The I-Method?

While relatively accustomed and accomplished at public speaking in his daily work, during his life on the road Lance's primary source of learning was asking questions of strangers. It was harder than he expected but yielded the highest quality experiences of his trip. Once engaged, Lance sensed when to drill down and when to back off in his daily conversation with strangers. It was at once, thrilling, dangerous and rewarding. It was also the only strategy available since preaching and selling were likely to get him ridden out of town on a rail. (OK, that's anachronistic...how about Un-friended on Facebook?)

Excellent dancing requires reading the subtle directional cues and weight shifts of one's partner as well as feeling the dynamic flow of the music. Likewise, Lance found that if the variable of time was open-ended and external distractions were minimized, the potential depth of conversations became vast. Life dreams, tragedies, hopes, victories, doubts, even surprising secrets played out in almost every successful conversation he initiated. He could distinctly feel when his questions were opening doors that had been long closed. Lance instinctively knew when to back out, offer his own answers to build transparency and trust, and how to disengage with respect showing gratitude for sharing. Ironically, truths told to A Stranger on the Greyhound Bus could be surprisingly profound because the likelihood of future encounters are slim.

Which got Lance thinking, what if that Inquisitive Method (I-Method) can come back with him to his home and workplace cultures? He asked himself "What can well formed, strategically targeted, equisitely timed questions accomplish better than one's natural tendency to spout declarative statements and opinions?

A lot. But questions come in many flavors.

TELL ME. The traditional function of questions is to illicit new information, primarily for the benefit of the asker. What time is dinner? When will the report be ready? What is this meeting about? How did you spend your budget? These are all legitimate inquiries intended to inform the asker and enable them to make their own decisions. If the answers are within a prescribed boundary of reason, such communication is useful, nonthreatening and mutually satisfying.

GOTCHA. In the public forum, another form of questions often targeted at public officials, barely masks the opinion of the inquisitor. This is an attempt to create controversy or to wedge another voice onto the table of public opinion. Lance has seen countless examples during his past legislative and governmental adventures where fully loaded statements were topped off with a question mark. No one was fooled and the message remembered as the "zing" intended by the asker, not the response given by the askee.

Such statements in the form of questions are clearly visible in some meetings when the risks of voicing clear and unambiguous disapproval is too great. The "coup de grace" can be delivered in the form of a question usually dripping with cynicism. Again, the answer is irrelevant since the value proposition of the asker is now obvious, but it leaves the convenient backdoor if things go array of "Hey, I was just asking."

WHAT IF. A third form of questions are those less intended to inform the asker, but more to lead the other person toward their own new realizations and conclusions. This is the "Inquisitive Method" Lance wanted to perfect, both in the work and family setting. He has long known that in a leadership workshop, where the growth of the individual is paramount over the accomplishment of a task, such questions are the key to effective adult learning. It is the role of the facilitator (One Who Makes Learning Easy) to provide structure and process to group interactions so everyone can do their best thinking and the group can make high quality decisions in a collaborative manner.

Framing these questions is an art. The right questions elicit growth in others because, by their very nature, they assume the person is already capable of self-examination and retains full control and responsibility over their future actions. No power is transferred, regardless of the answer. No implication exists that there is one right answer and only asker knows it. No consequence awaits beyond the other person's empowerment. NOTE: To do this, the facilitator must remain content neutral, dedicated to going wherever the answer leads, and dispassionate about the quality of the response regardless of their own values.

Admittedly, such self-enforced neutrality makes the I-Method somewhat problematic for the Parent or the Boss, both of whom harbor views well-known to their constituents. But as he was now approaching the Faculty Phase of Life, Lance saw his primary leadership role may well be to insure the long-term sustainability of the enterprise by nurturing future leadership. This "long view" is not clearly visible to most rising employees still seeking to establish their credentials. Likewise, Lance saw most of his younger employees were just beginning to appreciate the need for retirement accounts, 401k's and lifetime health insurance. Ah, to be young again, Lance thought, when Invincibility is presumed. Only now he could see that once you hit the point in life where you are "no longer auditioning", one's view changes substantially.

Back at work, with the completion of five years of successful operations in the new facility, the training wheels were coming off. Even before he left on sabbatical, Lance had seen his increasingly competent staff now required enablement, not control. Their ability to define problems, assess resources, collaborate with others, make decisions and execute them are the curriculum of life. The same is true for young adults entering the world of work. Lance knew that questions prick the creative mind and linger much longer than sermons. In his many roles as Father, Boss and Workshop leader he had his own clear values and opinions, as any aware and involved citizen must. But when the focus is on the growth of others, he knew no amount of telling or selling motivates internal growth and change like a well-placed, well-timed question.

Lance generated a list of I-Questions on one of his longer drives across Ohio. (The endless corn fields offered little distraction...)

How's that (behavior) workin' for you?
Why does this matter to you?
What do you think you should do about it?
What else could you do?
How will you know if you succeed?
What role can you best play in this?
What help might you need?
What have you learned here?
What could you do differently next time?

Lance noted that all the questions focused on what YOU can do, not what I can do or OTHERS can do. Clearly, every time the subject changed to someone else, the opportunity to defer, delegate, or deny responsibility increased. The monkey (problems) could never jump to someone else's back if the action alternatives resided squarely on the shoulders of the person being asked the questions. If one does this enough, presumably colleagues will begin to anticipate these questions and proactively think in terms of their answers without even being asked. Good questions must be formulated without expectation of providing "the right answers." Lance could see obvious benefits: it would reward taking responsibility for oneself, assuming accountability for one's outcomes, enhance creativity in problem solving and reinforce the inevitable need for collaboration to make progress as an institution.

It could also piss people off, Lance admitted. But after that, they're still left with the integrity and effectiveness of their answers...or non-answers. Once the question is launched, if it is the right one, it can't be ignored. Looking for the best questions, loaded with honesty and polished with respect, seemed to be a quest Lance could undertake.

He invites all suggestions. What are some of the best questions anyone ever asked you that shaped your choices?