How we use questions to get more commitment, learning and better results.

Two weeks ago, Sue McKinney, Peg Carlson and I spent four days training a group of internal Continuous Improvement consultants. They noticed two things about us and our approach:

-We ask a lot of genuinely curious questions
-We actively seek disagreement and difference

Many of them noticed the opposite patterns in themselves! As they practiced their newfound skills, we all noticed that they would often advocate for something and then ask questions like "Are you ok with that?", "Am I right?" or "Do you agree?" We also noticed they were silently hoping that they'd get quick agreement so they could move on.

We talked with them about their questions. We decided that their questions were likely to solicit agreement or similar views. They also made it harder for others to openly disagree.

We suggested a different way of thinking: if they genuinely wanted solutions that people were internally committed to and they wanted them quickly, they would be better off saying what they were thinking, then actively seeking disagreement.

Time and again, we've learned that if people disagree or see things differently, we save time by discovering their views as quickly as possible. We suggest you ask questions that actively seek disagreement or that encourage people to respond with whatever they're naturally thinking. Here are some examples of each:

"Seeking Disagreement" questions:
"I'd like to use [x] as a vendor. Do you have any concerns about [x]?"
"I'd like to... Does anyone see any problems with what I'm suggesting?"
"I think you have concerns about this project. Am I off base?"
"I think we'd save time by building an agenda. Are you seeing that differently?"
"I think this market will be profitable because.... What flaws, if any, do you see in my logic?"

"Natural Thinking" questions:
"I think production in unit A has slowed. What do you think?"
"I'm concerned that we don't have enough support from Jim and his team. What's your reaction to that?"
"Sounds like you think [x] is the best way to go. What is it that's important to you about [x]?"
"It sounds like we've missed our deadline. Have I done anything to contribute to this problem?"

We've found that getting these questions out your mouth in a believable way requires you to be genuinely interested in surfacing differences and disagreement. If you aren't, they will probably come across as canned, perfunctory, or even manipulative.

What are your reactions to all of this? Please come to the Mutual Learning Action Group and share them with us and your peers.

2005 Matt Beane