to have the person identify how the solution meets the interests on which the group members have agreed.
people respond by advocating their own point of view, which leads you to re- spond with more advocacy. This creates a reinforcing cycle of rising advocacy in which each party tries to convince the others.
If you only inquire, you do not help others understand your reasoning and why you are inquiring. Advocacy and inquiry alone are both ways of unilater- ally controlling the conversation; both can easily contribute to defensive be- havior in others.
Inquiry, Genuine and Rhetorical
Not all inquiry is genuine.In genuine inquiry, you ask a question with the intent of learning. In rhetorical inquiry, you ask a question with the intent of implicitly conveying your point of view.The question “Why don’t you just try it my way and see how it works out?” is not genuine inquiry because em- bedded in the question is the implicit advocacy “just try it my way.” In contrast, a genuine inquiry would be, “What kind of problems do you think might occur if you were to try it the way I’m suggesting?” Notice that in the genuine inquiry there is no intent to embed your own point of view in the inquiry.
The difference between genuine and rhetorical inquiry is not simply in words; it is a difference in intent and meaning and the kind of response you help to generate. If you use rhetorical inquiry, people infer that you are with- holding information or trying to persuade them with your question. In the ex- treme, rhetorical inquiry feels like an inquisition and can lead those being questioned to become cautious, withhold information, and turn defensive.
Easing in sometimes takes the form of rhetorical inquiry. When you ease in, you indirectly try to raise an issue or advocate your point of view. One way of easing in is to use your question to get the other person to see your point of view without explicitly stating it. For example, you might ask, “Do you think it would be a good idea if we . . . ?” while privately thinking, I think it would be a good idea if we. . . .
Managers often ease in with their direct reports. A manager may be con- cerned that sharing her own view first will influence or simply reduce the in- put from their direct reports. The manager reasons that if she asks people what they think first, she will get the direct reports’ opinions without their being influenced by her point of view. However, in this situation, direct reports might be reluctant to share their views because when they have done so in the past she responded with her own advocacy in order to show them that they were wrong. So, when the manager asks her question, the direct reports are wary about responding. They remain noncommittal in order to leave themselves room to change their views depending on the manager’s response. This leads the manager to infer that her direct reports don’t really know about the issue, which may prompt her to revert to advocacy, thinking that inquiry doesn’t work. By using the ground rules and the mutual learning approach, a manager
does not need to worry about whether to speak first or last, because genuine in- quiry increases the chance of the manager learning how others really think about an issue.
An Example
Exhibit 5.6 presents an actual conversation between Brad, the director of an agricultural support organization, and Paul, who reports to Brad. Brad consid- ers Paul a highly educated and talented professional who nevertheless is resist- ing changing his work in response to changing client demands. Brad wants to offer suggestions without putting Paul on the defensive.
Notice that Brad decides to make his point in the form of a question, so it won’t sound critical and so Paul won’t get defensive. But Brad’s question is
Exhibit 5.6. Not Combining Advocacy and Inquiry
Brad’s Thoughts and Feelings The Conversation
He’s kind of a defensive guy. I need to BRAD: Let’s take a look at your current offer options and suggestions, but he plan of work.
probably won’t take it right away.
In this new program plan, all he did was PAUL: That’s fine with me. I’m proud change the dates. There’s nothing new of the work I’ve done this year.
here.
I’ll let him control this part of the meet- BRAD: Why don’t you go through your ing. I can listen for weak spots and current plan for me, and share why make specific suggestions. Maybe hav- you chose these objectives? Also, tell ing him share his accomplishments will me the areas where you have the great- let him know I do respect his work. est pride in your accomplishments.
Oh, boy, now I’ve done it. I hope this PAUL: Here are the objectives I wrote doesn’t reinforce his position that he this year. I know they look a lot like doesn’t need to change. years past, but you know, people don’t
really change, and I’m proud of what I’ve accomplished.
Maybe if I talk about the big picture, BRAD: Paul, you work hard. I know he’ll realize that we have to change. these programs have been effective I’ll put it in the form of a question so I for years, but don’t you think as don’t sound critical. quickly as our client base is changing,
you need to change along with it?
Here comes the defense. I knew he’d PAUL: What are you saying? Are you
react this way. claiming that my work isn’t good and
I’m old-fashioned?
simply advocacy in the form of a question; Paul responds defensively, creating the very result that Brad hopes to avoid by easing in.
If Brad used the ground rule combining advocacy and inquiry he could say,
“Paul, I’d like to talk with you about your work plan. I have some concerns that your new plan doesn’t address the changing needs of our clients. Let me give you a couple of examples of what I mean and get your reactions. [Brad then turns to the ground rule “use specific examples” to illustrate his point.] What are your thoughts, Paul? What, if anything, do you see differently, or have I missed anything?”
If Brad does not combine advocacy and inquiry, you can intervene, as Figure 5.11 illustrates.
4
5
6 Diagnosis Steps
3
2
1
Explain reasoning and intent Decide whether,
how, and why to intervene Infer meaning
Observe behavior
Describe behavior Test for different views
Share inference Test for different views
Help group decide whether and how to change behavior Test for different views
Intervention Steps
I’ll intervene on this because if Brad has his point of view about this, it is important for Paul to understand it. Assuming Brad is easing in, it’s also contributing to Paul’s defensive response.
I’m inferring that Brad’s question is not simply an inquiry and that Brad has his own view that he has not expressed.
Brad has said, “Don’t you think as quickly as our client base is changing, you need to change along with it?”
“Brad, you asked Paul, ‘Don’t you think as quickly as our client base is changing, you need to change along with it?’ Did I get that?”
[if yes, continue]
“It sounds to me from your question like you believe Paul is not changing along with the clients. Am I off?” [if no, continue]
“Can you explain to Paul how you reached that conclusin and then ask Paul if he sees it differently?”
3
2
1
4
5
6
Figure 5.11. Intervening on Combining Advocacy and Inquiry