What (or rather who) stresses you out ?

In a study around stress, researchers measure stress levels directly from the levels of cortisol in saliva. A bunch of participants were asked to swab their mouth every hour, put the swab aside, and write down what they were doing at the particular moment of sample-taking. The results ? People have the lowest levels of stress when they are with friends, relatives or their spouse. And they are most stressed when they are with colleagues or clients. And who tops the list of stress-creators ? The boss. The highest level of stress exists when people are in the same room as their boss.

Since most of us spend more time at work than with our spouses or friends, this means we are stressed for most of our waking hours. And this most likely impacts how we then later on interact with friends or relatives or spouses. If you are a business owner or leader of a team, isn't it a scary thought that the people who work for you are most stressed when they are near you ? You may think your door is always open and that you are a very open-minded leader. You may try hard to be fair to everyone and you may even manage to control your emotions to minimize the impact on those around you. But you are the boss. And that reality has a significant impact on how the ones reporting to you feel when they are with you.

The best way to minimize the negative impact of the stress you generate - most of it unconsciously - is to be aware of how you interact with those reporting to you. Evaluate yourself after each discussion or meeting and create the habit of creating a small learning/reflection loop several times per day. Was this time better than the last one ? How did the person on the other side of the table contribute or react ? What did you do that seemed to have a pretty good impact ? In the next meeting, what would you repeat or on the contrary avoid saying ? Make an explicit effort to reduce stress for those around you through small gestures or practices.

The Power of Silence

We are so hooked on fighting for air-time, making sure we are heard and showing what we know that keeping silent is a challenge for many leaders. Asking a question, waiting for the answer, and then really listening and exploring is the core of real leadership.

When you ask a question and end up answering it yourself ... you are basically saying that you knew the answer and were just "testing" if your team knows or not. You are also saying that you do not really have the time or interest to listen to their ideas.

"But what should I do if they are quiet ? If they have no idea ?" leaders often ask me. My answer is invariably ... "Shut up and wait !". "But what should I do if they are quiet for 5 minutes ?" For one, it will probably never be 5 minutes, although it may feel like that. Second, if you are really interested in their answer, you should just wait.

Think carefully about the questions you are asking. Are you trying to find out if they know the answer ? That's a test, not a question. Do you have the answer to the question you are asking ? If so, why ask it ?  Too often, leaders ask questions to find a way to say what they know or think. A question that is really meant to find out what others are thinking is powerful. Rhetorical questions, gotcha-questions, multiple-choice or do-you-know questions are not how you build trust, innovation or your leadership.

An interesting article recently about the power of uncomfortable silences on the BBC website:

http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20170718-the-subtle-power-of-uncomfortable-silences

Building trust ... where to start ?

A fellow facilitator recently contacted me to ask for ideas about an exercise around trust for a team session. And she specified that it shouldn't be childish or goofy (her words) like the famous "trust fall" exercise since this is a senior executive team.

Trust is a word we often use lightly. A key point to understand is that trust exists only at the level of two people. An easy way to think about this: if A trusts B and A trusts C, then this does not mean that there is trust in the team A, B, C. In fact, it is possible that B and C don't trust each other. So you cannot put 8 people in a circle and say "let's now build trust in this team". It starts at the level of the different pairs.

When I work around trust, I always start with the pairs. The trust between pairs will become the trust within the team as a whole.

My favorite exercise is the "hot seat". Each person takes turn sitting in the hot seat, and the others, one by one, give feedback about this person. Round one follows the "I appreciate that you do/say this or that and I suggest you continue doing it" structure. Round two is "I think it would be great for the team if you could start/stop doing/saying this or that". The person receiving the feedback can only say "Thank you" and not react in any other way. If done consciously, this can go quite fast and it is typically well received by all participants. There is sometimes laughter and sometimes genuine reflection and appreciation.

You won't build trust in a single session. But there is a way to get started.

There's no app for that !

Human beings are social creatures. We crave interaction with others. In the workplace, we spend most of our time amidst colleagues, bosses and subordinates and most of what we do is connected to what others are doing, either through direct contact or through any form of communication. 

I am amazed at how little time managers have (or rather ... find) these days to really communicate with their team members. They are swamped by meetings, visitors, reporting, budgets, forecasts or management retreats. They solve problems, monitor action plans and send out and read tons of emails each day. 

Amidst all these priorities they struggle to carve out meaningful time and engage in real conversations with those who report to them. They often feel that sending emails is a valid substitute for exchanging views. I once had a manager asking if he could send the developmental or improvement feedback to a subordinate by email since this was so much easier  and faster ... ! The fact that the real meaning of giving developmental feedback is in the dialogue that happens between the boss and the team member was for him probably an inconvenience pushing him out of his comfort zone.

In so many organizations I get to work with, the annual performance review is the only time a manager sits down with a team member to look at and discuss past performance and future development. The once-a-year ritual becomes stressful and time-consuming for both parties.

Having regular conversations along the year about how someone is doing takes some practice and self-discipline but it is the minimum necessary when thinking of employee engagement. There is not really an alternative for one-on-one dialogue. I am afraid someone (maybe a busy manager ... ?) will one day come up with an app for giving feedback and having conversations with others !

Communicating is not collaborating

I was at an interesting experience-sharing event last week where the speaker popped up "Collaboration Tools" on the screen. Whenever I see collaboration my neurons start to fire because I believe this is the key to successful team performance.

And so I was paying full attention when he explained that in his organization, many of the younger employees were steering away from email but using the "collaboration tools" Line or WhatsApp pretty much all the time. And that's when my neurons went in overdrive. Do business leaders really believe that Line or WhatsApp, or emails for that matter, are evidence of collaboration ? It is maybe useful to distinguish communication from collaboration ...

Communication is exchanging information. With modern tools, I can communicate with 100s of people at the same time. But getting a "read" message in Line or WhatsApp does not mean anything but that. It does not mean "I received your message and will act on it". So although Line and WhatsApp may be cooler than email, not much has really changed.

Collaboration is when people work together to a common objective. And that does not work with 100s of people, and although communication is important, it is very different from collaboration. Collaboration requires people to be really connected and for things to actually get done.

If Line were a collaboration tool, there would be loads of great collaboration going on all the time, most of it on the BTS skytrain system in the morning. Exchanging information is good but don't confuse this for things actually getting done.

Message received ?

Funny story this week in the Thai Premier league (soccer). A match had to be postponed because the referee didn't show up. He was not held back or anything but he had simply not read the Line message that was sent to him by the organizing committee to tell him that he was the referee for that particular game. This may look like an extreme example of bad organization but it reminded me of how often this happens in work situations. All the communication tools and apps available these days should help us to be more effective in ... communicating with others ! The reality is often different.

When I have discussions with leaders who share the challenges they have with their teams, I often hear "I sent her the report .." or "I sent him the email ...". Communication in the mind of many seems reduced to hitting the "send" button on the email or the app. And sometimes the "receipt" message is an even stronger piece of evidence that the communication has been successful.

And when we dig into communication issues, we often find out that the issue is that the other person does not react, reply, act or confirm, although ... I had sent the message (and I got the receipt confirmation to prove it!). Sending the message has "thrown the ball" back to the other side and puts people in a mode that says "now I am waiting for them". Amongst the 1000s of apps, one function the cell phone can still perform is to actually call and talk to somebody. If you want to be sure your message is received (and understood, although that may be another challenge), it is sometimes useful to switch back to this most basic of apps !

Learning ... one KISS at a time

KISS Keep It Simple Stupid was originally coined by the US Navy to emphasize the importance of keeping things as simple as possible. The target the navy commander had given to his mechanical design team was to ensure that a ship's engine system could be repaired by a mechanic with limited experience or specific training. The idea was never to refer to that mechanic as stupid. In fact, the original KISS was written without a comma, meaning that things needs to be kept simple AND stupid (without writing the 'and'). Since then, many have changed the original meaning and added a comma to read Keep It Simple, Stupid ... Written that way, the 'stupid' becomes an insult to whoever the message is addressed to.

I recently came across another meaning of KISS I had never heard before. A business leader told me his team always ended their meetings and working sessions with a "KISS" ! KISS in this context stands for:

Keep: what did we do well in this meeting that we should keep doing ?
Improve: what did we do that was so-so and we should think about improving next time ?
Stop: what did we do that didn't work and we should commit to not doing again ?
Start: what was missing and we should add or start doing for our next meeting ?

A simple way to remind yourself and your team that learning happens all the time. There is no need to make things complicated. The only requirement is to spend a very small amount of time to reflect together on a key number of questions and create a shared commitment on making sure the next meeting, project, session or retreat is better than the last one.

What if they have no idea ... ?

A key principle in coaching is to let the coachee - quite often the subordinate - come up with ideas for making progress on a particular issue him or herself. This goes a long way towards ownership and accountability: acting on one's own ideas and suggestions is more meaningful than doing what the coach or boss suggests. In workshops where young managers are practicing their coaching or feedback giving skills, they often share "Well, I tried to ask them for their ideas, but they said they don't have any."

Well, thinking and developing ideas is one thing that separates humans from animals, so when someone says they "cannot think" or they "don't have any idea", they are looking for a quick way out of what is for them an uncomfortable situation ! In some countries in Asia, in Thailand in particular, many people have not been brought up in family or educational circles with a focus on developing their own ideas. You will need to help them learn again ... or rather learn for the first time. Here are three tips I have found to work rather well.

1. Give them some time. Don't stare them down or have them sit in front of you "until an idea comes out". Give them anything from five minutes ("I am going for a break and will be back in five minutes to give you some time to think") to one day ("Let's talk about your ideas again tomorrow at 9 AM"). This releases the pressure of having to come up with something right now or else ....

2. Ask them for three. If you ask for one idea, this is often interpreted as if there is somewhere one correct answer, that you expect them to come up with. This increases the pressure and often blocks people from sharing anything. Asking for three or five sends the message that there is no single perfect answer. 

3. Approve right then and there. Experienced managers often have the tendency to take someone's idea or suggestion and modify/improve/complete it. This sends the message that the manager anyway knows better or more. Refrain from this temptation. Approve their idea, or part of their idea, and encourage them to implement it and get back to you in x days to discuss the result. The ownership and learning will be far more powerful.

We all know how to think but sometimes, a bit of help is needed !

Where's your heart at ?

I am very luck that I speak Thai rather well. When I deliver a workshop with a team in Thailand, I make sure that some English jargon or particular expressions that are used in the slides, are well understood by the audience.

Just last week, I had an interesting experience. I

wanted to make sure that the group thoroughly understood the expressions "Putting yourself in their shoes" and "Coming from your gut", two idioms we use in English and easily understand the figurative meaning. When I asked the group for the Thai equivalent, they translated as something that translates back into English as "Putting their heart in our heart" and "Coming from the heart". Very interesting how these expressions - with shoes and guts in English - both come back to the heart.

And I again came to realize that this is one of the keys of working with teams in Thailand. There is no secret formula, but too often I see foreigners struggling with finding a connection with their team. They say all the right things, try to motivate, do fun stuff, communicate, communicate, communicate, and learn a bit of Thai language. Yet despite all this, many still say that they are not getting the performance or engagement that they want out of their team.

So maybe the secret is in adding a bit of "heart" to things. Sharing your feelings. Asking others about theirs. These things are often looked upon in the West as personal, private and not really belonging in the workplace (or at least, they are not things for the manager/boss to bring into the workplace context or conversations). Yet, in Thailand, with so many things going to and coming from the "heart", getting comfortable and adapting your style by adding in a bit more "heart" will definitely go a long way.

Chinese ears

The Chinese symbol for listening is pretty powerful. As shown in the picture, it is composed of several sub-symbols. Of course there is the symbol for the ears, which is what we associate with listening at the first level. But the real interest lies in the other symbols that complete the symbol that represents listening:

- mind (to think): what are you thinking about when you are listening ? Are your ears listening but is your mind wondering off, thinking about something completely different ? Are you thinking about what you can say next to show you know better ? Or are you really immersed in the story, its context and the different angles ?

- eyes (to see): what are you looking at when you are listening to someone ? Are you glancing at your cell phone for the latest email, or at the clock on the wall ? Or are you looking at the person in front of you, their body language, the way they look at you ? Looking people straight in the eyes ...

- undivided attention (to focus): do you focus completely on the person you are listening to ? To their words, their posture, the actual words they are using, the sentences that are being spoken ? Or are you preparing in your head that email you want to send, or the difficult meeting yesterday with your boss ?

- heart (to feel): are you feeling what the other person is feeling ? Do you "hear" what is not being said, or about maybe the underlying message that is being shared hesitantly ? Or are you filtering out that information that is not aligned with your views or values ?

Listening or hearing are words we use easily ... "Yes yes, I am listening ... I am hearing you". Yet to what extent do we use not only our ears, but also minds, eyes, heart and give the exchange our undivided focus ? Fully listening is not easy: it requires a bit of practice, but is very rewarding, not only for the listener, but even more so for the person who is sharing his story.

So who is insane ?

I always get chuckles when I show Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. Most executives in the room get it immediately and can think of a boss/peer/team member who indeed keeps on doing the same thing and expects or hopes for a different outcome. The executives don't really think about themselves ... and understandably so because to identify yourself as insane does sound a bit extreme.

But then we go into a bit more detail. And we analyse that boss who keeps on doing the same thing that drives us crazy. And of course it is so clear that the boss should stop doing that and do something different. "I don't understand he/she just keeps doing that while it is clear for everybody it does not work !". Substitute boss with peer/team member as you wish. So we declare the boss/peer/team member completely insane based on Einstein's definition !

Once those others have been declared insane, the conversation goes

Me "OK, so the boss (peer/team member) is crazy for doing this or that. And what about you ?"
Them "Me ? What do you mean me ? The problem is not with me, the problem is that he/she (boss/peer/team member) doesn't change !"
Me "OK sure, he needs to change what he is doing ... But what are YOU doing differently when it comes to interacting/challenging/motivating/talking with him ?"
Them "Well, I have told him 100s of times that he needs to stop doing what he is doing, and change what he is doing !"
Me "And does it work ?"
Them "Well no, obviously he doesn't get it !"
Me "So you keeping on telling him the same thing over and over again ..."
Them "Yes, yes I do !!"
Me "... and you expect a different result ?"
Them "Euh ... but ..."

It's easy to pinpoint where others need to change. We can talk about them until the cows come home (most often when they are not around). Think rather what YOU can do relative to that person to help them: whatever you have been doing, or something different ? You might in the end help two people from becoming insane !

Walls in the open space

I recently worked with a group who were all working in an open space office layout. This was an ideal open office layout in the sense that each single work station was identical. That is not always the case in Thailand ... In another group I work with, there are 3 'grades' of open space working areas: the higher someone is up in the organization chart, the higher the partitions separating his particular work space from the one next to it !

So in the first group, the situation was really ideal. Open space. Frequent exchanges and interactions. A habit of asking one another if any help was needed. But when we started an Action Learning session to find a solution for an important shared challenge the team is facing, members very quickly realized that although they were sitting next to one another, and chatting all the time ... none of them really understood what the others were doing, or what challenges they were facing, or what help they really needed. The open space creates part of the context. This context can be conducive for collaboration, but it is not enough just to put people next to each other, and then assume (or hope) that they will collaborate.

This reminded me of a recent quote from Stefan Lindegaard, the Open Innovation guru. When it comes to getting innovative ideas from your team, Lindegaard says "People First, Processes Next. Then Ideas". In other words, ideas will come when you focus on your teams and put in place processes to allow them to share their ideas. I extrapolate this to my open space situation. You cannot create collaboration by putting people in a certain environment, however colorful and encouraging these surroundings might seem. Collaboration happens when people WORK together, share challenges, share successes and help each other to learn from failures. That is built through developing a mindset of really helping each other out, and establishing processes where cross-functional teams work on shared tasks. A nice open space is cool, but that is not the end of the job !

The tasteless sandwich

A few years ago, someone came up with a magical "sandwich" approach to give for-improvement-feedback to someone: say something nice, say what you really need to say, and finish up by saying something nice again. This became known as the feedback sandwich. And it became really popular.

The idea was that for the person receiving the message, it felt better to hear it smothered between two nice things, and the receiver would be more motivated to improve. But the sandwich did not become popular because it worked ! It became popular because it made the manager feel better about himself, and created the impression that "delivering" the feedback message was easier.

Giving someone straight feedback remains so difficult for so many managers. Someone recently admitted that he was not comfortable looking his subordinate in the eyes when giving feedback ! Others fall into the other extreme and pride themselves in being at ease telling anyone anything straight into their face ... whatever the consequences.

Giving feedback is not about delivering a message. We have email for that. The challenge with giving clear feedback - around needed improvements - is that for it to work, it needs to turn into a dialogue, into a real conversation. Not smothered in between layers of "positive" messages that have nothing to do with what needs to be addressed. You cannot prepare for or script out what will happen. You don't know what the other person will reply or argue or disagree with. It is exactly this unpredictability about how the discussion will turn out that you need to become comfortable with.

Creating a sandwich, or sugarcoating, or adding sweet topping does not make the feedback process more effective. It only destroys the taste, and the message. Practice dialogue instead.

Digital feedback anyone ?

In a recent workshop to help managers provide feedback - both positive and negative - to help with their team members' development, I was taken aback by a question of one of the participants ...

"Can we also give feedback by email ?"

Managers in Asia struggle with giving feedback, in particular the feedback for improvement. The fear of "what the discussion will lead to" very often simply means that managers avoid addressing the issues, and the team members don't get the feedback that would allow them to do better. Issues remain unsaid for way too long until they reach crisis proportions, and then it becomes easily an end-of-employment discussion. Lose-lose for sure. 

So now it seems that (maybe) some have found a solution: feedback by email !! After all, they must be thinking it is better than avoiding giving feedback all together, and sending out a feedback email means they can 'tick' this off of their to-do list. "Oh yes, I did give him the feedback ...!". There is nothing so easy to ignore as an email. And sending an email tells a lot about the effort the manager is willing to put into this ... The medium IS the message.

So no, giving feedback for improvement does not happen by email. Muster the courage to have a face-to-face conversation. Get comfortable (before you start) with the fact that the conversation will probably not turn out exactly as you have in mind. And keep in mind, whichever way the conversation goes, that your target is a win-win solution. Finally, don't forget that this is a conversation, so catch yourself when you become aware you are the one doing all the talking: ask a question, shut it and listen.

Not much new under the Sun (Tzu)

I recently re-read the Art of War by Sun Tzu. Not really the most modern thinker, knowing that his guidelines on effectively leading a war were written 2500 years ago. But his work on the Art of War goes beyond military environment and rings valuable for leaders and managers in these very different times.

Two of my favorite quotes ...

"If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, the general is to blame."
Pretty clear. Yet there are so many leaders who are convinced it is their teams, not themselves, that need help. "I have explained them different times, but they just don't get it !". Business leaders spend a lot of time explaining what their teams should do differently, and so little time on what they themselves can do differently.


"When you lay down a law, see that it is not disobeyed; if it is disobeyed, the offender must be put to death."
A powerful illustration is that of Ts'ao Ts'ao, a military leader who forbade his troops to destroy crops once they had conquered an enemy. After his own horse inadvertently trampled a field of corn, he condemned himself to death !

Now, cutting off people's heads has gotten out of fashion, but there so often seems to be a different set of (unwritten) rules for those in leadership positions than for the rest. "Do as I say ...". Yet leaders then wonder why levels of engagement of their teams are low ... !

I once in a while pick up a new book on leadership or management that promises 'breakthrough' methods. I have come to the conclusion that all there is to know, when it comes to management and leadership, is more or less known. It's the execution that is missing.

Explore the ideas from your team, for real !

Dear boss

We are writing this letter to ask you why you don’t ask us to solve problems by ourselves. When is the last time you really asked us to solve a company problem other than the company travel day destination or the theme for the New Year’s party ?

We love this company as much as you do. Yes, you have a lot of experience all over the world, more than we do. And it is true that the consultants are smarter than we are, and they explain things more clearly. And they have fantastic Powerpoint slides that we don’t know how to make (and frankly, even if we did, we don’t have the time). These consultants have experience in other industries, and they know about state-of-the-art and best practices.

But we really have ideas.

You tell us you want our input, but very quickly you explain why our ideas won’t work. You explain that you have tried them before, in a previous assignment. Or you just know that this won’t work. In a culture where hierarchy is respected, it is a challenge for us to express our thoughts. And when the person in authority then explains us , with reasons and facts and figures, that this is not really such a good idea, how do you think we feel about speaking up in the future (not to say losing our face and self-confidence) ? Have you  gained your experience by executing the ideas of others, with your own being squashed ?

Give us a chance. Give us a problem. Really give it to us. And let us implement our solutions, make some mistakes, and learn from that experience. Isn’t that what the leadership books write about ? Maybe this can be applied to real business problems and not just the company entertainment activities.

Best regards
Your team in Asia

It's not me, it's them !

In one of the most memorable Seinfeld scenes, George Costanza, trying to break up with his girlfriend, explains to her "It's not you, it's me !". It turns that out this funny line holds quite a bit of wisdom that many managers are still struggling with.

Managers rarely come to see me and indicate they need help. In fact, they explain their team needs help. They explain what is not going very well, and ask me if I can help them, by organizing a workshop or a training session ... Basically, they are saying "it's not me, it's them !".

A lot of information is published these days around employee engagement or disengagement. The much-discussed Gallup poll shows that 13% of employees are actively engaged, the other 87% or either disengaged or even actively disengaged. Dramatic levels of disengagement look like a gold mine for consultants who can then prescribe "engagement workshops" or - still in the style of prescribing a medicine - engagement clinics. As if engagement happens in a training session !

Other research, by the Corporate Leadership Council, shows that of all the elements impacting employee motivation and engagement, the behavior of the employee's manager accounts for 72% of the total level of engagement. In other words, it is what their manager says or does with them, or doesn't say or doesn't do with them, that impacts to what employees are engaged. As a manager, your style or personal preference is not an automatic fit for everyone in your team. The exchanges that motivate you may not have the same impact on others. Adjust the way you communicate depending on the individuals you deal with. That will go much further to creating engagement than a re-engagement program !

So think for a whether it really is your team that needs a visit to the clinic ? Or is the ball maybe in your camp, and maybe it is time to change your approach if this is not working as you expect it to ?

Managing your team: the basics

I often come across entrepreneurs who successfully grew their idea into a real business, and they realize their one-man organization has grown to 20,  50 or even more people. They can no longer do everything themselves. They have grown their team but they cannot afford to hire managers whose only job it is to manage others, as they are still very much relying on each individual’s contribution to help grow the top line and keep the bottom line in check. They need to start to act as managers themselves.  But where to start … ?

Based on my experience and what I have seen some entrepreneurs struggle with, here are the basics to put in place. These are the basics only, but they are often incomplete.

1. A few basic indicators visible to everyone

No need to have walls full of charts. A few indicators (start with one !), critical to the business, that employees get to see regularly and understand. And for which it is clear their effort contributes to the indicator moving in the right direction. Ideally, the indicator shows both company performance and the direction of their variable compensation.

2. A regular one-on-one meeting with each key player

This can be informal, over breakfast or lunch, but it must be clear it is a working meeting, and it takes place every 2 weeks at a minimum. This is the opportunity to clarify what is going well and what is not going well, to be clear and explicit when there are performance issues that need to get addressed (or else …). No need for an agenda or minutes, but do come prepared knowing what needs to be discussed or what needs to be followed up from the previous meeting. This is also where the personal relationship between the entrepreneur and the key players are developed and maintained.

3. A regular team review

This is where everyone is together, and the priorities of the company – including the indicators described earlier – are reviewed. This is the team working together, helping each other out. Individuals who are lagging are not put on the chopping block in front of everyone, that’s one of those things that doesn’t go down well in Asia. Those issues are addressed in the one-on-one meetings (by you !). The team meeting focuses on the team effort and synergies to be found.

This is not a list in which to pick one or two … These 3 elements are linked and need to exist together. You can’t have only individual meetings (where talk often moves to whining about the people that are not in the room) or only indicators on the wall (without a team review of the progress).

These are rather simple steps, that don’t take up too much of time, and they go a long way in giving direction, basic structure and follow up to your management team.

Questions in action

Need inspiration for asking questions that help your team members think for themselves and take ownership of the issues ? Take a look at how Meg Whitman (CEO at HP) challenges her team ... with questions.

Meg Whitman has questions (from Forbes Asia June 2013)

There ARE stupid questions

I like to hand out the key ring in the picture when I organize a workshop around asking questions. In these workshops, we discuss the types of questions there are and how they can be applied in different situations. There are the closed, or yes-or-no questions (not really good). And the open questions, that allow a creative and genuine exchange (very good !). And on the top of the pyramid is the "why ?" question, the Mother of All Questions. The "why ?" question probes for depth and helps to unveil the real reasons behind whatever is being discussed.

But here's a few "why ?" questions I hear quite often: "Why have you done it this way ?" and "Why are you late again ?". They are open questions probing for depth, but are very strongly opinionated. So what is a real "why ?" question and what is a fake one ? I was struggling with this until very recently, when I learned in a webinar the "You idiot" rule from Roger Schwartz. Roger Schwartz is a management thinker and author and his recent book on team functioning is Smart Leaders Smarter Teams (my copy is on the way from Amazon !). His very simple "You idiot" rule allows to separate questions that really look for an answer from those that are fake (whether they are open, closed or why questions).

His "You idiot" rule goes as follows. When you are about to ask a question, think of this question and add "You idiot" at the end of it. If the meaning of the question still makes sense, you are about to ask a rhetorical or fake question and not a real one. Try it. Add "You stupid" to the two example questions above: the questions still make very much sense (you are actually adding some "punch" to them !).

Now what about "What would be the other options ?" or "What do you think about this ?" Not in the league of the Grand "Why ?" question, but if you add "You idiot" at the end of each, the question no longer makes sense. This is a genuine question.

This is a very simple rule, but since I picked it up a few weeks ago, it has stuck in my mind and I realize I am actually using it. And it works. So try it out for yourself ! Tip: check the "You idiot" rule before you ask the question ...