Most of us occasionally struggle with when to talk and when not to talk. When to share a point of view, when to ask a question, or when to just listen.
If you’ve never struggled with this question yourself, there’s a good chance that the people around you wish you would! Think about your experiences in meetings, in the boardroom, or even just catching up around the water cooler. Certainly, there are people you wish would speak up more and share their ideas… as well as people you think should let someone else get a word in.
Knowing when to talk and when not to talk has a lot to do with effective interpersonal style and that often-quoted concept of “executive presence.”
Most managers in today’s corporations have received years of training in being problem solvers. Some have learned how to press strongly for their views and won’t hesitate to speak their mind quickly. Some prefer to pull back into silence to work through things quietly; they may want some time to reflect and analyze before speaking up.
But as we take on more responsibility in organizations, we must contend with ever more sophisticated situations where there isn’t necessarily any one correct answer. Here, success requires getting a wide variety of stakeholders, often with competing desires, to come to a mutually agreeable outcome. In these situations, the best results are achieved when we are able to brainstorm cooperatively and work together to create new insights.
The people who are most effective in these situations are those who can effectively balance the modes of ADVOCACY and INQUIRY.
Advocacy relates to “telling,” and it usually means pressing for a particular position, course of action, or set of principles. When we advocate, we are trying to persuade or argue for a point of view or conclusion. Inquiry, on the other hand, relates to “asking,” and the point of inquiring is to understand the position of the other side, rather than immediately seeking to change minds or opinions. (As the Prayer of St. Francis famously put it, “to seek first to understand, and then to be understood.”)
Most people have a natural preference for either the advocating or inquiring style: one or the other tends to be our “default.” Some of our stylistic choice may be based in education or profession: law and education often teach advocacy, whereas journalism and social work lean more on inquiry. Some researchers have suggested that in certain situations men may be rewarded more for advocacy, and women for inquiry; other researchers have traced styles to cultural differences in different parts of the world. But whatever the causes, it’s generally observable that some people tend to ask more, whereas others tend to tell more.
However, in most management and leadership roles, a conscious and thoughtful balancing of advocacy and inquiry usually leads to the best outcomes and represents the most adaptive and successful leadership styles.
Start by asking yourself – honestly – which is your natural or preferred style: asking or telling. If you have doubts, ask your direct reports or, better, your spouse or significant other. If the feedback from others is that you tend more toward one style than the other, make an active attempt to adopt the opposite style on a more frequent basis. If you feel the urge to make a conclusion, ask an open-ended question instead. And if you usually find yourself asking questions (either aloud, or to yourself), try taking a stand and pushing for an outcome.
One way to better balance advocacy and inquiry is to pause, suspend your own assumptions, and ask questions to understand what the other person believes. “Before I share my point of view, I’d really like to understand how you see things.” (In these situations, the strong “advocates” among us may have to work extra hard to bite our tongues and hear the other side out.) Once you have laid out your reasoning, encourage others to challenge it: “Here’s my thinking and here’s how I have arrived at this conclusion. How does that sound to you? What makes sense and what doesn’t?” Of course, if you ask for a response, you must then listen to it carefully and consider it prior to arguing against it.
As you work to optimally balance your advocacy and inquiry, (recognizing that different situations call for different proportions of each) remember that there are also dysfunctional forms of both advocacy and inquiry. For example, some people may skew the inquiry process by relentless interrogating, without showing empathy for the person being questioned. Similarly, advocacy can feel oppressive if the advocate simply dictates her point of view, while refusing to share her reasoning process. It’s all about the balance.
The following are a few more specific ideas and suggestions for improving your skills in advocacy and inquiry:
Tips for Improving ADVOCACY
Make your thinking process visible—or, as my chemistry professor used to say, “Show your work!”
- State your assumptions and describe the data that led to them. “Here’s what I think and here’s how I got there.”
- Make your reasoning explicit. “I came to this conclusion because…”
- Explain the context of your point of view: Who will be affected by what you propose, how will they be affected, and why.
- Give examples of what you are proposing, even if they are hypothetical.
Publicly test your conclusions and assumptions
- Encourage others to explore your model, your assumptions, and your data. “What do you think about what I just said?” or “Do you see any flaws in my reasoning?” or “What can you add?”
- Refrain from defensiveness when your ideas are questioned. If you’re advocating something worthwhile, it will only get stronger by being tested.
- Reveal where you are least clear in your thinking. Rather than making you vulnerable, doing so diffuses the force of advocates who are opposed to you, and invites improvement. “Here’s one aspect which you might help me think through….”
- Even when advocating, listen, stay open, and encourage others to provide different views. “Do you see things differently?”
Tips for Improving INQUIRY
Ask others to reveal their thinking processes
- Gently walk others down the ladder of inference and find out what data they are operating from. “What leads you to conclude that?” “What data do you have to support that?” “What causes you to say that?”
- Use non-aggressive language: Ask in a way that does not provoke defensiveness or “lead the witness.” Instead of “What do you mean?” or “What is your proof?” ask, “Can you help me understand your thinking here?”
- Draw out their reasoning; find out as much as you can about why they are saying what they are saying. “What is the significance of that?” “How does this relate to your other concerns?” “Where does your reasoning go next?”
- Explain your reasons for inquiring, and how your inquiry relates to your own concerns, hopes, and needs. “I’m asking about your assumptions here because…”
Compare your assumptions to theirs
- Test what they say by asking for broader contexts and for examples. “How would your proposal affect…?” “Is this similar to…?” “Can you describe a typical example?”
- Check your understanding of what they have said. “Am I correct that you are saying…?”
- Listen genuinely for new understanding that may emerge. Don’t concentrate just how to knock down the other person’s argument or promote your own agenda.
How important do you feel it is to balance advocating and inquiring styles as a manager or executive? Where have you seen leaders succeed or fail based on these skills? Do you have other insights or interesting experiences related to this topic? Send me an e-mail—I’d love to hear about it.
Special thanks Millie Acebal, Nadir Merchant, Andy Nordin, Omar Sabek, Jonas Samsioe, and Matt Strain for their excellent input and partnership.
Read the full article here