“Why do you feel that way?” is a question I often hear in leadership training workshops when I am coaching participants to verify their understanding of another’s message. In fairness, the participant is normally trying to do a better job of paying attention to the team member’s emotional state rather than ignoring it (the more typical method for many managers). The result of that kind of questioning, however, often has the effect of completely shutting the other person down, the opposite of the desired outcome. We are taught how to ask good questions. We understand that questions can be very powerful. There are people in my life who are important resources for me precisely because they know how to ask difficult questions, the kind that challenge me to think in new, often more productive ways.
That kind of questioning works, however, precisely because I have sought it out. What is often overlooked is the danger of asking too many questions, especially when another person has a problem and in particular if they have not asked for your help. When they are struggling and are highly frustrated, questions can be hazardous. The art of asking good questions is often taught in leadership training workshops. We learn the difference between open and closed questions, questions that probe more deeply into the root causes, the power of “why” questions and so forth. No doubt, questions are powerful diagnostic tools. But when it comes to helping a troubled colleague define a vexing problem, they can, and often do, get in the way. They can make it more difficult for the colleague to assume responsibility for his or her own problem solving. They can create unnecessary dependencies.
There are two primary risks to asking questions at the wrong time. 1) They can divert the person away from the original problem. That is, the person responds to the asker’s question and moves down a sidetrack rather than pursuing the real problem. 2) Inappropriate questioning can communicate unintended messages. The person with the problem may hear, “I don’t trust you to handle this. Just follow my lead and I will rescue you since you are not capable enough to solve this problem on your own.”
Diverting can lead to several unwanted outcomes
The person with the problem may just wander from topic to topic and never really get to the root cause of the problem. In extreme cases, you may end up solving the wrong problem altogether. What happens is the person with the problem starts explaining themselves, sometimes not very clearly, often when the person is highly emotional, upset or frustrated. The leader asks a question. The team member must then stop, think about the question, retrieve information, and respond to the question.
While this does not always divert the problem owner, it often does and it certainly always has that potential. Now, we’re off discussing something that is not completely related to the original topic or we end up exploring something that is easier or safer to talk about. We may or may not ever get back to the real issue. This happens because the leader cannot read minds. He or she does not know what is going on inside the other’s head. We are not telepathic. Questions, while posed as inquiries, are based on assumptions about what is important and what circumstances are relevant. No matter how smart we are, we cannot know what those circumstances are. The definition of the problem resides inside the head of the person with the problem. Unless the leader can create an environment in which the team member can feel safe, calm down and think more clearly, he or she may never understand the true nature of the issue.
A colleague of mine illustrates this by having a participant in his leadership-training workshop tell the story of Little Red Riding Hood. He then interrupts with a series of seemingly innocuous questions. It often goes something like this.
Participant: “Little Red Riding Hood lived in a house in the woods.”
Leader: “Why did she live way out there? Doesn’t she know its not safe?”
Participant: “Um… Well, she was going to take a basket of goodies to her grandmother.”
Leader: “Was her grandmother sick or something?”
Participant: “I don’t know. Anyhow, she started walking through the woods to grandma’s house.”
Leader: “By herself? Did her parents know she was going out all-alone? What kind of parents were they?”
Participant: “I’ve lost my place. Let me start over.”
Leader: “Why? The story’s not that complicated.”
Etc.
It’s kind of a mean trick to play on the participant but the class often gets the idea pretty quickly.
Questions contain unintended messages
There are always a number of unintended messages sent and received in any communication transaction. Most of our communication is carried through the nonverbal channels. We all know this. You come home from work and your spouse or partner is quieter than usual, speaking a little more crisply than usual. You ask, “What’s wrong?” They respond, “Nothing!” Few of us would really believe that nothing is wrong. The same thing happens with questions. Rather than a simple series of analytical steps, the questions may be, and often are, viewed as an attempt on the part of the question asker to take control of the situation. In other words, they may hear, “Don’t try to think. I’m taking charge. Just respond to my questions.” If you have ever been cross-examined, (Think about the vice-principal at your high school.) you know how this feels. “Why did you do that? Didn’t you think we would find out? Do you think I won’t call your parents? Did you think that was cute?” We also know that the information extracted in this way can be very unreliable. The question asker has set the agenda. He or she is telling you what data is important and what is not important. Even among professionals, the likelihood of coming up with faulty conclusions is high. This was encountered many times during the pursuit of Bin Laden and his lieutenants. Lots of blind alleys, misinformation, wrong turns, etc.! It is still debatable whether the “enhanced” interrogation techniques were useful or not. That was, of course, an extreme situation. But, I have witnessed “interrogations” in the workplace that gave me chills. Even when conducted with the best of intentions, I have seen team members skulk away from a “coaching” session embarrassed and defeated.
We’re not talking about water boarding, slapping, or shaking. We are talking about the every day use of a form of “interrogation” that is used in place of listening. The two processes are very different. While it seems benign on the surface, persistent questioning as a substitute for listening can erode trust, increase dependency and diminish teamwork. Many participants in leadership training workshops are surprised to find that they can learn a lot more about a team member’s problems and concerns by listening than by asking questions. So, why are you asking all those questions? Who do you think you are? Do you think you’re smarter than me? What are you up to?