Here’s a typical false dichotomy question that could lure us into a thinking trap: Imagine the politician that declares, “Either vote in favor of this legislation or condemn this country to a future of lawless anarchy.” False dichotomies have rhetorical impact, but almost always contain a logical fallacy. The problem is that real-world options are rarely if ever, mutually exclusive. The question gets framed to limit (sometimes intentionally) answers to one of two opposing options. A lot of unproductive work gets generated when people rush off to solve the wrong problem.įalse dichotomy questions contain “either/or” assumptions. The question includes a point of view about how to respond to complaints about feeling left out and underutilized, but is a lack of communication really at the heart of the matter? Maybe line leaders feel overly regulated when they involve support functions so they intentionally work around them. How do we improve communication between line leaders and their support functions? For example, when confronted with complaints that support functions feel left out and underutilized, a leader might start with the question: ![]() The urge to fix things often shows up in the way we pose a question about a situation we want to change. We shouldn’t be surprised that when feeling stuck or challenged by a complex situation, leaders quickly form opinions and then set about implementing their conclusions. Organizational leaders are expected to have a point of view about any and all situations. Here are four categories of questions that often lure us into a thinking trap. Many of the counterproductive questions that all of us tend to ask when we feel stuck fall into one or more recognizable categories. I have come to recognize distinctive patterns in their questions patterns that undermine their desire to find comprehensive, novel and widely accepted solutions. Lately, I’ve been working with leaders to help them improve their questions. In short, a better question can turn a vicious cycle that keeps us stuck into a virtuous cycle that opens up options. The revised assumptions make it possible to listen differently, generate different questions and surface even more information. An insight has the power to transform our assumptions. ![]() Better questions could lead to new information and new information could lead to an insight. One way to break free of the inquiry loop is to change the questions you’re asking. Finally, you can’t alter your assumptions without new information. ![]() ![]() You won’t change your questions if you don’t recognize the influence your assumptions have on what you choose to learn about. The Inquiry Loop suggests that you won’t get any new information if you don’t change your questions. The Inquiry Loop explains how thinking traps can feel like trying to find your way out of a forest only to realize that you’ve been walking in circles. When leaders pose questions reflexively about situations that are complex and stressful, they can fall prey to the Inquiry Loop. I know it doesn’t sound like much, but it turns out that paying attention to how people frame their questions provides a window into thinking traps that may be preventing them from getting unstuck. Ultimately, my research led to the conclusion: The questions people ask about a situation they want to change reveal a lot about what they’re thinking and feeling. Like a lot of doctoral candidates, I conducted a disciplined and comprehensive research study to demonstrate something most people would consider intuitively obvious. in 2015, which means I wrote a really long paper that no one will ever read (except for the people who were paid to read it).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |