Do you want to keep your audience engaged? Stop asking loaded questions

At some point or another, everyone ends up in a situation where they are explaining something to an audience. That audience may be a bunch of anonymous people, or it may be direct reports. And during such situations, it's not uncommon to pause, and ask if there are any questions.

The problem is, the way this inquiry is posed, is loaded.

Take a moment to think about the phrase 'Are there any questions?' It sounds inquisitive, but think of yourself as being a member of the audience - is it an inviting question? It is an open question that makes you feel comfortable raising your voice?

Usually, the answer is 'no'. Raising your hand, asking a question - both those actions subtly go against the grain. The phrase 'Are there any questions?' sets the grain in such a way that it's far more comfortable, as an audience member, to stay quiet.

It takes a lot of self confidence to go against the grain. What happened with me early in my career - and what I assume happens to most people (since I am nothing special) - is that asking questions or asking for clarification, is perceived as a weakness. Maybe we have trauma from grade school when we asked questions and were made fun of for not 'getting it'. But that was grade school - by the time we get to a career, its a whole other ballgame.

I may be stating the obvious, but sometimes it's nice to hear someone else acknowledge, reiterate, and justify the obvious.

The point is - even as we get older, we still have questions, but we are often held back by previous experiences that have marred us. We have a deeply ingrained desire to appear so intelligent or strong that we resist asking a question.

On the other hand - what goes through your mind when someone else asks a question? At least in my case (and again, I assume in others' cases as well, since I am nothing special), if I hear someone else ask a question, its either 'Ah, yes - I was thinking the same thing', and I am happy someone else brought up the topic, or I think 'Wow, that person is really engaged - they are thinking on a level I didn't even consider', I take it as a learning opportunity to expand my thought process, and I am appreciative of the opportunity. In either case, it's a positive situation.

But that is the perspective of the audience member. If it takes two to tango, it takes both sides of the situation to foster as fully an educational experience as possible - meaning not only does the audience member have to muster the guts to ask a question, but the presenter can also help the situation by inviting questions.

So, for example - after presenting a chunk of material, the presenter may say:

"OK, that was a lot of information. Now is a great time to ask any questions you may have"

- OR -

"I'm sure there are a lot of questions, so lets pause a moment to address them"

There are a couple subtle messages in those.

• In the first instance, there is the acknowledgement of a lot of information. This helps the audience member feel validated that they (potentially) just absorbed a lot of information, may feel a bit overwhelmed, and needs time to process. It helps pave the way for the statement that if there are questions, this is an appropriate time.
• In the second instance, by stating that they are sure there are questions, the presenter is expecting there to be questions. When the presenter expects questions, and that is conveyed to the audience - it's a whole lot easier for the audience member to ask them.

Now, note the difference between those two potential statements, and the following:

"OK. That was a lot of information. Now is a great time to ask any questions, if there are any."

Ask yourself - doesn't that feel just a bit less inviting? The qualifier 'if there are any' at the end almost completely nullifies the opening offered by the 'Now is a great time to ask any questions'.

These are subtle wording differences, but they make a huge impact on how likely it is that an audience member will raise their voice to ask a question.

As someone who spent a large portion of my career where I was a technical instructor - I can tell you that an audience that asks questions is engaged, and an engaged audience is always preferred to a silent audience, and one way to keep the audience engaged is to be mindful of how you ask if there are any questions.

This post was inspired by Ozan Varol.

Project Execution Flywheel

 Last year, I listened to an episode of The Tim Ferriss Show where he interviewed Jim Collins, and Jim mentioned a concept that I've been semi-obsessed with ever since - the flywheel. Basically, a flywheel is a set of systems where, once initiated, a large amount of the momentum for moving forward is self-sustaining, because one step inherently leads to the next.

If you've never heard of Jim Collins - he is one of the most influential business minds out there, and his group has done decades of research into what differentiates 'good' companies from 'great' ones (thus, the title of one of his books: Good to Great).

BUT - this is not a post about Jim Collins. Ever since I heard that episode (and read his monograph: Turning The Flywheel), I've been thinking about ways the flywheel concept can be applied to both business and personal life. One of the ways I started mulling the idea over was in regards to how a project is executed, and I started realizing that, when I looked back over my career and examined successful projects and compared them to ones that were not so successful, some patterns started coming into focus.

Before I dive in, I'll point out that I am speaking of project execution from my perspective as a Data Center consultant/engineer, where I am part of a team responsible for implementing a new technology solution within a customer environment. Projects take many forms - this is just my reflection on the kinds of projects I happen to work on.

When I think of the projects I work on, there are four primary roles - sales, design, implementation, and management. Usually, in my industry, the titles for people filling those roles are something like Relationship Manager, Solution Architect, Professional Services, and Project Manager. Note that in some cases, a single person may be fulfilling multiple roles.

While each role has the obvious end-goal of making the customer happy, I realized that each role also had their own set of internal motivations. Furthermore, I realized that at each step of the process, each person has the ability to make things easier for the next person. In my mind, this realization is the fundamental thread that makes the flywheel possible, and differentiates it from the typical sales cycle graphics I'd seen before.

Here is the flywheel I came up with, with the various roles and individual motivations included:

So, lets walk through this, step by step.

Relationship Manager (RM)

The primary individual motivations for the RM are to make a sale, and generate repeat business. There is a (resource) cost associated with acquiring a new customer, and acquiring a net-new customer is more expensive than an existing customer - so the repeat business prospect is very important.

So, once an RM has a potential customer, how can they best assist in contributing to the flywheel? By doing a good job of identifying and qualifying any opportunities. How this is done is up to the person and the end-customer - after all, their title is Relationship Manager for a reason. But the point is that by finding well qualified opportunities, time is saved further down the line because the SA is not burning cycles on a bunch of opportunities that do not convert to actual projects.

Solution Architect (SA)

Once an opportunity is identified, it is typically handed off to an SA. This person scopes out the project, and comes up with a cost estimate. Their primary individual motivation is to come up with something that the customer is willing to bite on. This is a delicate balancing act between detail, timing, and expense - sometimes customers need something on a budget, and sometimes they need an estimate yesterday.

Yet, the best way an SA can assist down the line is to have a very focused SOW that contains a clear execution plan. It does no one any good for professional services to show up onsite with a vaguely worded SOW and no information about the customer environment.

Professional Services (PS)

Once an engagement has started, the PS person wants to get the work done as quickly and cleanly as possible. This is best done by knowing what needs to be accomplished, and how to systematically move through the tasks to complete the project. Preparation here is key - information about the environment in general, information about the primary motivating factors for the chosen technology, specific technical information that will be needed for a deployment, uncovering environmental constraints and obstacles that will need to be addressed - all are critical parts of executing through an engagement in an efficient manner.

Which leads into the best way that PS can assist with keeping the flywheel turning - doing everything possible to wrap up an engagement with as few loose ends or zombies as possible. Anything that is not tied up in a nice bow requires re-engagement down the line, which depletes cognitive cycles. This can be a vicious cycle, because that downstream re-spooling can often come at the cost of something being worked on at that time - so it's actually a double tax.

Project Manager (PM)

The PM is often in the unenviable position of being tasked with keeping a project running smoothly and finishing within a timeframe that they did not have a lot of input on. With larger projects, there are a lot of people involved, and this role can become quite complex, very quickly. Yet, at the end of the day, they always have to have an eye on how much time has been spent on a project and trying to keep things moving in an efficient manner.

While one may think that the PM is at the end of the line for a project pipeline, since tasks such as closeout and billing are handled by the PM - the reality is that they are also just another piece of the flywheel. If the PM is able to herd all the cats in the implementation bag and keep a project moving in a way that instills confidence and trust in the customer, that is a HUGE factor in the customer coming back to the RM with a potential future engagement. And thus, the cycle begins again.

One final thought:

I did not include a specific how-to for each step because everything is situationally dependent, not the least of which is the people involved in each step! Everyone has their own way of working with other people - the specifics of how each role executes their portion of the flywheel is less important than the people involved coming to an agreed upon method of working together that works for each person and also keeps the flywheel moving. Otherwise, it's not a flywheel - it's just a big grinding stone.

Why "That's right" is better to hear than "You're right"

Imagine you are in negotiations with someone. Obviously one of the objectives is to establish some sort of common thread, or come to some sort of understanding, with the other party. It is part of establishing empathy and trust.

But how you go about establishing that common thread is extremely important, and in subtle ways.

A lot of people would say that if you can get the other person to agree with you, such as by agreeing that the services or product you are offering is better, or meets their needs - then hearing them say "You're right" is money. Whatever the case may be - selling a solution, or negotiating for a raise - you'd understandably be happy to hear that phrase come from the person on the other side of the table, because it would seem like you are well on your way to getting what you want out of the negotiation.

Am I right?

Actually, no.

Hearing the words "You're right" in a negotiation setting is actually not a good thing. More often than not, when someone says "You're right", it is a defensive posture. It is a way for the other person to give themselves some distance, and many times, it's a tactic to get the other person (you) to go away.

To illustrate this, think about times you've muttered the words "You're right" to another person - for example, a significant other (perhaps during an argument). Why did you say that? If you are like most people, and chances are, you are - it was because you were just done talking about the topic at hand, and wanted to generate space for yourself. It's true that there are times when "You're right" is actually spoken in an authentic manner and is genuinely meant in the way that it sounds - but far more than we realize, it's actually a sign that one side is mentally exhausted and wants/needs some space. And in negotiations, that method of generating space is not favorable.

Instead of "You're right", the real aim is to get the other side to "That's right". When you hear "That's right", the subject matter is separated from the person, and there is acknowledgement that the "thing" being discussed is correct. In turn, that is a sign that an epiphany, or that some sort of bond of shared vision, has occurred.

How do you get from "You're right" to "That's right"? While the subtleties and nuances of negotiation are far beyond the scope of this article (or entire blog), we can look at an easy example scenario, which is when one person brings facts and reasonable logic to a discussion. At first glance, this seems like a good idea - but we've all experienced situations where we try to convince someone of something using facts and logic, and they only dig their heels in further as a response. It's easy to simply cast that off as the person being obstinate or not rational - but the news flash is that everyone is susceptible to the confirmation bias that leads to that defensive reaction. Not just the other person who didn't 'understand' your logic and reasoning - but everyone, you and me included.

It all comes back to what we really want in a discussion - which is to be heard. To be seen. To have our concerns acknowledged and validated. If, during a negotiation, we brow-beat the other side with our facts and figures and logic, they will either walk out in frustration (and it will be obvious that things have gone south), or they will acquiesce just to get it over with, and say "You're right". But, ask yourself - does that sound like the reaction of someone who is going to be happy continuing to do business with, or work, with you? Most likely not.

On the other hand, if, instead of beating the other side down with your argument, you are able to discuss, acknowledge, and address their concerns by asking validating questions ('So, if I understand things correctly, the primary issue you want to address is X, Y, and Z. Is that right?') - you will have established a common bond between you and the other person and will be moving the needle in a significant way. They

That bond is favorable in negotiations, and why it is better to strive for "That's right" instead of "You're right"

This piece of wisdom shamelessly stolen from Chris Voss' book 'Never Split the Difference'

Divergent Vs Convergent Thinking

In "Think Like a Rocket Scientist", Ozan Varol talks about two types of thinking that are crucial for idea generation - divergent thinking and convergent thinking.

While many people may not be familiar with the terms per-se - most people are familiar with the concepts they represent. Divergent thinking is most similar to what people know of as brainstorming - it is thinking of ideas in free-flow, without restrictions, no matter how potentially ridiculous or impractical. Convergent thinking, by contrast, is usually thought of as closer to critical, or scientific/engineering thinking - what is possible and what is practical given real world constraints.

While most people are familiar with these two types of thinking, Varol makes the point that most of the time, people don't leverage them correctly - or at least in a way that produces the optimal outcome.

Let's take an example. A bunch of people on a team gather in a conference room to discuss how to solve a particular problem. People start spouting out ideas, but almost as fast as Person A mentions an idea, Person B comes along with a 'yeah, but..' that nixes the idea. How likely is it that Person A is going to continue volunteering ideas? Not very likely - they got shot down, and it's a natural human response to start closing up after being shot down. The result is what most everyone has experienced - an initial flurry of ideas, followed shortly thereafter by everyone starting to converge on a single idea, many times put forth by either a person of authority, or by whoever in the room has the loudest voice. It may seem something productive has happened, since an idea and a plan of execution was the result of the meeting, but a few critical things occurred:

1. Because so many ideas were shot down, the team members don't feel their input was valued.
2. The idea that gained traction was likely an idea that stayed within the well-worn confines of how things have always been done, which likely has its own challenges.
3. The opportunity to come up with a really game-changing solution to the problem was ruined before it had a chance to be explored.

What really happened here was that the initial divergent thinking process was stunted. It is true that with divergent thinking, many of the ideas will be tossed out quickly - but the truth is also that a great idea is a close cousin, or a simple tweak of, a not-so-great idea. I think everyone has experienced, at least to some degree, a state of flow where ideas and thoughts and connections flow freely and things become elegant and simple. Yet, getting into that frame of mind is not necessarily quick and easy - we have to be kind to our (and others') creative selves, not be too critical right out of the gate, and prevent the rational and critical part of our brain from overtaking the creative side during this time. How many times have you had a list of ideas, thought you had identified the winning horse right away - but after a refining process, it turned out that another idea was the unexpected winner? The goal of divergent thinking is to expand on the field of potential ideas, not trim it down from the start.

Which leads to... convergent thinking. Convergent thinking is a critical component, but it is important that it be engaged in at the right time - which is, ideally, when divergent thinking has come to it's natural end. At that time, it's not just that all the single ideas are still on the table - it's that all the ideas and combinations of ideas are still available. The single idea by itself may be ridiculous, but when combined in a unique way with another idea - a very elegant and simple solution may present itself. This is why it is so important that divergent thinking be allowed for as long as possible, and not be considered a waste of time. Once you've entered the convergent thinking phase, you figure out which ideas and combinations are not worth pursuing, and which ones still move the needle in terms of achieving the end goal.

By allowing a full divergent thinking process the opportunity to thrive, followed by the convergent thinking process to gradually determine which ideas are worth pursuing, you increase the chance that a simple, elegant and truly impactful solution will present itself, as opposed to being limited by the 'same old' style solutions used in the past.