Month: September 2017

Lawyers are taught never to ask a question to which they don’t already know the answer.

The smart ones also know that the right question to ask is the one that gets them the answer they want.

The issue with this approach is that one of the ways we try and make sense of situations and the world around us is by asking questions.

If the questions we ask lead to pre-planned answers then they don’t really help us gain an insight into the situation and look for alternative explanations.

A more insidious approach to questioning can literally re-write your memories.

The psychological scientist Elizabeth Loftus studies false memories. She found, for example, that showing people a situation – for example a car accident and then asking them a question like “How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other” results in much higher estimates of speed than when the word smashed is replaced by hit.

In the same situation, if she asked them whether the blue car that drove past had something on its roof, people were more likely to say they had seen a blue car, even though the actual colour might have been green. The question in this form had distorted their memory.

Pollsters can use this approach to influence how you answer their polls. If they couch their question in the form of a idealogical position or in relation to a well known person, people are more likely to support it than when the question is posed in the form of a cost that they need to pay.

For example, the questions “Should we do whatever it takes to maintain the existing trading relationship with the EU” vs “Are you willing to pay X billions in order to maintain the existing trading relationship with the EU” may result in different and contradictory ratings of commitment.

If you are doing anything in business – trying to see if a new product has market demand, working on a culture change programme, or trying to transform operations – you probably want the questions you ask to give you useful and actionable information.

That means you need to try and ask questions that don’t have an inherent bias or lead the person in a particular direction.

For example, if you ask someone whether the government should force an outcome versus whether they should regulate it, many people will react viscerally and negatively to the word force and perhaps in a more nuanced way to the word regulate.

No one likes to be forced, but many will appreciate the need for regulation.

Finally – if you want to know whether there is demand for a product – there is a particular line of questioning that is very useful.

Don’t ask someone whether they want your product. Instead, ask them to describe how they currently approach the area of business that your product is designed to improve.

If they have a problem in that area, they will tell you what it means for them – and if your product really does solve that problem you may be on the right track.

How they currently do something is also the best indicator of how they are likely to do things in the future. If they are very conservative and risk-averse, you will not convince them to become innovative risk takers just because that is how you work.

If you really want to understand someone, ask them what they do or have done – not what they are going to do.

It takes time for people to see what you can see.

You might have a brilliant idea: something that saves time, money, effort – or have a new approach or product that is going to bring huge benefits to someone else.

But, most people aren’t going to see it your way straight away.

Mark Suster, an entrepreneur, venture capitalist and blogger, introduced a great way of thinking about this. Thanks go to Dimitrios Kourtesis who shared this idea with me.

When you first meet someone, that creates a single data point – both for you and them. Your interaction creates a moment of credibility (Suster talks about performance).

The picture above shows this event (adapted from Suster’s original images).

In subsequent interactions you build up more data points. You learn more about each other, what you do and how do you it and so on.

Over time these interactions create more dots on the graph.

The key question is – are these dots connected or not?

If you have a set of random dots that don’t seem to have a clear relationship between them, people are going to struggle to connect them and understand what you are pitching.

People listening to you need to “connect the dots”, see the storyline that runs between them and helps them make sense of your proposition.

It doesn’t matter if there is a break or a change in the story. For example, in the second chart, you might have a particular set of dots connected by a line – and then something changes causing you to go in a different direction and you then have a new set of dots connected by a line.

The connection – the storyline – is what people buy into. It’s what allows them to see the pattern in what you are doing and start to trust that you have a plan and a destination in mind rather than just doing random activity based on what’s latest and loudest.

Suster recommends that you try and increase the number of data points with short, relevant updates when possible. Start well before you need something, and by the time you go for the “ask”, the people you are talking to can see the pattern in what you are doing and that reduces their perception of risk and increases their willingness to invest in you and your idea.

Reja Khadjavi of Shoelace has a good post on how regular, consistent updates to their investors helps them strengthen relationships and provides examples of what they actually send out.

It might seem basic, but sometimes we can get lost in the detail of what we do and forget that something that seems simple and obvious to us can be complex and opaque to someone else.

The way to get someone else to see what you see is to help them see the lines that connect what you do.

It’s easy doing things when you don’t need to work with anyone else.

There is no need to consult, persuade, argue, manipulate, coerce or flatter someone to get what you want.

But that’s what we need to do in real life – groups of people can produce more if they work well together than an individual toiling on his or her own.

So what is it that will make this process of working with others easier?

It might make sense to start with how you see yourself and your relationship with others. The Johari window is a technique that helps do this.

It’s a 2×2 matrix that looks at what you know or don’t know compared to what others know or don’t know.

The picture above is an adapted form to see what can be done rather than what is already in place, which was the purpose of the original work.

First, there are things that you and the person you need to work with know. This is a common space, where you can both discuss, agree or disagree based on common knowledge.

It is a collegial space where you can feel like equals.

Then, there are things that others know but you don’t know. These can be character flaws, research findings, inside knowedge about business politics and so on.

These are your blind spots, the things that will come back to bite you. For example, if someone knows you get angry in meetings, they can prod you to explode and undermine your credibility in a crucial setting.

After that come things that you know but others don’t know. This is where you get the opportunity to share, teach and perform.

Done well, people will appreciate your effort. Done badly, you will come across as superior or egotistical.

Finally, there are things that you don’t know and others don’t know. You’ll need to work together to explore the way ahead.

It seems like a good way to think about working with a new team or a new person is to work your way around the matrix.

Figure out the things you have in common, identify and eliminate blind spots on all sides, learn and share information with each other and work together to create new ideas, knowledge or capability.

Sounds simple.

But, is it easy to do?

Some people want to change the way things are done, some people like things the way they are, and some people aren’t really bothered and are just waiting for the working day to end.

Changing the way things are done is not just about saying that there is a better way and so obviously everyone should do it.

For example, if you want to try and be more energy efficient, you could just set the room temperature controls to 18 degrees C, lock the panel and leave.

You will, however, get complaints. Lots of them. From people that are too warm, too cold or liked having control. Some enterprising ones will work out how to hack your controls or subvert the temperature sensors.

When it comes to small or large programs, whether it is choosing to lose weight or changing your entire IT system, what are the factors that will make your program succeed or fail?

It turns out there is a formula. David Gleicher created the first version and Kathie Dannemiller made it easier to understand and use.

Kathie’s version says that three things must be in place for change to be possible. These are:

• D: Dissatisfaction with how things are now
• V: Vision of what is possible
• F: First, concrete steps that can be taken towards the vision

Working against these factors is R: Resistance to change.

The formula says that D x V x F > R.

Or in words, the product of the three factors needs to be greater than the resistance to make change possible.

It’s a nice formula, but there are a couple of problems with it.

First, can it actually be used like a formula? What units do you use to measure D, V and F, and then what do you actually multiply?

Someone needs to do some dimensional analysis, or in simpler words, work out how to convert the factors to a common unit (like litres or centimetres).

But that would probably be a waste of time. Instead, a more useful representation may be to use a force field framework as shown in the image above. There are driving forces that move you towards a goal and hindering forces that block movement.

If you have more forward forces than backward forces, you are probably going to move towards your change goal.

The second problem with the formula is that it assumes you need to know where you are going and what you should start doing in order to change.

That is not necessarily the case. The only factor that is really necessary is Dissatisfaction with the status quo.

Instead of Vision and First steps you might have options and experiments. Jason Little has an interesting blog post about experiments here.

You might try a number of things out, see which ones face more or less resistance and work towards an approach that makes you happier (or less dissatisfied).

Perhaps we should keep in mind George Bernard Shaw, who wrote “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”