Nasty Questions: II

Many questions we ask each other in meetings or email are asked not to elicit information, but to "ding" each other. Here's part two of a little catalog of nasty questions. See "Nasty Questions: I," Point Lookout for November 8, 2006, for more.

Pressure tactics

Questioners sometimes want to pressure the respondent. For example, just as the respondent begins an answer to a difficult question, the questioner can interrupt with "What's the short answer?" or "We've got a long agenda here…"

The questioner's purpose is to make it easier to attack the respondent's answer. Responding to pressure tactics can be tricky, but since everyone knows what's going on, a powerful response to the how-long-will-this-take question might be "It depends on what quality of answer you want."

Cheap shots

When someone proposes an alternative solution to a difficult problem, it's a cheap shot to ask, "How much will that cost?" or "How long will that take?" The questioner (and almost anyone) can guess that cheap shots will have embarrassing answers or no answers at all. That's what makes cheap shots cheap.

Cheap shots are supposed to demonstrate weaknesses indirectly. It's usually best to respond honestly. For instance, "We don't know that yet, of course. Would you like an estimate by Friday?"

Hoping for a shortcut

Here the questioner hopes the response will be acceptable, and more direct tactics will be unnecessary. For instance, after discussing acceptable resource levels (in effect, supplying the "right answer"), asking what resources are needed might just elicit an acceptable response.

Truth is your best ally. When asked for estimates on the spot, it's best to supply them with appropriate confidence levels: "Just as a guess, I'd say 100 person weeks plus or minus 50%. I can get you a better estimate by Friday."

Trap construction

Anybody can guess
that cheap-shot questions
will have embarrassing
answers. That's what makes
cheap shots cheap.

In a sequence of seemingly unrelated questions, with perhaps some truly irrelevant questions thrown in, the questioner lays a trap that constrains the respondent's answers to the "trap question."

This technique relies on the desire of most of us to be consistent, and our wish to avoid backtracking or correcting previous responses. Trap construction questions that contain presuppositions [Brenner 2004] that conflict with the hypotheses of the trap question are especially effective. If you get trapped, look for presuppositions, and be willing to backtrack or be inconsistent.

Zingers

Usually asked publicly, zingers are vehicles for reminding bystanders of past infractions, or weaknesses of or accusations against the target. Example: "Weren't you the project manager for that Disaster last year?"

Most people know what's really going on. Such questions (and likely, the questioner) are toxic to the organization. Choose whether or not to respond — a silent smile might be enough.

You might be wondering how to keep people from asking nasty questions. Try posting these articles. But the most effective tactic is to avoid asking them yourself.   First issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Workplace Politics:

Currying Favor

The behavior of the office kiss-up drives many people bats. It's more than annoying, though — it does real harm to the organization. What is the behavior?

Dismissive Gestures: III

Sometimes we use dismissive gestures to express disdain, to assert superior status, to exact revenge or as tools of destructive conflict. And sometimes we use them by accident. They hurt personally, and they harm the effectiveness of the organization. Here's Part III of a little catalog of dismissive gestures.

Behavioral Indicators of Political Risk

Avoiding dangerous political interactions is easier if you know what to look for. Among the indicators of possible trouble are the behaviors of the people around you.

The Discontinuity Effect: What and Why

Counterproductive competition is more likely in group-group interactions than in one-to-one or one-to-group interactions. Why does counterproductive competition happen?

Many "Stupid" Questions Aren't

Occasionally someone asks a question that causes us to think, "Now that's a stupid question." Rarely is that assessment correct. Knowing what alternatives are possible can help us respond more effectively in the moment.

See also Workplace Politics and Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming January 22: Storming: Obstacle or Pathway?

The Storming stage of Tuckman's model of small group development is widely misunderstood. Fighting the storms, denying they exist, or bypassing them doesn't work. Letting them blow themselves out in a somewhat-controlled manner is the path to Norming and Performing. Available here and by RSS on January 22.

And on January 29: A Framework for Safe Storming

The Storming stage of Tuckman's development sequence for small groups is when the group explores its frustrations and degrees of disagreement about both structure and task. Only by understanding these misalignments is reaching alignment possible. Here is a framework for this exploration. Available here and by RSS on January 29.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info