a conversation when you haven't received a complete response, and replaying what you have heard to insure that you have a solid understanding.  

I would make a few additional points.  A good leader also asks questions that explore a topic a bit deeper, even when they appear to have a consensus in a meeting.  A good leader uses those questions to accomplish two things:  1.  Test what-if scenarios, and 2.  Test for understanding and alignment.   With regard to the first point, leaders want to make sure that they uncover any hidden risks.  They might ask: "What if some of our assumptions prove to be untrue?"  "What if our competitor responds in an unexpected way?"   With regard to the second point, a leader needs to make sure that a team is truly on the same page, and that everyone shares a solid understanding of a decision rationale, as well as each person's role and responsibilities during implementation.  Asking good questions can help reveal whether people are truly on the same page before moving forward with execution of a plan of action.