Chapter 4

Critical Questioning Skills

The essentials of interrogative language: We deal here with the fundamental management issues (past, present, and future) and how to apply logical inquiry, relevant questions, and rapid validation to improve efficacy and create commitment rather than mere compliance. This is language at work to improve job performance.

Solving Problems

Problem solving is often done extremely poorly (trial and error) or extremely ineffectively (statistical analyses complete with fish bones). So let’s establish the language of the criteria and of the resolution.

A problem has three criteria for it to be a legitimate problem in our language:*

1. There is a deviation of actual performance (or a person, process, or piece of equipment) from the expected performance.
2. The cause of the deviation is unknown.
3. We care.

You can see this illustrated in Figure 4.1. The objective of problem solving is to find the cause of the problem and to remove it because, otherwise, we are simply adapting to its effects. The cause is always rooted in some change because if nothing changed, the performance would have continued without deviating.

Figure 4.1 The anatomy of a true problem

Finally, we have to care. A lamp might be making a humming sound that is barely audible and we don’t know why, fulfilling the first two criteria, but it doesn’t matter and so we don’t have a problem, merely a humming lamp.

The questions to ask, therefore, are:

1. Do we have a deviation of actual from expectation, and, if so, what is it? This can be misleading, in that if three people complain about their common supervisor, the deviation is the complaints, not the supervisor at this point. You can see the power of the correct language. Finding out why they are complaining (cause) will determine if the supervisor is indeed at fault or if the complainers are taking out some other grievance on their boss.
2. Do we know cause? This, too, can be highly ambiguous if we’re not careful. We “jump to cause” every day by assuming we know the cause, or finding blame, or simply guessing. We say, “Oh, it’s the sales people again,” or “Here’s what happened last time,” or “What do you expect from a rookie?” But cause must be verified. Of course, if we do know cause, then we no longer have a problem, but rather a decision to make (which we’ll cover in the next section).
3. Do we care? Can we live with it or not? Is it a necessary evil? I’d choose not to live with a leak in the ceiling, I’d want to find the cause. But I can live with a TV remote that has a two-second delay in changing channels. I don’t know why it does it, it’s not supposed to, but fixing it is more trouble than it’s worth.

You can see in the diagram that some change had to have occurred at or prior to the deviation taking place. We call this relevant change because any change taking place post-problem solving is often needlessly delayed, because too many changes are considered.

How do we find relevant change? We look for distinctions around the deviation.

What:

• What is the object or person with the deviation, and what or who might it be but is not?
• What is the deviation, and what might it be but is not?

Where:

• Where is the deviation occurring geographically, and where might it occur but is not?
• Where is the deviation relatively, and where might it be but is not?

When:

• When in clock or calendar time did the deviation first occur, and when could it have but did not?
• When in the life cycle of the object or career did it occur, and when could it have occurred but did not?

Degree:

• What is the scope of the deviation, and what could it be but is not?
• Is the deviation growing, declining, or stable?

Obviously, we adjust these questions relative to machines, processes, and people, but you get the idea. We’re trying to find the distinction about the deviation itself, and then ask what relevant changes could have affected those distinctions.

Example

A sales person is successful selling all products but one. The distinction is that one product was most recently introduced. Another distinction is that the normal trainer was on vacation, and this one person’s training was done by another sales person.

The distinction is the single product, since all other products were included in prior training. The relevant change was using another sales person, not accustomed to training, to fill in for the trainer.

To remove and correct the cause: Provide remedial training with the proper trainer.

Note that you can correct a problem by finding cause and removing it, or choose to live with a problem by adapting to its effects. Fixing a hole in the roof removes the leak, putting a bucket under the leak saves the carpeting even though the leak still exists.

All of this involves choice, which brings us to decision making.

Making Decisions

We can enter the decision-making process in one of two ways: As a result of a problem, we now must make a decision about the best way to remove it (corrective action) or to live with it (adaptive action). Or, we may realize that we must make a decision about something and enter decision making directly.

The definition of a decision is this: making a choice among options. It is a present dynamic. Problems have already occurred, they are past-­oriented. But decisions are made in the present.

Decisions involve three elements:

1. Objectives: What are we trying to achieve and what are we trying to conserve (investment)? Ideally, we want the greatest result with the least investment, known as return on investment (ROI) in both our business and personal lives.
2. Alternatives: What are my options for reaching the objectives? These are various courses of action available to me.
3. Risk: What peril or danger, from minor to major, does each course of action potentially present, and how can I prevent the occurrence or minimize the impact?

Let’s examine what we might call a decision-making funnel, seen in Figure 4.2 below, which represents the proper sequence of action in decision making and examine the proper language along the way.

Figure 4.2 The decision funnel

A decision statement creates the expected outcome, with subject and verb, noun and action: To buy a new car, to choose a vacation destination, to select a college. Note the language: These are not binary choices (do it or don’t do it). These allow for a range of options, as opposed to, “Should we go to the mountains?”

Based upon the nature of the decision statement, we generate alternatives (beach, mountains, Europe, staycation, and so forth). These can originate in our experience, research, friends and colleagues, creativity, and so on. The alternatives are then compared against the objectives, which should be viewed in two dimensions.

Musts are needs critical to the decision. They are reasonable, measurable, and mandatory. For example, if you’re looking for a new car, and can finance only $45,000, then the must is “maximum cost of $45,000.” If you ignore that, there’s a name for it: bankruptcy. A must meets all three of the criteria or it’s not a must. In that case it’s a want.

A want is an objective that’s desirable, not mandatory. You may want the car as soon as possible, so that if it’s on the lot and doesn’t have to be ordered, it’s more desirable. But if the car on the lot is more than $45,000, you can wait for a less expensive one.

As you can see in the funnel, alternatives generated by the decision statement are rejected if they fail to meet the musts, and if they perform poorly against your wants. (A car available in a week is superior to a car available in two months if they are both less than $45,000.) The funnel is a culling process.

Finally, we have risk, which is too often overlooked or given short shrift. Every alternative has some risk, and we can examine risk the following way:

• Probability: What is the probability of the occurrence? (Poor weather in the rainy season in the Caribbean is very high.)
• Seriousness: What is the nature of the impact on us if the occurrence can’t be prevented? (It generally rains in the early morning and the weather is clear by midmorning.)

We try to prevent the probability factor through avoidance actions and we try to mitigate the seriousness factor through mitigating actions.

Ultimately, we want the most highly beneficial alternative but within acceptable risk levels. Some of us (and some entire industries) have higher risk tolerance than others. The critical factor is to assess the risk relative to the benefits before committing to a decision.

Note that you usually enter the decision-making chain after some decisions have already been made. For example, to buy a new car implies that you need transportation, you need to buy not lease, and it will be new, not used. To choose a vacation site implies that you’ve chosen to take a vacation and have dates in mind.

To raise the level of decision, to find strategic levels in business, ask “Why?” That drives you up the chain to more general decisions. To lower the level in the chain, ask “How,” which gets you to more tactical questions: What kind of sport utility vehicle or what color? What vacation resort on St. Bart or what kind of accommodations?

The language of decision making, therefore, must take into account all three components (objectives, alternatives, risks) and act as a culling device, not an additive device to enable you to hone in on the best alternative within acceptable risk. It’s a very easy dynamic, but often completely ignored in personal and business decisions because the wrong language is employed (e.g., Should we expand into Europe? Is Syracuse a good school?).

Once we make effective decisions, we have to protect them.

Planning

Once we’ve made some decisions, we need to plan for success.† We’ve solved problems arising in the past, made decisions in the present, and now must implement and protect our decisions in the future. It’s no accident that our three primary actions relate to past, present, and future.

The language of planning looks like the following:

1. What is the plan?

   For example: To purchase new computers

2. What are the major steps in the plan?

   For example:

   • To seek referrals from trusted others.
   • To select the supplier.
   • To negotiate the purchase and price.
   • To install the equipment.
   • To train the users.
3. What are the truly critical steps or highest priorities?

   For example: To install the equipment.

4. What are the potential problems in this step?

   For example:

   • Disruption to existing business.
   • Failure of new equipment when we go live.
5. What are the likely causes of that problem?
   • Disruption to existing business:
     • Failure to run dual systems to take care of existing customers during transition.
     • Lack of space and overcrowding.
6. What are preventive actions for the likely causes?
   • Failure to run dual systems:
     • Plan continuance of current system and switch to new system overnight, not during business hours.
     • Train existing personnel using overtime, not during regular shifts.
7. What are contingent actions if problem occurs and cannot be prevented?
   • Disruption to existing business:
     • Have team in place to notify all existing customers of the short-term disruption.
     • Offer any customers experiencing problems a free month of service.

We talked in decision making about risk, and risk having two components: probability and seriousness. The planning process is one of examining a plan to isolate the major steps, then choose any of particular critical nature (e.g., a failure in that area would doom the endeavor), and then attempt to both reduce probability of risk and mitigate effects of risk.

If you ask the average person what they would do if building a structure and worried about fire, they would usually respond with fire sprinklers, fire extinguishers, escape doors, insurance, and so forth. Yet all of these are contingent actions, only effective to some degree after the fire has started.

Preventive actions would include posting “no smoking” signs, separating combustible materials, ensuring correct electrical wiring, and so forth. We rightly honor firefighters for risking their lives rushing into burning buildings, but it’s the fire marshals and the permit process that are important in preventing the fire and the danger. The best sprinkler system in the world requires a fire to prove its worth.

Our language has to reflect these key distinctions because like cause and effect in problem solving, or objectives and alternatives in decision making, we often blur the line between preventive and contingent action in general. Insurance is nice, but it prevents nothing, only ameliorates the suffering and loss to some degree.

Since contingent actions are mostly unused except in the case of failed preventive actions, we require monitoring to ensure their ongoing effectiveness. A great many home fire extinguishers have failed to work precisely when needed because their pressure had drained and no one had bothered to check the gauges. (A deicing machine purchased for a southern airport where ice was rare was finally called into action and promptly broke down because no one had bothered to continue to service it.)

Elevators have inspections for their brakes, sprinkler systems are evaluated for pressure, insurance policies require premiums be paid. All such actions ensure that your contingencies are not only present but will be effective if called upon. Preventive actions must also be inspected regularly. Are the “no smoking” signs still posted? Have you ever seen an important highway sign with directions or warnings overgrown by vegetation? No one is monitoring the preventive actions.

If we look at both problem solving and planning, we can see quite simply the relationship of issue to action in Figure 4.3. All concern cause and effect, and past or future.

If you want to remove cause in the past (problem solving), you must take corrective action. But if you choose to live with deleterious effects, then you are taking adaptive action. If you want to prevent cause in the future, you must implement preventive actions, but if you seek to mitigate future effects you are planning contingent action.

It’s really that simple. But your language and intent have to be clear. We’ve all been at a meeting where this conversation takes place:

Person 1: We have a big problem here.

Person 2: I agree, our department will allocate resources to this decision.

Person 3: Very good, let’s protect this plan.

As you’ve seen, problems solving, decision making, and planning have very different starting points (find cause, choose an alternative, protect a plan), and these three people are walking away from their meeting theoretically in concert but actually starting at vastly differing points. It’s no wonder that so many meetings result in no effective actions.

Figure 4.3 Actions available

The language is all wrong.

It’s wise to forget the old management language of organizing, managing, and planning and start to think of and speak in terms of past, present, and future. Too many problems aren’t solved because people are making decisions without knowing cause (or having found blame) and too many plans are defective because people haven’t identified risk and its components.

Innovation

Our final major action is innovation, what Joseph Schumpter called creative destruction and what I call applied creativity. There are many good ideas in organizations, among entrepreneurs, and from think tanks and R&D units—but very few of them ever reach the market in terms of a viable, profitable, product or service.

Whereas problem solving seeks to restore performance to a past level of performance, which we know can be met (after all, we have a deviation from that level of performance), innovation seeks to raise the level of performance to a new, improved standard. Call it a positive deviation, and you can see where language, once again, becomes vital in providing direction.

Our experience is overwhelming in that unless there is a concerted focus on innovation as a separate and valued discipline, it simply does not happen with any regularity.

The visible depiction of innovation looks like the following:

Note that there’s a danger of the situation deteriorating if the innovative plans don’t work (more on that to follow), but also that even if the new standard of performance isn’t met, there may well still be improvement.

If you reconsider the chart in Figure 4.3, and our use of planning process to ensure success, the innovative actions would look like the following:

1. Potential Innovation
   • Advertisers place their own ads in the publication.
2. Likely Cause
   • We provide software for major browsers.
   • We reduce ad prices when self-placed.
3. Promoting Actions
   • We reduce ad prices when self-placed:
     • We survey advertisers and ask at what price point they would take the time to place their own ads.
4. Exploiting Actions
   • Advertisers place their own ads:
     • We heighten sales efforts to bring on new business.
     • We use advertisers who agree to self-place as testimonials for new business.

Figure 4.4 Problem Solving vs. Innovation

You can see in this example that we seek to promote the likely causes of our innovations (promoting actions), which are analogous to preventive actions, and we create exploiting actions to build on the improvement, which are analogous to contingent actions.

Innovation is a discipline that requires the proper language to direct people to the right ends and sustain the initiative. In most organizations it is inappropriately assigned to a special unit (e.g., a skunk works) or a designated time frame (a retreat), or to special people (R&D). Hence, the need to distinguish it from creativity, and even more so from problem solving, decision making, and/or planning.

Before leaving this chapter on critical questioning skills related to the past, present, and future, we’d like to provide some guidelines in both professional and personal matters.

Guidelines for Effective Critical Questioning Skills

1. First, identify your starting point.

   Ask whether you are trying to solve a problem, make a decision, plan, or innovate. Remember, you’re never doing more than one of them at any one time with any one issue.

2. Ensure that all stakeholders are in agreement.

   Ask whether everyone is in concert and agrees with the starting point. Establish the definitions in this chapter if it helps. Never assume that everyone is in agreement just because they seem to be. Find out if the language and the meaning of the language is consistent.

3. Don’t confuse cause and effect.

   An effect is something that impacts you adversely (in problem solving), but it always has a cause. Understand that if you’re merely addressing the effect (adaptive action), you have chosen to live with the problem.

4. Don’t confuse cause with blame.

   If your language is organized to find culpability or scapegoats, you won’t necessarily find cause, and taking punitive action against individuals seldom removes the problem. For example, changing an account manager doesn’t remove the cause, which may be lack of authority granted to frontline people.

5. Recognize that risk has both probability and seriousness, which need to be separately considered. Learn to ask not what the danger is, but what the probability and seriousness of the danger are.

6. Distinguish between the need for both preventive and contingent actions, and the primacy of preventive action to save money, time, injury, and embarrassment. Fire extinguishers will not prevent a fire.

7. Make innovation a part of your vernacular, with the intent of consciously and deliberately improving standards.

---