21

The Art of Influencing Through Questions

As I mentioned in the previous section, my definition of “influencing” did not embody any interpersonal skills, behavioral science, or other psychological techniques and methods. Clearly, those could be complementary and can be effective in helping influence people and, as a result, outcomes. So, educating yourself on those could prove to be beneficial and indeed likely to enhance your ability to influence. Also, as I mentioned, I have no expertise in behavioral science, and my interpersonal skills are actually quite poor compared to my peers. However, there is one aspect that relates to communication skills that I can address with confidence and that I believe would help you substantially when interacting with other people where there might be potential for tension, resistance, and conflict. It specifically deals with how to minimize these reactions in situations where you communicate a different position from someone else, or somewhat “correct” someone else. It is effective in a one-on-one conversation or in group discussions.

One need not be a behavioral scientist to know that most people instinctively react internally somewhat negatively and defensively when faced with disagreements. The question is how much of this instinctive internal reaction comes out to the surface and becomes apparent with a real defensive behavior. This reaction becomes even more intense when a person has first communicated a rationale for their position, only to have it undermined by more compelling logic by someone else.

There are probably many reasons for such a negative/defensive reaction. In my opinion, it mostly stems from being challenged in the first place, or being made to feel stupid. An opinion the presenter believes significant doesn’t seem to matter much and is summarily dismissed. In our mind, somebody has just told us, “I disagree with your assessment and logic. I think that you are completely wrong, and you don’t know what you are talking about. Let me tell you why I think so, and then I’ll give you the right solution.” So, any communication, verbal and otherwise, that gives rise to such interpretations will elicit defensiveness. On the other hand, any communication that can mitigate such an interpretation can help eliminate defensiveness.

Obviously, any defensiveness and resistance potentially stand in the way of effectively influencing another person. So, a question arises as to whether there are ways by which to reduce such an instinctively negative response when communicating a dissenting view. Clearly there are, and most are related to psychological and behavioral science factors. Understanding them and perhaps utilizing them is definitely something I would recommend. However, I’d like to suggest to you a simple and always applicable technique that I believe is one of the more effective ways to avert a likely negative reaction when the need arises to disagree with someone’s perspective or solution. This technique involves the use of questions. Anybody can do it effectively. It always works, and works well.

Understanding the trigger points for such defensive and negative reactions will help better define the remedies. In my opinion, there are two important factors that are most likely to affect the severity of the negative and defensive reactions: general demeanor and the articulation used by the disagreeing party. I’ll address them separately.

General Demeanor

We always react to the demeanor we face. We tend to become more aggressive, argumentative, and closed-minded when faced with an aggressive demeanor, and more relaxed and open-minded when facing a relaxed and friendly one. Thus, the first step in avoiding a negative reaction is to understand what may contribute to a perception of an aggressive demeanor versus a relaxed, more friendly one. The following is a partial list of the most common postures or gestures that evoke a reaction on the part of a listener. In general, the more intense the gesture, the more severe the negative and defensive reaction and vice versa.

Aggressive Gestures	Friendly Gestures
Tense, combative body posture	Relaxed posture
Serious countenance	Smiling countenance
Intense look	Casual, “normal” eye contact, with a smile
Display of anger, irritation, or disapproval	Expression of empathy and understanding
Loud or raised voice	Quiet, soft-spoken voice
Quick cadence of the voice	Slower cadence
Restlessness, or impatient demeanor	Calm, patient demeanor
Exaggerated/dramatic hand gestures	Gesture of approval, like nodding the head
Pointing the index finger	Patting listener’s arm, when naturally done
Being stubborn and closed-minded	Being sympathetic and open-minded
Continually disagreeing	Continually demonstrating agreements
Standing too close to the listener	Respecting personal space
Interrupting the other person	Being fully present to the other person

Articulation

How we articulate our position, and specifically with respect to disagreements, is an important element in the reaction we evoke from a listener. There are two aspects to articulation that matter most in situations like this: “preemptive/disarming” statements and the actual articulation of the specific disagreement. The preemptive/disarming articulation aims to communicate positive gestures to evoke a positive state of mind before communicating the negative disagreement, thereby counterbalancing or reducing from the severity of the defensiveness that might follow when articulating the disagreement.

In the disarming phase, we aim to preemptively address the potential negative interpretation by stating up front that the other person is not being challenged and that their opinion is always respected. There are many ways to articulate and accomplish the preemptive part. Some are more effective than others, but any is better than none.

In the second phase, when articulating disagreements, we need to recognize that the exact words and phrasing we use will evoke either positive or negative reactions and affect the intensity level of such reactions. So, being wise with how we articulate our disagreement is the key to getting the outcome we desire.

Below, for demonstration purposes, are some examples of phrases and words that elicit different degrees of intensity and reaction. They are presented in the order of the least sensitive (most offensive) to the most sensitive (least offensive), or those that evoke the most intense defensive reactions to those that disarm the best. I selected these examples to illustrate the wide range and many nuances involved, just to conceptually illustrate how it might work. The list also points out that even a small variation can be impactful. Avoid using the words and phrases in the beginning of the list, as they are the most offensive. Rather, always try to use the concepts demonstrated toward the end of the list, and you will go a long way toward disarming defensiveness.

•“You are wrong!”

•“I completely disagree!”

•“What you said doesn’t make sense!”

•“I disagree.”

•“What you said is incorrect.”

•“What you said is not logical.”

•“What you said may not be completely logical.”

•“You are not right.”

•“What you said is not completely right.”

•“What you said may not be completely right.”

•“I understand what you said, but it may not be completely accurate.”

•“What you said is interesting, but it might not be as applicable in our situation.”

•“What you said made sense, but it is not applicable in this situation.”

•“What you said made sense, but it might not be as applicable in this specific case.”

•“What you said made sense; however, our case may be different.”

•“What you said made sense; however, there might be additional considerations that need to be addressed.”

•“What you said makes a lot of sense and I agree with much of it; however, I believe that there are some mitigating factors that also need to be considered.”

•“What you said makes a lot of sense and I agree with much of it; however, I believe that we also need to consider some additional factors.”

•“What you said makes a lot of sense and I agree with much of it; however, I wonder whether we need to consider some additional factors.”

•“What you said made a lot of sense, but I’m not sure if I’m completely convinced. Here is my concern.”

However, there is one approach that is the most effective in not only disarming defensiveness, but that will also prepare the other party to accept the rationale for your position. It is this approach that I’m recommending you use as often as you can. It is done through raising “guiding” questions, rather than stating an absolute position and rationale. You point out through “innocent” questions the flaws in the logic you heard, while at the same time raising the potential solution, and then you ask the listener for their opinion. Since there was no disagreement, per se, and since the listener responded to questions and ended up “formulating” the final solution, they therefore “own” it. After all, it is their solution and they will accept it wholeheartedly, even though it was different from their initial position. This is the art of influencing through questions at work!

Although very easy in concept, most will find this approach hard in practice. The biggest reason is that this approach denies you the instinctive desire and opportunity to show just how smart you are. This is so because asking the questions does not imply that you also know the solution or answer, even though you do. Instead, you allow the listener to come up with the right conclusion, and thus they will receive credit for it. Worse yet, as far as you are concerned, the person who got the credit didn’t even deserve it, because the solution they proposed was incorrect and without your guidance they would not have arrived at the right one.

The best advice I can give you regarding the above trade-off is to do it regardless! First, and most importantly, is the fact that this is the best way to “influence,” and per the advice offered in the previous section, the best way in the long haul to advance your own career is to lose the occasional battle but to win the war.

However, the most illuminating observation I would like to leave with you is that the perception that you may deny yourself credit with this approach is wrong! You may perceive it this way, but everybody else will have understood exactly what you have done and that you must have known the answer to raise the questions in the first place. So, in reality, you will not only be able to influence in the best way, but you will also be getting the full credit for your smarts. Better yet, you’ll get additional credit for being a team player with wise interpersonal skills—a win-win-win situation overall.

The only thing left to conclude this chapter is to give you some examples to illustrate how to apply this questions approach. Clearly, to have a good “guiding” question, it must also incorporate some of the correct response. Otherwise, you may run a risk of not arriving at the right outcome. This will become apparent shortly.

There are many ways by which questions could be stated. There can be more questions, each “guiding” in small increments, or fewer questions, each “guiding” with more complete observations, or even a single question with the full solution embedded in the question. It really doesn’t matter which approach you use, because they all work well. The fewer the questions, the more of the solution needs to be embodied in each of the questions.

Different situations and circumstances may call for different approaches, and of course you may mix and match, as you feel appropriate. Keep in mind that I’m referring here to real questions, where you expect the listener to respond, and not to rhetorical questions where you don’t expect an answer.

The following example will demonstrate the questions approach. I will use the debate I had with the placement director at Wharton regarding resume writing and job interviews as the framework. I offer various levels of response to illustrate how this method works.

Placement director’s claim: “You should always study the financial statements of the company you will be interviewing with. Discover some performance-related issues the financial statements reveal and bring them up with the interviewer. You’ll benefit in two ways: First, you will show the interviewer that you are smart and can use what you learned at Wharton to the practical benefit of the company; and second, you will show the interviewer that you have a very strong interest in working for the company, as demonstrated by the fact that you took the necessary time to study and prepare in advance of the interview. As everybody knows, showing strong interest in a company is very important, since no company will extend a job offer to a candidate who didn’t display interest, excitement, and enthusiasm for potentially working there.”

Response 1: Unconditionally Critical

(most offensive—doesn’t use the questions approach)

Candidate: “I completely disagree with you on both observations. Let’s start with your first reason. I tried it and I was laughed off. In reality, the interviewer became angry. In one case, I raised an issue with the performance of one of the divisions and the response I got was, ‘I work for a different division; how would you expect me to know the answer?’ On another occasion, I asked about the performance of the corporation in an attempt to avoid the previous awkward situation from happening, but it didn’t help much. The response was, ‘I have no idea; I work for the marketing department. Your question would be best addressed to somebody in the finance department.’ So, you see, your recommendation is faulty and may result in a candidate being dismissed outright.

“Regarding your second reason, I find it hard to believe and completely illogical that a company will offhandedly reject an otherwise great candidate just because they didn’t advertise that they had dedicated extra time to studying the company’s financial statements in advance of the interview. Everybody knows that all students look at alternatives and that, in the end, the company will need to ‘sell’ itself and convince the candidate that they present an attractive opportunity for the candidate. So, whether a student knows more or less about a company’s financial statements in the interview is not all that critical. The qualifications of the candidate and how they perform during the interview are the most critical factors. However, I will partially agree with what you said about showing interest. Indeed, no company will extend a job offer unless they believe that the candidate is highly interested and is excited about working there. But this would be important at the end of the interviewing process, not the very beginning, which often is conducted by a lower-level employee whose real aim is to provide an initial go/no-go screening of all the potential candidates. Besides, there are much better, more direct, and more effective ways to communicate interest in, excitement about, and enthusiasm for potentially working at a company than using a surrogate like spending the time to study the financial statements in advance of the interview. So, although it couldn’t hurt to study the financial statements of a company in advance of an interview, I would not characterize it as being imperative.”

Response 2: Conditionally Critical

(less offensive—no questions used)

Candidate: “Your recommendations make a lot of sense, but I wonder if there might be some potential pitfalls that need to be considered. The pitfalls stem from the possibility that the interviewer may not know the answer to the questions/issues raised. For example, the questions are financially related, yet the interviewer may work in a completely different department. Or if the interviewer works in the finance department, they may not have the level of experience to know how to respond. In such situations, the questions raised may backfire. The interviewer might conclude the candidate has little common sense for asking the wrong questions of the wrong person. There are other, more effective ways to show enthusiasm in an interview itself. So, in my mind, why take the risk?

“Regarding your second reason, indeed, you are correct; a company will not likely extend an offer to a candidate who hasn’t shown excitement and enthusiasm for working at the firm. However, I wonder whether showing this kind of enthusiasm is imperative at the beginning of the interviewing process, or perhaps becomes imperative toward the end of the process. I find it hard to believe that a company will offhandedly reject an otherwise qualified candidate just because they didn’t demonstrate they spent time studying the company’s financial statements in advance of the interview. Everybody knows that students look at other options and that it is up to a company to ‘sell’ itself to the candidate. So, whether a student knows more or less about a company in the initial interview is not that critical. The qualifications of the candidate and how they perform during the interview are the most critical factors. Although it couldn’t hurt to study the financial statements of a company in advance of an interview, I would not characterize it as being imperative. Besides, there are much better, more direct, and more effective ways to communicate interest in, excitement about, and enthusiasm for potentially working at a company than using a surrogate that might imply interest.”

Response 3: Using the Questions Approach

(with more questions, each with less guidance)

Candidate:	“I understand what you are recommending. It is very logical and makes a lot of sense. I have a couple of questions on the two recommendations you made: What if I ask a question about some financial issues and for whatever reason the interviewer doesn’t know the answer?”
Director:	“Oh, of course you need to make sure that the interviewer is in a position to know the answer.”
Candidate:	“How would I do so?”
Director:	“Ask the interviewer about their role in the firm before you ask your questions.”
Candidate:	“Wouldn’t it be difficult to ascertain this in practical terms?”
Director:	“Why would it?”
Candidate:	“It appears to me that there are too many variables involved. Let’s say I study the company in advance and find a financial performance issue with a division of the company. So, if the interviewer doesn’t work for that division, then it follows that I should not ask the question, correct?”
Director:	“Correct. You would be better off to find issues related to the corporate level and not divisions.”
Candidate:	“Yes, that makes a lot of sense. But what if I ask a corporate-level question and the interviewer doesn’t work for the finance department? Would they know the answer? Would it not be a mistake, too?”
Director:	“Of course it would. You need to make sure that they work for the finance department.”
Candidate:	“But what if they are a lower-level financial analyst and might not be aware of the issue or know the answer? Would it not be better to avoid asking them, too?”
Director:	“Probably.”
Candidate:	“Do you believe that the benefit of asking the questions in the first place—to show one’s smarts in finance—outweighs the potential risk of alienation that might happen because the question was asked of the wrong person?”
Director:	“You know, you are bringing up an interesting point. On second thought, maybe we are better off not asking such questions in the first place.”
Candidate:	“Regarding your second point that it is important to show that the candidate is interested in working for a company, I wholeheartedly agree. However, I wonder, do you believe that if a company finds a very attractive candidate, they will dismiss him or her offhandedly just because they didn’t show that they studied the company’s financial statements in advance of the interview?”
Director:	“Well, it is not the studying per se; rather, the candidate is illustrating their interest in the company.”
Candidate:	“I got it. Clearly, no company will make an offer to a candidate who doesn’t show strong interest in working for it. But is it critical to show such interest in the beginning of the interviewing process, which is generally done with a lower-level employee, or toward the end of the process, right before the company is ready to extend an offer?”
Director:	“You should do it throughout!”
Candidate:	“Of course, it is better throughout, but the question is whether it is imperative to study the financial statements in advance of the interviews, and even at the beginning of the interviewing process?”
Director:	“What do you mean by ‘imperative’?”
Candidate:	“Well, imperative means that by not doing so the candidate will most likely not advance to the next level of the process, even if otherwise they are most qualified and came across very impressively in the interview session itself.”
Director:	“Well, I wouldn’t say that it is that imperative, but it doesn’t cost much, and it does add value to do so, so why not?”
Candidate:	“I understand this and it makes sense, but aren’t there better, more direct, and more effective ways to communicate interest, excitement, and enthusiasm for the job and the company through appropriate body gestures and directly stating so face to face, as opposed to using a ‘surrogate’ that might imply the same?”
Director:	“Yeah, it would be better.”
Candidate:	“So, what I hear you say is that although it couldn’t hurt to study the financial statements of a company in advance of an interview, you would not characterize it as being imperative. You also believe that there are much better, more direct, and more effective ways to communicate interest, excitement, and enthusiasm in potentially working at a company. In other words, what you are saying is that although it couldn’t hurt to study the financial statements of a company in advance of an interview, you would not characterize it as being imperative and would recommend caution in how to use the information you gleaned via questions.”
Director:	“That’s exactly what I am saying.”

Response 4: Using the Questions Approach (with fewer questions, each providing more guidance)

Candidate:	“I understand what you are recommending. It is very logical and makes a lot of sense. I have a couple of questions on the two observations you made. I wonder whether there might be a potential pitfall in the event that the questions are raised with the wrong person who may not be able to answer them properly.”
Director:	“What do you mean?”
Candidate:	“Let’s say I discover a financial issue with one of the divisions, but the interviewer doesn’t work in that division. How would they be able to respond to the question? Or, say I discover a corporate-level financial issue, but the interviewer doesn’t work for the finance department. Or, say the interviewer works for the finance department, but is a lower-level employee with no knowledge of the issue I raise. Wouldn’t they think that I demonstrated a lack of common sense by asking the wrong question of the wrong person? Wouldn’t it diminish my standing somewhat?”
Director:	“Yes, of course you need to make sure that you raise those questions only with the people who are in a position to respond to them appropriately.”
Candidate:	“Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Given that concern, do you believe that the benefit of asking the questions in the first place—to show one’s interest in the company—outweighs the potential risk of alienation that might occur should the question be asked of the wrong person? Also, wouldn’t it be better to communicate and articulate interest, excitement, and enthusiasm for a company through gestures and directly stating so during the interviews than through an implied interest?”
Director:	“You know, you are bringing up an interesting point. Yes, it probably would be better.”
Candidate:	“So, what I hear you say is that although it couldn’t hurt to study the financial statements of a company in advance of an interview, you would not characterize it as being imperative. You also believe that there are much better, more direct, and more effective ways to communicate interest, excitement, and enthusiasm and that candidates should keep that in mind during the interviewing process. Additionally, you are saying that although it couldn’t hurt to study the financial statements of a company in advance of an interview, you would recommend caution in raising questions about them unless you are certain that the interviewer would know the answer.”
Director:	“That’s exactly what I am saying.”

Response 5: A Single Question (provides the full solution)

Candidate:	“I understand what you are recommending. It is very logical and makes a lot of sense. I wonder whether there might be a potential pitfall in the event that the questions are raised with the wrong person, who may not be able to answer them properly. Let’s say I discover a financial issue with one of the divisions, but the interviewer doesn’t work in that division. How would they be able to respond to the question? Or, say I discover a corporate-level financial issue, but the interviewer doesn’t work for the finance department. Or, say they work for the finance department, but at a lower level of responsibility and so they have no knowledge of the issue I raise. Wouldn’t they think that I demonstrated a lack of common sense by asking the wrong question of the wrong person? Wouldn’t it diminish my standing somewhat? It raises the question of whether the benefit of asking the questions in the first place, which are meant to show one’s interest in the company, outweighs the potential risk of alienation that might happen because the question was asked of the wrong person. Also, wouldn’t it be better to communicate and articulate interest, excitement, and enthusiasm for a company through gestures and directly stating so during the interviews instead of using the surrogate of studying the financial statements in advance of an interview, which, only at best, may imply interest?”
Director:	“You know, you are bringing up an interesting point. Yes, it probably would be better.”
Candidate:	“So, what I hear you say is that although it couldn’t hurt to study the financial statements of a company in advance of an interview, you would not characterize it as being imperative. There are much better, more direct, and more effective ways to communicate interest and enthusiasm in an interview. Additionally, you recommend using caution with bringing up questions about financial statements, because candidates must make sure to raise such questions only with interviewers who are sure to know the answer.”
Director:	“That’s exactly what I am saying.”

To summarize: When communicating a disagreement, always first acknowledge that you heard the other person’s rationale and that it has merit. Only then proceed with stating your position.

When communicating a disagreement, always be sensitive to your body gestures and actual articulation. Be as sensitive as possible in such communication. The best way is through raising questions, rather than stating positions.

Finally, this approach works not just in direct face-to-face communications; it has just as much value in written ones. Also, it should be applied not just in a case where there are complete disagreements and where one is right and the other wrong. It is just as valuable in situations where there is a partial disagreement, or only minor corrections and adjustments to one’s point of view.