I was in a bid planning meeting at a large consultancy when the discussion started to enter a conversational death spiral. Manager A believed that there should be a project manager involved in the project whilst Manager B disagreed. The conversation shifted from a discussion to a disagreement – the difference in views hooked the participants into a verbal arm wrestle over who was right.
I realised that neither manager was asking any questions of the other. It was all “let me tell you again why I’m right”.
It was as if each person thought the other person was just failing to see what was obvious to them, so each was using an ineffective strategy of repeating their view again this time stronger and louder.
I fought back my impulse to ‘take sides’ and focus on what one side was missing. Instead I decided to ask a question to move the conversation forward:
Me: “[To Manager A] If we agreed to go with the idea of a project manager, could you say what that would look like to you? How much budget do you think would be needed?”
Manager A: “I think we’d need to use 5% of the budget”
Me: “[To Manager B] How does that sound to you? What issues would you see if 5% of the budget was used?”
Manager B: “I’d assumed it was more than that. If that’s all it would take then that works for me”
One well-placed question changed the nature of the discussion. The reduction in tension in the room was obvious.
My question was designed to take the other person “down their ladder [of inference]” and produce more specific observable data. By doing so it uncovered some assumptions about what exactly was involved.
Have you found switching from backing one side to asking questions about the other side’s ideas has helped unblock conversations? Share your views in the comments.