Blog

We are very familiar with the end-of-agenda “Q&A”. But which is most important in our day-to-day interactions – to Question OR to Answer?

On a training course many years ago I was provided with a list of “High Gain Questions” and was taught to use them to re-frame a simple unimaginative and limited-response challenge into a much more powerful query. For example, instead of asking “What do you plan to do in 2019?” to change this to “Come Christmas next year, what three things will you have achieved and why are these most important?” The essence being that they encourage the listener to speculate, visualise, prioritise and consider possibilities, encouraging them to think much more deeply.

I love these “difficult” questions because they bring out the depth in people’s thinking and beliefs. I can’t say I’m terribly good at them but I do try.

The key is preparation. I spent quite some time rehearsing a number of these for the young man who was planning on asking permission to take my daughter’s hand. That turned out to be a highly revealing Q&A.

The questions ought to be asked with genuine intrigue and humility, not just to catch-out the subject. The goal is to learn not embarrass or worse, to humiliate.

I want to be known for the questions I have asked more than the answers I have given.

And if you’re wondering, my budding son-in-law demonstrated immense depth, love and trustworthiness and continues to do so since marrying.

We make myriad decisions every day. Most are trivial with small-scale short-term impact. However, occasionally we face enormously challenging choices which can impact a life, a career, a corporation, a population. The first chapter of “Beyond Measure“, Margaret Heffernan’s TED book, talks about “Creative Conflict“. In it she discusses how a “just culture” surfaces all the information, intelligence, and insight required to make the best decisions. This diverse-thinking “just culture” emerges from alternative perspectives; a healthy mix of male & female input; the breadth of inexperienced and the seasoned established professionals; from the old and the young and varied racial backgrounds. It is one of the reasons many corporates put so much emphasis on diversity programmes.

Unfortunately our biases mean this environment, characterised by healthy tension, isn’t natural. We mostly gravitate towards those who reinforce our thinking because it takes least effort and avoids conflict. In Heffernan’s words; “Great teams need windows on the world, but biases mean that we mostly get mirrors.”

While I’ve always been uncomfortable with the terminology, one way to increase diverse thinking is to embrace the input of a “Devil’s Advocate“. The expression originates from the Vatican’s canonisation process that declares someone a saint within the Catholic Church. The role of “Promoter of the Faith” (promoter fidei in Latin) was appointed to argue against a proposed canonisation or the step immediately prior, being “beatification”. Popularly known as the “Devil’s Advocate“, the lawyer was appointed to take a sceptical view about the candidate’s saintliness, questioning the motives and validating the miracles that had been performed.

When streamlining the process in 1983, Pope John Paul II abandoned the role, although modern media ensures that opposing, controversial views make the headlines. An example of this is Christopher Hitchens, when Mother Teresa was being beatified in 2002. Prior to their downfalls, Robert Maxwell and Charles Keating made significant donations to Mother Teresa’s humble work with the poor, sick, orphaned and dying. Hitchens made allegations of impropriety and inappropriate relationships. There was no evidence Mother Teresa was even aware and I’m just glad some of their cheated wealth went to good causes!

The phrase has been adopted within the standard English language and while not often an intentional or allocated role in a discussion, many of us will have heard somebody pipe-up in a meeting that they are being the “Devil’s Advocate”. A variance often used in the defence / cyber industry is that of ‘Red Teams’. These comprise personnel who use a structured, iterative process to continually challenge plans, operations, concepts, organisations and capabilities. The United States armed forces have used these much more frequently in recent years to mitigate the shortcomings that led to the 9/11 attacks.

What are the risks or potential pitfalls of appointing or encouraging somebody to play the role of a Devil’s Advocate?

Firstly, recall the origin of the title; the role was to question claims and take a sceptical view. I’m not sure this helps in creating a diverse debate but instead just criticises what is being proposed. So, taking the definition literally, a Devil’s Advocate most likely won’t build the just culture that encourages creative conflict.

Secondly, all too often the title is assumed to legitimise the reinforcement of the status quo, taking sides in the debate and adding nothing new to the considerations. This risks shutting down the discussion rather than expanding it, adding nothing to the diversity of the argument.

Thirdly and most dangerously, it can be adopted to legitimise the expression of an extreme, even bigoted perspective which adds little to a healthy, balanced consideration. You know the scenario; during a debate, a prejudiced, extreme view is shared and when people look aghast, the perpetrator claims “I’m just playing Devil’s Advocate” i.e. it’s not really me, I wouldn’t normally say anything like that.

I’m ashamed to say I have been guilty of the last which is perhaps why I dislike the title!

The Devil himself was very good when asking Jesus questions – tempting him with food when he’d been fasting for forty days in the desert (for me, four hours of hunger and I’m confronted by my humanity!). And these were followed-up with the egotistical and materialistic challenges too. Maybe sometimes we should check whether we’re really trying to be the “Devil’s Advocate” or just the devil?

Assuming it’s the former and the intention is to facilitate Heffernan’s “Creative Conflict”, how can it be done well?

As a prerequisite and as always is the case, the quality of the questioning will be directly proportional to the diligence of the listening. Hearing and appreciating the dynamics of the conversation and discerning others’ motives will make the offering of any alternative insight far more powerful. In this state of active listening, if it becomes obvious that everybody is in unanimous alignment, then it’s probably time to introduce diverse thoughts and suggestions, probably adding an explanation that this is intentional.

These alternative perspectives should be framed in a positive way, much more aligned with the original title of “Promoter of the Faith” than the colloquial Devil’s Advocate. Rather than cataloguing all the problems with what is being proposed, suggest the benefits of the alternative. To remain a welcome contributor, it’s important not to slip into strongly negative language, becoming a “carping critic”. For example, when suggesting the railway, rather than “I hate flying; driving is uncomfortable, takes too long and I can’t get on with my work; we should take the train” why not phrase it “Flying is quick and means I can work; driving gives me a great view of the countryside; how about the train which gives the best of both?”.

If the conversation splits into two opposing perspectives, it is best to avoid aligning with any particular group but rather look for what’s missing in both and frame this in a positive way as above. It might even express the best of both camps and lead to a harmonious way forward.

Finally, if there are already many very divergent views, rather than labouring to find yet another one, why not help facilitate others’ expressions by managing the flow of discussion, echoing, reframing and summarising what is being said?

Maybe this way we can embrace conflict and diversity, shatter the self-reinforcing mirrors and throw-open Heffernan’s windows on the world? The view’s amazing!

I’ve been reflecting on Tesla’s battery deal in Australia that was well covered in the press in autumn 2017. Clean energy sources are becoming more efficient and cheaper but inevitably need storage (generally batteries) to match supply to demand. It’s not sunny during the night; the wind doesn’t always blow; tides ebb and flow.

Clean energy can genuinely change society – imagine for example, the potential for proliferation of zero carbon footprint desalinisation plants to irrigate the deserts. Unlimited water purification. Electric-powered aircraft (see the current BBC Business News “sky taxis and flying cars” article).

In the case of this story, batteries were an urgent answer to stabilise the output of the 325 MW Hornsdale wind farm near Jamestown, South Australia. Thus avoiding the catastrophic storm outages that had been experienced in recent years.

What I find remarkable about the deal was Elon Musk’s appetite for risk. His tweeted-bet in March 2017 was “we’ll build it in 100days or it’s free“. Many have been quick to put down the offer pointing out that half of batteries were already installed by the time the contract was signed at the end of September. It was still an astonishing commitment – his bet meant he would deliver it for free, not take it all away. So his liability was a very real $50m or more.

In our cloud-provided world, many services are already set-up and working so adding another customer is relatively low risk and the incremental costs are small. But there are many contracts out there that don’t fall into a cloud consumption model. They need real capital outlay.

For those of us with a sales responsibility, what if we were so convinced of our success that we would a) start to build or do something before contract signature, and b) offer it for free if we failed to meet the spec/timescales/expectations? A true outcome-based approach.

Would this work in your business?