Incisive Questions; the Time to Think® component that sticks out like a sore thumb. It’s not just the ‘two words, rather than one’ aspect; it shines a light on a divide in the world of coaching, and arguably the world of relationships in general. A divide where, on one hand, the coach, manager, partner (insert the label of your choice for whatever relationship feels most pertinent to you) is the expert, the guide, the sage-like figure dishing out wisdom to help the other achieve their goal. On the other hand, they are purely the facilitator, empowering (I use that word cautiously) the individual to take their own meandering way and find their own wisdom, since they know their own struggles the best.
It seems, on first reading, that Incisive Questions - aimed at 'freeing us from untrue assumptions' - would appeal to the former, more directive position. What appears to be on offer here is a simple formulaic structure for 1-2-1 engagements that helps us arrive at that one golden question that will help another overcome adversity, propelling them towards their goal. However, I’m excited to argue that it is neither simple, nor reserved for 1-2-1 engagements. At its heart it is far from formulaic, and in the context of helping teams move forward together, incredibly valuable.
I’ve always rather loved the saying, “To assume is to make an ass out of u and me”, but of course, though terribly witty and so often fitting, it’s both inaccurate and actually rather unfair. Assumptions are, in fact, absolutely essential to our ability to function as human beings. Hit by an almost infinite amount of data every second of our waking lives, without our assumptions to filter everything, we’d almost certainly go barking mad. As delightful as endless curiosity is, we need assumptions to avoid freezing from information overload. To that end, assumptions are marvellous things, provided they’re true. But they’re a bit of a bugger when they’re not.
The goal of the Incisive Question is to free the mind from untrue assumptions, lived as true. The topic of how such, less-than-constructive, untrue assumptions come to be, could fill an entire wall of the British library, so for the purposes of this thought piece, I’ll leave it at this; we all have them, it’s entirely normal and reasonable that we have them (we are not omniscient), and we bumble on through life regardless. What is especially interesting to me is Nancy Kline’s description of how our minds occasionally overcome these untrue, and rather limiting assumptions all of their own accord. She proposes (and I agree) that it goes a little something like this;
We feel blocked
We choose to act.
We examine the assumptions that brought us here, asking;
“Do they stack up, factually?”
“Are they logical?”
“Are they contrary to our values?”
For those assumptions found wanting, we ask; “What is a true, more empowering and liberating, credible alternative for me?”
We focus on that, switching the untrue assumption for the liberating and true alternative.
We move forward.
So, when we consider this, and we’re offering ourselves as an agent of change on behalf of another, we could imagine asking them the following questions:
“What are you assuming that is most stopping you from going forward?”
“Do you think this assumption is true?”
“What are your reasons for thinking it is true?” (logic, facts, values)
“Acknowledging that it is not true, what is a true and liberating alternative?”
“If you knew this (insert true and liberating assumption) how would you go forward?”
Or a little more neatly;
“Given that the assumption you are making is stopping you from reaching your goal, what would you credibly have to assume instead in order to reach your goal.”
So, there you have it; the structure of the Incisive Question. How marvellously simple. Indeed, on the face of it, perhaps too simple. When I first came across Incisive Questions, I felt like this was one of those tidy structures put forward as a saleable theory that fits in a book that will sell, to solve something that is, in truth, far more complex an issue - our thoughts.
But then I remembered that this is of course just one of the ten simultaneous components, all contributing to the ultimate thinking environment. An environment where people feel heard, not rushed, safe and not judged, liberated, encouraged and in charge, rather than infantilised, confined and dispirited. In this environment, given time to think, they will get there, and the process is that simple, in theory. Just not in practice. Though the question itself is simple, delivering a truly liberating and empowering thinking environment is hard. Really hard. And something most of us have spent our whole lives conditioning ourselves ‘not’ to do.
The Incisive Question example covered in Nancy’s book, ‘More time to think’, tackles the subject of a client’s dissatisfaction with how they look, and the untrue assumption, lived as true, that there is some inherent standard of beauty. The liberating alternative proposed is that there is no objective definition of beauty. Beauty is not in our genes, it is in our culture. Therefore, one should instead assume that everyone is inherently beautiful. Simple!
Of course this is logically true, but actually, (and I find myself quite emotionally hit by this reality) standards of beauty are exulted in our culture. And what high standards! In these instagram days they are not just abundant; they are prolific, or indeed endemic, and though we know them to be untrue, concocted and amplified by the media, instagram filters and other beauty effects, nevertheless they hit home in a painful and powerful way. So strong is the idea of an inherent standard of beauty in our culture, that there are few in the world able to see beyond it. Sad, but true I fear, with today’s society conditioned from birth to acknowledge beauty thus, every day.
My point is that some untrue assumptions can’t just be lightly brushed aside with one seemingly perfect incisive question dropped in during the closing minutes of a coaching session. It’s perhaps for this reason that I’ve yet to quote the current behavioural guidance around the component of Incisive Questions; which is:
“Freeing the human mind of an untrue assumption, lived as true.”
But it wasn’t always written as such, and I find myself drawn to what I think is a more humble statement offered in earlier writings:
“Right inside an incisive Question lies the liberation of a human mind”
The reason I’m more comfortable with the latter is that the former feels rather directive, placing too great a power in the hands of the one offering the question. The Incisive Question itself is fabulous, but the liberation comes from the great thinking done by the thinker, liberating their own mind. And what’s more, that process takes time. Change starts with new awareness. Then, with that new awareness, neurons fire - and neurons that fire together, wire together. Given time, and support, and frankly, repetition, such assumptions can be overturned as the brain rewires itself. Indeed, I would encourage us all to talk about this lengthy reality openly and honestly. Recognise that it can often be a really long journey, and rarely a single step. Having asked the Incisive Question, we then need to focus on the forces that we permit into our lives that reinforce our untrue assumptions? What changes could we choose to make that would gradually reduce or even eradicate the cues that lead to reinforcing such untrue assumptions on a daily basis. That too is clearly a question worth asking.
I’m sure the Incisive Question is indeed, after much testing and experiencing, the best way to draw attention to and begin the reframe of, an untrue and limiting assumption. However, all too often, the work to be done here takes a lot of time and effort on the part of the thinker, and it’s often the case that we’re working against some incredibly powerful, societal forces and biases. It’s clear then that, for many, both the untrue assumption, and the new, true, credible and more liberating assumption, will have to share brain space for some time, but with adequate time to reflect, the truth will out in the end. Nancy argues this too, and provided you don’t skim read her writing, it’s clear that the process is recognised as ‘client-first and lengthy’. In a way, it seems one has to talk about the structure, in order to get past it and return to the core of a thinking environment; what does the thinker need right now in order to keep on thinking independently at their best, so that they can comprehend the enormity of overturning their own untrue assumptions and develop, and consequently own, their game plan to do so.
But how is this all relevant for Teams?
Well, teams make assumptions too, and teams and groups get stuck. Indeed, whole organisations do. And unlike the individual, the assumptions are even harder to find, somewhere inside the hive of minds, leaving even more room for untrue assumptions to go unchecked. Sixty years ago, Wilfred Bion introduced the idea that teams work on two levels; the conscious level of the work group, and the unconscious level of basic assumptions. Much like individuals, teams and organisations operate on the basis of a whole bunch of assumptions, both at an individual level, and culturally at a systemic level. I state this, not because I’m going to suggest that such assumptions can easily be undone through some cheap parlor trick. That’s too great an ask. However, increased awareness of this truth (that we’re all making a whole host of untrue assumptions, all the time), and the development of a culture with adequate psychological safety - where individuals are permitted to be vulnerable and to question accepted paradigms without fear of looking the fool - can indeed lead to some untrue assumptions being uncovered.
The same three criteria (Fact, Logic and Values) and one simple question that is actively encouraged across the entirety of the organisation, can help to shine a light on previously unacknowledged, untrue assumptions, with a suitable follow up to drive innovative thinking. The question everyone should be encouraged to ask is simple;
“What might we be assuming that could be limiting our thinking on this issue?”
Followed swiftly by;
If we assumed something more liberating, what might our ideas be?
I’ve found it quite shocking in the past that so many strategies, once questioned through the lens of logic, come up wanting, yet no one dares to question them. Strategies are often presented with such gusto and aplomb that the idea of critiquing doesn’t even seem to be on the table. More often than not, it is indeed a presentation, a one-directional dissemination, rather than an opportunity to remain curious and kick the tires some more. With inadequate psychological safety, the presenter feels the pressure and is compelled to ‘sell’ the concept, making no use of the great minds in front of them. There are two ways to resolve this. Either develop a culture, through the Time to Think Transforming Meetings training I and others offer (see below to book a free consultation), where all the different minds are respected equally and feel safe to inquire, or alternatively, help the presenter develop adequate confidence and humility in order to ask the question of the group, “Do you think my proposal stack up logically?”
The values dimension here is most interesting in its frequent absence. Most teams, and indeed most companies, don’t have considered, shared, values. To that end then, the team can’t even ask the question, “Do our assumptions fit with our values?” But it is exactly this situation that calls for those values to have been properly constructed in a shared and considered fashion. In many ways, poorly constructed team or company values can be more harmful than no values at all, as the vacuum of no values tends to be filled more organically by what natural leaders within the team believe. So, take the time (I can help here too) to give your team and/or company values proper consideration. Your ideas and decisions will be all the better for it, and hopefully free of a few more untrue, limiting assumptions.
Finally, there’s the dimension of facts, which we’ll invariably touch on when we come to talk about ‘information', the ninth component of a Thinking Environment. All too often, meetings happen, and strategies are formed, with a whole host of assumptions being made, yet very little effort to obtain and discuss the data that ought to shape them. Because most meetings do involve the sharing of some information, this too can create a worse situation than no information being shared at all, because rather than trying to offer up information, the team assumes that the information being offered is true.
All of the above stacks up to yet more assumptions, almost invariably in a bid to ‘get things done fast’, when the best decisions will come from taking a little more time to think, and in creating an environment where everyone feels empowered to ask, “Is that true?”
With simple structures and a little encouragement, your meetings can be faster & more innovative, with teams feeling valued, motivated and engaged Book a free 30-minute session today to learn how
Comentários