In any dialogue, negotiation, or decision-making process, we often engage the other parties in one of two modes: advocacy or inquiry. When we’re in advocacy mode, our goal is to achieve a desired outcome, our state of mind is determination, and our approach is to overcome resistance to our point of view. When we’re in inquiry mode our goal is to surface new information, our state of mind is curiosity, and our approach is to ask questions that will elicit candor.
Advocacy and inquiry have their parts to play, and we’re well-served by being proficient at both, particularly if we’re in a role where we hold repeated interactions with employees, peers, investors, or customers. But a problem is that we tend to lead with advocacy, and sometimes we get stuck there. We assume that if we don’t steamroll our counterparts we’ll get flattened in return. This is true at times, to be sure, but not always. And when everyone adopts this stance, the result is a deadlock that can escalate into a confrontation. Why does this happen, and what can we do about it?
The Frame
We’re primed to lead with advocacy for several reasons. One is the “frame”: the way we think about the experience, the other parties, and our respective roles. In some circumstances we truly are engaged in a zero-sum struggle with an adversarial antagonist who will view any form of cooperation as a sign of weakness. But at other times these are just unchecked assumptions, and yet we adopt a self-protective stance without much justification.
We rarely pause to examine the frame we’re applying to a given situation. At best, we may have only a dim awareness of these concepts with little understanding of how they might influence our behavior and communication style. So it can be useful to make these ideas explicit and explore the evidence that supports them by asking:
- How am I defining this situation? (Am I assuming it will be combative?)
- How do I view the other parties? (Am I assuming they will be difficult or hostile?)
- How am I interpreting our respective roles and relationships? (Am I assuming that we must be antagonists?)
- What evidence supports these ideas? (And how objective is this data?)
Our Self-Image
Our view of ourselves is another significant element that we bring to every interaction. In circumstances when we’re assured of our power and influence and we have confidence in our ability to determine the outcome, we engage far less forcefully. We may not feel the need to advocate at all. But when we think of ourselves as lacking power or influence, we feel the need to act with vigor, and yet this perspective may be woefully inaccurate.[1]
We develop our professional self-image in the formative years of our career, but we don’t necessarily keep it up-to-date. This is compounded when we fail to consider how other people see us, and how their perspective might differ from our own. (In my experience, very few senior leaders think of themselves as “senior leaders,” but subordinates are keenly attuned to senior leaders’ authority.) So we often view ourselves as less powerful or influential than we actually are and feel compelled to advocate strenuously on our own behalf, which may be unnecessary and even counter-productive. So it can be useful to illuminate these dynamics by asking:
- What sources of power and influence do I possess in this situation?
- How might my self-image lead me to discount these factors?
- What are the other parties’ perceptions of my power and influence?
- How might these views be at odds with each other?
Missing Data
A theme in my comments above and yet another reason we lead with advocacy is a cognitive bias that psychologist Daniel Kahneman called What You See Is All There Is, or WYSIATI, which is shorthand for the fact that we find it very difficult to envision “missing data.” [2] As I’ve noted before, “Even when faced with massive gaps in information, we tend to focus on the information at our disposal and rely on it to construct a narrative, as flimsy as it might be. A corollary to Kahneman’s WYSIATI might be called WYDSDE: What You Don’t See Doesn’t Exist. And as a result we’re typically overconfident in the validity and coherence of our explanatory narrative.” [3]
When we encounter gaps in our knowledge we immediately fill them with assumptions, which is a feature, not a bug. Our brains are calculating that it’s preferable to have a coherent story that explains an uncertain situation so we can navigate it safely, and this works to our advantage most of the time. But on occasion our assumptions are so off base that the narrative they support leads us to act against our best interests, and this is more likely to happen when we’re engaged in a stressful conflict. So before we leap to conclusions, we should ask:
- How might other parties be framing this situation?
- How might they view themselves in this context?
- What other information might I lack?
- And what questions could I ask to test my assumptions?
Lead with Inquiry
Exploring these questions prepares us to enter the dialogue in a different way: by leading with inquiry. As noted above, this means asking questions that elicit candor. We often ask Yes-or-No? questions, in part because they’re simple and direct. But when simplicity and directness aren’t our only goals, Yes-or-No? questions are less useful. They surface a minimum of new information, and they constrain the conversation rather than opening it further.
Alternatively, we may ask Why? questions, such as “Why did you do that?” But Why? questions can be heard by the other person as “What the hell were you thinking?” and evoke defensiveness rather than candor. Instead, How? or What? questions encourage the other person to pause and reflect. They may be challenging, but they’re less likely to be perceived as judgmental, which minimizes the risk of defensiveness.
- How are you thinking about this?
- What concerns do you have?
- What’s interesting here?
- What are your goals?
- What outcomes are you hoping to avoid?
- What have you tried?
- What have you considered trying?
- What did you learn?
- How do you feel?
Notably these questions aren’t leading questions, which aren’t really questions at all. A leading question is actually a statement or a piece of feedback in the form of a question: “Don’t you think it would be better if you…?” In a sense a leading question is a pop quiz with a supposedly correct answer, and it reliably yields resentment. [4]
The Prisoner’s Dilemma
By emphasizing the value of inquiry, I’m not suggesting that we fail to advocate for our point of view. A balanced approach can be found in research by political scientist Robert Axelrod on the Prisoner’s Dilemma, the game theory model first developed at the RAND Corporation in the 1950s. Two prisoners, A and B, are being interrogated separately about their involvement in a crime. If both of them blame the other, both will be convicted. If A blames B, and B remains silent, B will be convicted, and vice versa. Both of them go free only if they both remain silent. The challenge is that both A and B must trust the other in order to cooperate. In the absence of sufficient trust, one or both will defect. James Tobin summarizes Axelrod’s solution as follows:
- Avoid unnecessary conflict by cooperating as long as your opponent does.
- If your opponent betrays you without provocation, respond in kind, once.
- Then forgive the betrayal and cooperate again.
- Be clear and predictable. That is, always follow these steps in order, so your opponent comes to know how you act and can plan on that basis. [5]
We aren’t necessarily “prisoners” in a given dialogue, negotiation, or decision-making process. But even if we feel free to opt out, this model and Axelrod’s solution offer relevant guidance. Leading with inquiry may well encourage our counterparts to do the same, and as long as that holds true we should “avoid unnecessary conflict by cooperating.” If they choose to abandon this approach, we should follow suit, once. “Then forgive the betrayal and cooperate again.”
If our counterparts are observant, they’ll realize that a commitment to inquiry on their part elicits the same from us, while a “defection” to advocacy has the identical effect. The goal isn’t avoiding conflict at all costs; as I’ve written recently, “Conflict serves to surface a wide range of ideas, to convey varying degrees of conviction, and to portray divergent visions of how to proceed.” [6] But when we can achieve these ends via inquiry, the process tends to be less stressful, less disruptive, more efficient, more sustainable.
Footnotes
[2] Thinking, Fast and Slow, page 86 (Daniel Kahneman, 2011)
[3] Seeing What’s Not There (The Importance of Missing Data)
[4] Adapted from Scott Ginsberg on Asking (Better) Questions. Also see Jennifer Ouyang Altman on Empty Questions.
[5] The Prisoner’s Dilemma (James Tobin, University of Michigan Heritage Project)
[6] How to Facilitate a Conflict on Your Team
For Further Reading
The Six Layers of Knowledge and Better Conversations
How Great Coaches Ask, Listen, and Empathize
Photos: Steamroller by Dave Renz. Lucy digging by Marc Roberts.