I agree with this. It's for that reason that I think asking "why" out of the gate, more often than not, leads to blank stares or, worse, blame. I wouldn't encourage ignoring the "why," but I wouldn't start there for mistakes, misaligned behaviors, etc. I'm trying to highlight that by asking "what" and "how," the team can discover the "why" through more collaborative conversation. Or, even in a 1:1 setting, this applies.
I look at asking "what" and "how" questions as information-gathering without igniting emotions or defensiveness. Most people can answer these through a quick brainstorming session - to your point, the answers are most often known. This creates the construct for evaluating and determining the root cause or the "why."
I think I understand you message. You're arguing about the human approach to speaking to people. I agree with this. I suppose this is the delicate balance between not offending co-workers and yet getting to results.
That's right. Creating accountability from a leadership standpoint can be done in an empowering way. It's sort of like the ground rules for product retrospectives (not my words):
Ground rule # 1 – Maintain a safe and open environment.
Ground rule # 2 – Respect for the opinions and perspectives of others.
Ground rule #3 – Encourage active participation of all team members.
Ground rule # 4 – Honesty and transparency about problems and challenges.
Ground rule #5 – Focus on actions and solutions instead of blaming.
Ground rule # 6 – Prioritize the team's goals.
Ground rule # 7 – Identify and document action items.
Ground rule #8 – Follow up actions from previous retrospectives.
Ground rule # 9 – Encourage the team to be prepared.
Ground rule #10 – Keep the session short and focused.
In my experience, many people already have the What and How in mind, but rarely think about the Why. How would you address this?
I agree with this. It's for that reason that I think asking "why" out of the gate, more often than not, leads to blank stares or, worse, blame. I wouldn't encourage ignoring the "why," but I wouldn't start there for mistakes, misaligned behaviors, etc. I'm trying to highlight that by asking "what" and "how," the team can discover the "why" through more collaborative conversation. Or, even in a 1:1 setting, this applies.
I look at asking "what" and "how" questions as information-gathering without igniting emotions or defensiveness. Most people can answer these through a quick brainstorming session - to your point, the answers are most often known. This creates the construct for evaluating and determining the root cause or the "why."
Thoughts?
Thanks for the elaborate reply.
I think I understand you message. You're arguing about the human approach to speaking to people. I agree with this. I suppose this is the delicate balance between not offending co-workers and yet getting to results.
Thanks for the clarification, this helps!
That's right. Creating accountability from a leadership standpoint can be done in an empowering way. It's sort of like the ground rules for product retrospectives (not my words):
Ground rule # 1 – Maintain a safe and open environment.
Ground rule # 2 – Respect for the opinions and perspectives of others.
Ground rule #3 – Encourage active participation of all team members.
Ground rule # 4 – Honesty and transparency about problems and challenges.
Ground rule #5 – Focus on actions and solutions instead of blaming.
Ground rule # 6 – Prioritize the team's goals.
Ground rule # 7 – Identify and document action items.
Ground rule #8 – Follow up actions from previous retrospectives.
Ground rule # 9 – Encourage the team to be prepared.
Ground rule #10 – Keep the session short and focused.
There are great!
You're a product guy, so I'm sure you can relate to it being somewhat similar to a UX or design-thinking/human-centered approach.